Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

__babyslaughter__ t1_j1vu20t wrote

Reply to comment by itsAshl in Is Brian Sandersons writing style just not for me? Struggling to get through book 3 of Stormlight Archives (mild spoilers) by Dostojevskij1205

Some people like overly designed crunch.

Others prefer softer systems that focus on other aspects of story telling.

I don’t think there’s a wrong or a right.

But look at Gandalf. We never hear any mechanical aspect of his magic that i can think of. Sometimes he literally just seems like a guy who is deceptively powerful in hard to describe ways. No fireballs, no “speak this incantation to cast this spell” he just has this magical nature that you can’t quite put your finger on. To me, that seems like how magic would appear to a normal person in a fantasy world.

I appreciate soft magic. I can appreciate hard magic but it needs more than just an insanely well fleshed out world and magic system, which are the two things Sanderson has in spades. The other aspects of his writing don’t resonate with me

12

Lord0fHats t1_j20c64a wrote

Part of it is just a matter of deep lore, characterization, and proper world building.

People familiar with the broader context of Lord of the Rings know Gandalf is a Maia, and basically has all kind of god-like abilities. But he was sent to aid the Free Peoples, not become their lord or hero. He was explicitly forbidden from using his powers except in vague and undefined contexts.

He notably only really uses magic through the stories when faced with higher evils like the Balrog, Saruman, or the Nazgul. At other times, his efforts are physical or restricted to advising the course of events. And of those evils he uses his powers against, only the Balrog is one that he outright defeats himself.

Thing is most people know and criticize Gandalf by his clones in subsequent fantasy, which lack explanations for why the powerful wizard doesn't do powerful wizard stuff.

1