Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.