Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lord0fHats t1_j1zeag7 wrote

Any sufficiently explained magic is indistinguishable from science.

Which is why I don't really agree with his soft/hard magic division. Hard magic isn't magic at all. It's macguffin powered science. Magic is supposed to be mysterious and mystical imo. It can't exist on a 'hard' scale. If I fully understand the rules and 'systems' behind 'magic' there's nothing magical about it. It's a bounded system that has become a fictional science.

Which isn't a bad thing. I can see it's appeal and like plenty of books with such things, even Sanderson's. I'm just less interested in it and generally not as impressed by munchkinry as others and find the soft/hard magic concept to be an explanation in search of a concept rather than a useful division.

Honestly, if you want to see a marvelously made 'magical' system with clear rules that maintains mystery and mystic qualities, read Wildbow's urban fantasy (Pact and Pale). The ways he writes Practioners is a highlight of some truely excellent world building, and harkins to the kind of magic you'd see in Shakespearian theatre built on pacts, oaths, and traditions rather than a fantastical conservation of thermodynamics. It strikes a great balance between magic being explainable but still mystic because it mostly runs on the momentum of 'this is how we do it and we've always done it this way so follow the proper procedures!'


FatalTragedy t1_j2491ah wrote

>find the soft/hard magic concept to be an explanation in search of a concept rather than a useful division.

Except it clearly is still a useful division, given that you actually have the same division. You just call it something different. What Sanderson calls hard magic you call not magic at all, while what Sanderson calls soft magic you just call magic. But the division is still there.


Lord0fHats t1_j250ur3 wrote

If I found it useful I'd use it.

The only time I ever discuss the idea is in reference to Sanderson and how I don't agree with him.

Magic is magic.

Not magic isn't magic.

Semantics doesn't change my opinion on the topic.