The interesting thing about comparing Sanderson's end-of-book scenarios with his Law is that I think the scenarios *do* need the explicit magic systems, *but not for the reasons the Law says.* Rather than being "so the reader can think through situations with the characters" (which is definitely *a* valid reason for more structure) Sanderson spends the entire book explaining to us what "normal" looks like and what it's consequences are so that when he shows us something that is fantastic *to the characters*, we can feel the appropriate emotion.
If, f.e., a fairly realistic story about a Navy ship were suddenly to discover a mermaid, we'd all understand the character's feelings of surprise, awe, fear, or similar, because we know more or less what the "normal" part of the story involves. But if "normal" is a world like Mistborn where characters can already jump over buildings and hurl coins like bullets and fight armies, if you want to get that same reaction from the reader, you need to have very carefully established the parameters of "normal". Then when someone does something that breaks the rules the reader is there for the "whoa!" moment.
Oh no, I'm waiting to go in for an MRI and having big feelings about the way you ended this post. How inconvenient (& yet very welcome!).
I have so many thoughts about all of this, but right now they're a bit tangled up with Imminent Medical Procedure so hopefully I'll come back later with more coherence. But regardless: I love this post very much.
I appreciate both your heart's little anarchist bonfire(s) and that they lead to you wrestling with the asserted Writing Laws rather than just ignoring them wholesale (which tends to be more my impulse). There's so much to be gained in the wrestling!
I have vague thoughts about how I tend to find rigorously defined magical systems unsatisfying (she says, currently playing a warlock in D&D) versus finding approaches to magic that *taste* right, that are satisfying narratively and symbolically more than being overly-defined.
Arguably my approach to Story is more intuitive than tends to be approved by any canon of writing rules; I personally am well-content with that.
Excellent post! This reminds me of Hello Future Me's video series on storytelling and magic systems, especially this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fUKBrkDsOw on storytelling and magic systems, using The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra as illustrations. To close the loop, Hello Future Me also has a video interview with Brandon Sanderson talking about magic systems. :)
I have been thinking about this question a lot in terms of game design -- where, I would argue, one grapples with exactly the same issues as you've outlined here plus the added complexity that some games (e.g. classical CRPGs) allow the player to improve their own magical abilities, giving them control over how their magic can affect the story. I think this complexity frequently makes it harder to tell compelling, dramatic stories in games (either the player knows they have the Turn Comb into Forest spell, or they do not) but occasionally, it can lead to amazing spontaneous interactions (in Act One, the player chooses to learn then Turn Comb into Forest spell on a whim, and in Act three, she is running away from Koschei). For me, a lot of the challenge, and the reward, of writing games is building in opportunity for exactly these interactions, so the player almost feels like they have written their own story twist!
The interesting thing about comparing Sanderson's end-of-book scenarios with his Law is that I think the scenarios *do* need the explicit magic systems, *but not for the reasons the Law says.* Rather than being "so the reader can think through situations with the characters" (which is definitely *a* valid reason for more structure) Sanderson spends the entire book explaining to us what "normal" looks like and what it's consequences are so that when he shows us something that is fantastic *to the characters*, we can feel the appropriate emotion.
If, f.e., a fairly realistic story about a Navy ship were suddenly to discover a mermaid, we'd all understand the character's feelings of surprise, awe, fear, or similar, because we know more or less what the "normal" part of the story involves. But if "normal" is a world like Mistborn where characters can already jump over buildings and hurl coins like bullets and fight armies, if you want to get that same reaction from the reader, you need to have very carefully established the parameters of "normal". Then when someone does something that breaks the rules the reader is there for the "whoa!" moment.
Oh no, I'm waiting to go in for an MRI and having big feelings about the way you ended this post. How inconvenient (& yet very welcome!).
I have so many thoughts about all of this, but right now they're a bit tangled up with Imminent Medical Procedure so hopefully I'll come back later with more coherence. But regardless: I love this post very much.
I appreciate both your heart's little anarchist bonfire(s) and that they lead to you wrestling with the asserted Writing Laws rather than just ignoring them wholesale (which tends to be more my impulse). There's so much to be gained in the wrestling!
I have vague thoughts about how I tend to find rigorously defined magical systems unsatisfying (she says, currently playing a warlock in D&D) versus finding approaches to magic that *taste* right, that are satisfying narratively and symbolically more than being overly-defined.
Arguably my approach to Story is more intuitive than tends to be approved by any canon of writing rules; I personally am well-content with that.
Excellent post! This reminds me of Hello Future Me's video series on storytelling and magic systems, especially this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fUKBrkDsOw on storytelling and magic systems, using The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra as illustrations. To close the loop, Hello Future Me also has a video interview with Brandon Sanderson talking about magic systems. :)
I have been thinking about this question a lot in terms of game design -- where, I would argue, one grapples with exactly the same issues as you've outlined here plus the added complexity that some games (e.g. classical CRPGs) allow the player to improve their own magical abilities, giving them control over how their magic can affect the story. I think this complexity frequently makes it harder to tell compelling, dramatic stories in games (either the player knows they have the Turn Comb into Forest spell, or they do not) but occasionally, it can lead to amazing spontaneous interactions (in Act One, the player chooses to learn then Turn Comb into Forest spell on a whim, and in Act three, she is running away from Koschei). For me, a lot of the challenge, and the reward, of writing games is building in opportunity for exactly these interactions, so the player almost feels like they have written their own story twist!