Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Brandon Sanderson => Topic started by: EUOL on February 20, 2007, 08:07:55 PM
-
New Essay Up
http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article.php?id=40
Finally wrote out my ideas on magic formally. TWG people, would you like to post this as an article? I'm not sure if writing help would fit with the current atmosphere of the site, which has focused a lot more on reviews and less on articles. However, if you want it, I'll submit it.
-
So, now that you have that written down, does that mean we'll be hearing your "Brandonism" less?
-
Submit it, the only reason we don't have articles is people never do them anymore.
-
I have often marveled to myself at how fascinated I can be by exceptions to made-up rules.
I think I really noticed this first with CJ Cherryh's space books, both the Chanur books and Tripoint. In her universe she sets out rules saying that humans (and hani) need drugs to make it through the jump into hyperspace (they tranq up right before hitting the button, then wake up as soon as the ship comes out of hyperspace--or whatever hyperspace is called in her books, I can't remember at the moment). And then she proceeds to make several characters who can move about freely during hyperspace, doing convenient things like setting the weapons controls to fire right after dropping into realspace. I eat it up. Yet it's a completely artificial exception to a completely artificial rule--the only reason the rule exists at all is because Cherryh said so. Why do I find it so cool that people exist who can break this rule, when I only found out about the rule a few books ago?
I'm not saying she's using a bad storytelling technique or anything like that. It works; I think the way she builds up the rule system and slowly gets you to accept it, then breaks the rules dramatically makes for a very compelling read. I find it interesting that my mind works that way though, that I so easily accept the rules as described and lived by the characters that when the rules get broken (on purpose) it's thrilling to me.
Of course, when writers (apparently) firmly establish rules and then break them withOUT there appearing to be a rhyme or reason to it--making it seem like they just forgot the rules existed rather than that they planned the rule break from the start--a book can really lose me.
-
I'm not sure if I agree with this essay. It seems to me that when the heroes use a special ability (like magic) to get out of trouble, there are three discrete possibilities, and not (as the essay contends) a continuum. The possibilities are:
- 1. The reader knew beforehand that the hero had that specific special ability.
For example, if you already established that your hero can turn people into frogs, then it's okay for the hero to get out of trouble by turning a bad guy into a frog. In this case, it doesn't matter whether you've spent pages and pages establishing the rules of magic and how turning people into frogs works because a person's body is a physical manifestation of their ethereal selves and magic lets you mess with stuff on the ethereal plane and blah dee blah, or whether you just said "hey, this guy can magically turn people into frogs" back in chapter one. The ethereal planes explanation might help to flesh out the setting, or it might just get in the way, but either way, once the power is established, your hero is allowed to turn people into frogs to get out of trouble.
I think this is the most common type of magic. Frodo knows the ring turns you invisible, so he can turn invisible in the Prancing Pony. Spiderman can climb walls and shoot webs, because he's Spiderman (and mutant DNA aside, this is basically just the author saying "hey, this guy can shoot webs" back in chapter one). Harry Potter learned a spell to cast a patro-whatever to get rid of the nightmare-monster-thingies, so when the monster-thingies show up, it's okay for him to cast the patro-whatever to get out of trouble.
- 2. The reader didn't know that the hero had that specific ability, but could have figured it out.
If you had laid out the rules of magic with physical manifestations and ethereal planes as I described above, but didn't actually say that this meant the hero could turn people into frogs, then the hero could still turn bad guys into frogs to get out of trouble, because the reader (and maybe the hero) could figure out that the system of magic allowed for it.
This is the only situation where you need rules of magic. It also takes some setting up, so it's probably the least common type of magic, though I guess Brandon likes to use it once or twice per novel. Raoden figuring out that drawing a line to turn Elantris into a magic symbol would make the magic work again is an example of this, but his subsequent use of magic to teleport and shoot at bad guys is an example of Type 1 magic, since we already knew the magic could do that stuff.
- 3. It's deus ex machina, baby.
Huh. Turns out the hero could make those bad guys into frogs all along. Guess we got all worried for nothing.
This is more common than we would like. (Of course, it's not deus ex machina if the magic isn't used to get the heroes out of trouble. Harry Potter can do any old spell in class, where it doesn't matter, but he can only use the spells that we've already seen to get out of trouble.)
So, having a well-developed magic system can help flesh out your setting, but it doesn't affect your ability to get the heroes out of trouble with magic, as long as you're using Type 1 magic (or Type 3, I guess). If you use Type 2 magic, then you do have to have a well-developed magic system, but there's a discrete cutoff -- the magic system has to be just developed enough to make it clear that the hero can do whatever it is that he actually does. Any further development is just setting-building.
-
It might be useful in some subsequent essay to define what you mean by "magic." As I read your explanation in this essay, you're essentially creating the natural sciences of imaginary worlds.
MattD
-
I posted it. (http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1508) I also took the liberty of a few minor edits.
-
given the essay it would be more accurate to say
Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader feels that he understands said magic.
And yes, I do believe in gender neutral words -- "he" just happens to be one of them
-
It might be useful in some subsequent essay to define what you mean by "magic." As I read your explanation in this essay, you're essentially creating the natural sciences of imaginary worlds.
Yes, that's what he's doing. For example, BioChroma from Warbreaker--the name sounds scientific, because that's what it is. And Mistborn's magic systems are Allomancy, Feruchemy, and Hemalurgy--only one of those has a magic-related name. I think the Mistborn books specifically don't call it magic...there may be some quote that's relevant.
As far as we're concerned, they're magic, but people are scientific beings. Modern science grew out of a desire to understand the workings of the natural world, and many things we would consider magic nowadays like alchemy were studied in centuries past by the same people who developed scientific theories. If something like Allomancy or BioChroma existed in our world, scientists would study it and work out its details.
Plus, consider Clarke's Third Law, that any science (or actually, technology) sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic, and the corollary, that any magic sufficiently unsophistocated is virtually indistinguishable from science.
-
DavidB,
One thing I'd point out--this essay is about using magic systems in a GOOD way to further your plot. That means option three, in my opinion, is not an option. Deus ex machina may exist in good books, but it's NOT in my opinion ever a good plotting structure, or a good way to use magic.
We do have a continuum--you just left out some options. One option is to not use your magic to get characters out of their problems at all. Another option is to use magic only to solve minor conflicts, but to avoid using it in major situations. Another option would be to have everything go wrong if the characters try to use magic to get them out of situations.
Your option two is what I would place on the continuum on the side of hard magic, but not all the way to the end. Your option one is what I would put all the way to the right side of the line. The options I outlined above would all be closer to the soft side of the continuum.
-
...option three, in my opinion, is not an option. Deus ex machina may exist in good books, but it's NOT in my opinion ever a good plotting structure, or a good way to use magic.
No argument here; I completely agree.
We do have a continuum--you just left out some options. One option is to not use your magic to get characters out of their problems at all. Another option is to use magic only to solve minor conflicts, but to avoid using it in major situations. Another option would be to have everything go wrong if the characters try to use magic to get them out of situations.
Er...what I was trying to do was characterize individual situations that characters solve with magic. If magic isn't used, or if it doesn't solve the problem, then it doesn't count as a "situation that characters solve with magic", and when you're just looking at one situation at a time, it doesn't really matter how major or minor the conflict is.
My point was that, as long as you're in what I called a type 1 situation, then there's no correlation between how well the reader understands how the magic works, and the author's ability to solve the problem with magic -- in contrast to your Law of Magics. As long as the reader knows that a character has a certain specific ability, then whether there are pages devoted to exploring the rules of magic, or whether that ability is simply stated makes no difference as far as the plot is concerned.
Obviously, I'm not saying that developing rules of magic is bad -- but I am saying that it's not a virtue in and of itself, either. Developing the rules of magic can help flesh out the setting, but if you choose not to develop the rules of magic, you can still use it as much as you like to solve problems, by making sure that all the problems that are solved are type 1 problems. This isn't really much of a limitation because most situations where magic is used in fantasy are of type 1.
The only time when developing the rules of magic directly affects the plot is if you have a type 2 situation. In those cases, the Law of Magics might apply...but I think books with type 2 situations are relatively rare.
EDIT: I should've said this to begin with, but thanks for posting the essay and prompting me to think about this stuff!
-
I am reminded of the scene in Lord of the Rings when the hobbits ask Galadriel if the cloaks they've been given are "magic"...
If something like Allomancy or BioChroma existed in our world, scientists would study it and work out its details.
Yes, and then Michael Crichton would write a techno-thriller about it. ;)
My point was that, to many people, magic by definition involves the supernatural, that which is not understandable by the scientific inquiry of those who experience it. Brandon's disagreement at the convention panel was not really a disagreement about what good magic should contain, but rather about what magic is. Thus it would be good to formally define his understanding of it, so that we can have that shared definition in mind when reading this and his other essays.
MattD
-
Er...what I was trying to do was characterize individual situations that characters solve with magic. If magic isn't used, or if it doesn't solve the problem, then it doesn't count as a "situation that characters solve with magic", and when you're just looking at one situation at a time, it doesn't really matter how major or minor the conflict is.
My point was that, as long as you're in what I called a type 1 situation, then there's no correlation between how well the reader understands how the magic works, and the author's ability to solve the problem with magic -- in contrast to your Law of Magics. As long as the reader knows that a character has a certain specific ability, then whether there are pages devoted to exploring the rules of magic, or whether that ability is simply stated makes no difference as far as the plot is concerned.
DavidB,
I understand 1) that you're not arguing against developing magic and 2) that you're not ungrateful or anything like this. Discussion is good, and your arguments are interesting.
That said, I think we're approaching this from different viewpoints. Let me discuss the second point you've mentioned before the first.
No correlation, you ask? For it to be a type 1, as you've outlined, the reader has to understand exactly what the character can do. If it's spiderman, they have to understand EXACTLY what his powers are. That's what I'm talking about by 'explaining' the magic. In Spiderman, the magic is this: Spiderman can shoot webs. Spiderman can walk on walls. Spiderman is extra strong, and has a sense of when danger is going to arrive. All of those powers are extremely hard magic.
Therefore, Spiderman can use his magic all the time to solve problems, for the reader understands the magic system quite well. True, it's simple--but I'm not talking about simplicity vs complexity here.
A softer magic system is one where the rules are more vague. Take, for instance, Spiderman's 'Spidy sense'. This is a far softer magic system, since it's not very well defined what its limits are. It's still not completely soft, since it has obvious rules, but they're more vague.
Still, all in all, you can say "What are spiderman's powers" and a person familiar with him can reply. Contrast this to Gandalf. What are Gandalf's powers? You can probably name a few, but you can't--like Spiderman--pin down a list of all of them.
As for the first point (that of it doesn't matter how minor the conflict is) I have to disagree. I look at this from a writer's standpoint, and narratively, not all climaxes are created equal. If a character's dog is in danger it's not generally going to be the same as if his son is in danger. And, the emotional reaction of the reader is what we're working to not undermine here. If he comes up with a contrived way to save the dog, but then has a very solid, thoughtful, and emotionally poignant way of saving the son, it will be much better a story than if it were the other way around.
-
Thanks for the quick response! I think I get it now....
My mistake was in assuming that if a character solves a problem using a magic ability, and the reader didn't know and couldn't figure out beforehand that the character has that ability, then it's automatically deus ex machina. This is wrong; there's another common possibility:
- 2.5) If the reader doesn't know and can't figure out that the character has that ability, but can reasonably guess, then the author might or might not have committed deus ex machina.
For example, if Gandalf Jr. levitated an dog in chapter one, and then in chapter ten gets away from a rampaging elephant by levitating it, this might or might not be deus ex machina, because the reader only knew he could levitate dogs, but some readers might assume that that meant he could levitate elephants as well, while others might assume that elephants would be too heavy for him to levitate.
In this case, Sanderson’s First Law of Magics applies and can be restated as: The more completely the reader understands what a character is capable of doing, the less likely the author is to commit deus ex machina when that character uses his abilities to get out of trouble.
I initially assumed (as Matt apparently did) that Brandon was saying we should be creating natural sciences of imaginary worlds if we wanted to use magic a lot. But this completely misses the point. If Q hands James Bond a watch and says that pushing the button on the watch will let Bond becomes invisible for up to thirty seconds, then in terms of this discussion, we would say that the reader now completely understands the magic, even though there's no explanation of how the watch makes Bond invisible.
By the way, regarding whether it matters how minor the conflict is, we're looking at this from different viewpoints again. I agree that if you use deus ex machina to save the dog, you're likely to end up with a better book than if you used deus ex machina to save the child. What I meant was, the fact that the dog isn't very important doesn't by itself somehow make it not deus ex machina to invent a new ability in order for your character to save it.
-
David,
This thing we just discussed needs to be part of the essay, and so I'll include an explanation of what it means to me to have a reader 'understand' a magic system. There was vagueness written into the essay that I didn't even know was there! Thanks a ton for taking the time to argue with me.
In a related note, you may be interested to hear that I've decided to start Midius's viewpoint in Dragonsteel (once I can get back to it) with Hoid already dead, as a certain person suggested in their comments. (I almost did this the first time I wrote the chapter, and it turns out I should have done that in the first place.)
Keep this up, and I might just have to start sending you ALL of my books beforehand to see what you have to say about them.
-
I rather like books where the author doesn't really define, or tries to hide where the character fits on the spectrum EUOL defines.
For instance, in Harry Potter, I think most people agree (including Harry) that he is more of just a normal wizard, and everything he can do is more or less known by the reader. However, I know there is some debate about if harry has any powers he doesn't really know about. In many ways, he has shown himself to be normal, but there is also the prophecy about him, and some signs that he can do things other wizards can't.
I don't really think he'll come out and defeat Voldemort with some completely unseen power that pops out of the blue (Sword of Truth style), for as EUOL has also said, that tends to make bad stories. However, I do kind of like how JKR keeps us on the edge. She doesn't really have him come out and do big major things that ruin the story, but she always kind of keeps the door open. It adds to the suspense and provides more of an interesting read, when he is trapped you expect him to do something out of the ordinary, but he comes back and just does something he already knows how to do (with the exception of the end of The Goblet of Fire, but in all honesty that was more his wand's power than himself).
Also, I really love how Mistborn takes advantage of this concept. The magic system is relatively simple in what it can do, you can explain it to most people in a short conversation. However, when you first learn about it in the book, I don't think anyone really imagines the kind of scenes that will come from it's use. That first action scene really set's the hook. I've told everyone I've lent the book to, that they just need to get to that part (I think it's page 72?) and they will finish it a few days after.
-
The other thing I would suggest about the essay is that in addition to defining magic, you should define whether in your idea you're speaking of magic or magic systems. Your idea makes far more sense as "Sanderson’s First Law of Magic Systems" rather than "Sanderson’s First Law of Magics."
A few other points:
- It seems to me that minor conflict is in fact an ideal way to introduce and show the rules of a magic system -- because it best allows you to show the rules and their consequences, rather than merely telling of them in an abstract or trivial way. This use of conflict to explain happens in most books, but to pick a familiar one: consider the prelude to Warbreaker, where Vasher's escape from prison is resolved by our introduction to many of the rules of Breath magic and by our introduction to Nightblood's magic. Consider how the attack of the Lifeless on Vivenna and Denth is used to further develop the system, showing how Lifeless retain something of their former selves. In contrast, if you don't use conflict to introduce the rules of a magic system, more often than not you end up with boring infodumps that steal pace and attention from the drama of the story.
- Parallel to that, it's probably obvious but worth stating anyway that in a story based on systems (i.e., where the intent is not to highlight the randomness, ineffability, inherent mysteriousness or alien/unknowable nature of the world) character should play an important role in resolving major conflicts -- in fact I'd suggest that the more a character uses the magic of a magic system to resolve a major conflict rather than their own characteristics, the harder it is for the reader the empathize with that character. Most of Spider Man's toughest conflicts, to continue that example, aren't resolved by the use of his powers but by inward soul-searching: what does it mean to have the ability to impact the world; can I retain this ability and still live and love as others do; are the costs worth it; etc.? Those questions are the real threats to him, and we can empathize because they're threats to us as well, if on a different scale (balancing selfish pursuits vs. community-oriented pursuits such as volunteering, family vs. work, importance of salary vs. job satisfaction). After those, the use of his powers to clobber an enemy is typically a foregone conclusion, a reward and signifier that the test has been passed rather than the test itself.
Just some ideas to think about.
I do wholeheartedly agree with what I think is your core premise, that it's not a good thing to invent powers for a character as you go along in response to conflicts. That's just bad plotting.
MattD
-
The other thing I would suggest about the essay is that in addition to defining magic, you should define whether in your idea you're speaking of magic or magic systems.
I don't really understand what you mean by the distinction between "magic" and "magic systems". But I think that Sanderson's First Law uses the word "magic" loosely, to refer to any unusual abilities that your characters have. If your character can play a song perfectly after hearing it just once, for example, then that would count as "magic", even though there are actually people who can do that.
It seems to me that minor conflict is in fact an ideal way to introduce and show the rules of a magic system -- because it best allows you to show the rules and their consequences, rather than merely telling of them in an abstract or trivial way. This use of conflict to explain happens in most books, but to pick a familiar one: consider the prelude to Warbreaker, where Vasher's escape from prison is resolved by our introduction to many of the rules of Breath magic and by our introduction to Nightblood's magic. Consider how the attack of the Lifeless on Vivenna and Denth is used to further develop the system, showing how Lifeless retain something of their former selves. In contrast, if you don't use conflict to introduce the rules of a magic system, more often than not you end up with boring infodumps that steal pace and attention from the drama of the story.
That's a very good point.
I'm not sure if I'd count that as a "conflict", though, since there was never any doubt that Vasher could escape from the prison. In fact, Brandon went to great lengths before Vasher started using any magic, to indicate to the reader that Vasher had magic powers that he was going to use to escape.
If Brandon had instead focused on how dangerous Vasher's situation was, and how he might die in that prison, then he would have risked deus ex machina when Vasher used his powers to escape.
I guess you could define a "minor conflict" as a conflict that the reader is sure the characters can overcome; then you'd be right to say that you can avoid deus ex machina by only inventing new magic powers for minor conflicts. (In contrast, though, I would usually define a "minor conflict" to be a conflict whose resolution doesn't much affect the overall plot of the book -- come to think of it, that definition makes Vasher's escape a major event.)
-
I don't really understand what you mean by the distinction between "magic" and "magic systems". But I think that Sanderson's First Law uses the word "magic" loosely, to refer to any unusual abilities that your characters have.
That's actually not all that loose.
There are for example a great many stories where "magic" events happen to ordinary people.
There are also many, many examples of stories where magic impacts different people in different ways, and/or to different degrees. Spider Man has rules governing his "magic," but Spider Man and His Amazing Friends does (did) not present a "magic system" to my definition. Based on his comments that "it seems best to start with something that I’m drawing the most attention for: magic systems" and that "I treat my magics like sciences," and looking at Elantris, Mistborn, Warbreaker and Dragonsteel, my take on what Brandon means by "magic system" is something that any of a certain group of people, if not all people, can tap into and expect to work in essentially the same way.
But I'm not sure, which is why I think definitions would be useful.
I'm not sure if I'd count that as a "conflict", though, since there was never any doubt that Vasher could escape from the prison. In fact, Brandon went to great lengths before Vasher started using any magic, to indicate to the reader that Vasher had magic powers that he was going to use to escape.
The sort of conflict I refer to (and I assume Brandon means) is not based on reader knowledge. If you re-read a book, is the literary conflict gone because you already know what will happen? The conflict I mean is the situations and states that the characters feel they must overcome. How easily they expect to do so and how much of themselves thy must put into the effort has some impact on whether a conflict is "minor" or "major."
MattD
-
If you're right, then Sanderson's First Law of Magics should definitely not be renamed Sanderson's First Law of Magic Systems. According to you, Spiderman doesn't have a "magic system", yet we've already discussed in this thread how Sanderson's First Law applies to Spiderman (and Brandon referred to his abilities as "extremely hard magic".)
Also, when I described magic as a "character's abilities", I was speaking a little loosely too. I wanted to emphasize that, for example, knowing what everyone else in the Marvel Universe is capable of has no bearing on whether it's deus ex machina when Spiderman uses his abilities to get out of trouble; all that matters is that the reader know what Spiderman can do. Likewise in Harry Potter, we really have no idea what Dumbledore or Voldemort is capable of, but when Harry magics himself out of trouble, all that really matters (in terms of whether or not it's deus ex machina) is that we know what Harry can do.
But, to use your example of stories where magic events happen to ordinary people:
- If the magic is never used to solve conflict, Sanderson's First Law doesn't apply, because the law is about "an author’s ability to solve conflict with magic".
- If something magic just randomly happens that gets the characters out of trouble, that's pretty much the definition of deus ex machina.
- If the character does something to make the magic happen, then in terms of this discussion, that counts as one of the character's abilities.
- If the character can predict that the magic is going to happen, and uses that to his advantage, then that also counts as one of the character's abilities, because it's what I described earlier as a type 2 situation: one where the reader could figure out that the character could do what he actually did. I admit that this is stretching the idea of a "character's abilities" pretty far, but I can't figure out a better phrase to describe what I mean.
I agree that Brandon likes to create "magic systems" by your definition. But I don't think that that's what this Law is about, or at least, not what it's only about.
Regarding conflict....
Suppose that in the next Warbreaker chapter (49, as of this post) Vivenna and Vasher had a conflict because each of them wanted the other to eat the last piece of squid. This is the most minor conflict possible by my definition, because who gets the piece of squid obviously has no impact on the plot. Surely any rational person would agree that this conflict is more minor than Vasher getting out of prison in the prologue. Yet if Vasher used his heretofore unsuspected mind control powers to make Vivenna eat the squid, this would (I contend) be deus ex machina.
Clearly, then, there is something else about the prologue scene that makes it not deus ex machina, besides the simple (and debatable) fact that the conflict is "minor". I indicated that this "something else" could be the fact that the reader and/or the character knows beforehand that Vasher is going to use magic to escape from the prison. There might be other factors as well. But it's not just that it's a "minor conflict".
Authors who think it's okay to use deus ex machina to solve minor conflicts tend to develop "load-bearing boss syndrome", where all of the subplots neatly and artificially wrap themselves up once the main conflict is solved. In the movie version of The Lord of the Rings, all of the bad guys immediately fall over dead the moment the ring hits the volcano. And of course, who could forget the eagles?
Edit: I think maybe I can improve on the "character's abilities" thing (and summarize some of this discussion) by restating Sanderson's First Law as follows:
An author’s ability(1) to solve conflicts by using a particular form(2) of magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands(3) that form of magic.
(1) An author is said to be "able" to solve a conflict with a particular form of magic, if and only if he can do so without committing deus ex machina.
(2) A "form of magic" might be a particular spell, item, ability, or magical phenomenon.
(3) A reader is said to "understand" a form of magic, if she knows what that magic can do, and if applicable, what the characters need to do in order to get the magic to work, and what its costs are. Notably, the reader does not need to have any idea of the mechanism by which the magic works in order to "understand" it.
-
If you're right, then Sanderson's First Law of Magics should definitely not be renamed Sanderson's First Law of Magic Systems. According to you, Spiderman doesn't have a "magic system", yet we've already discussed in this thread how Sanderson's First Law applies to Spiderman.
Well, no. Spider-Man was used as an example of what level of understanding is needed. But how does the "law" apply to Spider-Man? Let's look at that. If this "law" were true then back in issue #1, or movie #1, we the reader/audience as well as Peter Parker would have -- or at least should have -- had to discover each of his abilities in a situation without conflict before being able to use them to resolve a conflict. That's what the idea says.
Likewise it would have to be considered bad storytelling to allow Wolverine in the first X-Men movie to use his claws to resolve the bar fight before the claws were properly understood by the audience.
Likewise with Vasher in the first part of Warbreaker...
Suppose that in the next Warbreaker chapter (49, as of this post) Vivenna and Vasher had a conflict because each of them wanted the other to eat the last piece of squid. This is the most minor conflict possible by my definition, because who gets the piece of squid obviously has no impact on the plot. Surely any rational person would agree that this conflict is more minor than Vasher getting out of prison in the prologue. Yet if Vasher used his heretofore unsuspected mind control powers to make Vivenna eat the squid, this would (I contend) be deus ex machina.
Two things that have less to do with Brandon's essay and more to do with your typology:
- I don't think your categories are mutually exclusive: it is perfectly possible to have what you're referring to as a "deus ex machina" that the reader does or could expect and understand. Lord of the Rings is a perfect example: Gandalf's rebirth is an obvious signifier that there's a higher power at work who will act to ensure that things turn out as well as they possibly can (which was presaged even earlier by Gandalf's comments that Frodo was "meant" to have the Ring). Given that the power shows it is willing and capable of going so far as reincarnation, how can anything lesser be unexpected and not "understood," even if it is unexplained? As for the Eagles as the end, that was presaged by Gandalf's rescue from Orthanc: surely that's Type 2, if not in fact Type 1? Yet there is an undeniable element of deus ex machina...
- Because related to this, I don't think "deus ex machina" means what your usage of it indicates. If Vasher uses some hitherto unknown power of mind control to make Vivenna eat the squid, that is not deus ex machina. Nor is anything unexplained or unexpected by definition deus ex machina. Nevermind fantasy, we live in a world that we can't explain fully. Deus ex machina rather is when a conflict (particularly some final conflict that the story has been building towards) is resolved not through actions or powers of the characters, but rather by an outside force or coincidence. What you're referring to is not so much God as Machine, but more Author as God; that is, the revealing of unforeseen powers and abilities more to make the plot work the way the author wants it to than because they are consistent with the characters or story so far. This is obviously less of an issue in the beginning of stories than towards the end, which is why the introduction of Vasher's powers in the beginning require no explanation but new powers introduced now would require a very good reason for only now appearing.
Edit: I think maybe I can improve on the "character's abilities" thing (and summarize some of this discussion) by restating Sanderson's First Law as follows:
An author’s ability(1) to solve conflicts by using a particular form(2) of magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands(3) that form of magic.
How about,
An author's ability to introduce new rules to resolve a conflict is inversely related both to how many rules have already been introduced and to the challenge that the conflict presents the characters.
That's off the top of my head but sounds true to me (call it Matt's Theorem, poke away at it and let me know) -- and it actually works for more than just magic.
MattD
-
dreamking, deus ex machina has three definitions (from AHD):
- In Greek and Roman drama, a god lowered by stage machinery to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation.
- An unexpected, artificial, or improbable character, device, or event introduced suddenly in a work of fiction or drama to resolve a situation or untangle a plot.
- A person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution to a difficulty.
A character using an unexpected ability to get out of a jam does fit with definition #2.
And I don't think, by definition, that something that happens at the beginning of a book can be a deus ex machina, because the reader doesn't have any expectations yet.
-
Ookla, I don't think David's example fits any of the three definitions you listed -- are you suggesting otherwise? (Dueling edits: there is no "jam" that the character is getting out of and the power mentioned would not be inconsistent with what people have been speculating about on the message board for months.) I think my definition is reasonably consistent with the second you suggested, with echoes of the first because I was keeping in mind the definition ("contrived endings") that Brandon gave in his essay. I do try to understand and use other people's definitions as much as I can.
My point was that nearly every magic is unexpected before it is used for the first time. People keep secrets, and surprise is a wonderful dramatic element. What makes something a deus ex machina is not that it is unexpected, but rather its separateness (the "artificial" feeling) from what in the story has gone before and its centrality in resolving a key conflict. A story where everything that happened was expected, right up until the end, would be a fairly lame story.
This definition is also hardly the central point mentioned in my previous post.
MattD
-
Yes, I am suggesting that his example fits definition 2. Jam: Vasher wants a piece of squid, but Vivenna wants it too. Deus ex machina (device or event): Mind control!
Now...if it's BioChromatic mind control that makes sense within the context of the story, then that's not necessarily a deus ex machina, but I don't think that's what David meant. He might have been more clear by saying "shoots lasers out of his ears."
You're right that most things are unexpected to one extent or another before they're used the first time, and I agree that the contrived/artificial aspect of a deus ex machina is more objectionable than the unexpectedness. If, when a character does something unexpected to get out of a jam, the reader can't say "oh yeah, that makes sense," then that's when the problems arise.
But you said that deus ex machina cannot come about through the actions or powers of a character, and I must disagree with you there.
-
Ookla:
Thank you, yes, that's precisely what I meant. I did say that they were "heretofore unsuspected" powers.
Matt:
As I read it, your main point seems to be that Sanderson's First Law only applies to magic systems. In particular, you're saying that it doesn't apply to Spiderman. You might also be saying that it doesn't apply to the prologue of Warbreaker (but I'm not sure whether that's what you mean).
Obviously, I disagree. I think that Sanderson's First Law applies separately to any particular spell, item, ability, or magical phenomenon that an author uses to resolve a conflict. It's entirely possible that we're both wrong.
I don't think we're going to get any further by arguing about it more. I vote we let Brandon field this one, if he wants to.
Edit:
Now, your second point was that it's sometimes okay to commit deus ex machina (now that we've agreed by Ookla's definition that when an author introduces a new power out of the blue to resolve a conflict, it's deus ex machina) in order to resolve minor conflicts; in fact, you're saying that this is often a good way to introduce a character's powers.
I believe, in contrast, that it is always better not to commit deus ex machina, no matter how minor the conflict is.
To support your point, you're saying that Spiderman, X-Men, and Warbreaker all use conflict to introduce their main characters' powers. But I don't think this is true.
As I pointed out above, in Warbreaker, Brandon goes to some pains to make sure we know Vasher has magic powers that will let him escape from the prison. So the powers were introduced before they were used to resolve the conflict, the conflict just shows you some of the details. (In the context of Sanderson's First Law, we would say that the reader has some understanding -- but not a full understanding -- of Vasher's powers before they're used to resolve the conflict, so the author has some ability to use those powers to resolve conflict. In the context of my earlier post, we would say that this is a type 2.5 situation, where the reader can guess -- ie. might expect -- what Vasher is going to do.) My point is, it's the fact that Brandon (at least partly) introduced Vasher's powers before the conflict, and not the idea that the conflict is "minor" that lets him use the powers to resolve it.
Spiderman does the same thing. (At least the movie does; I've never read Issue 1 of the comic book.) Spiderman first discovers his powers by looking into a mirror and discovering he doesn't need glasses. Then he runs on the wall of his house on the way to breakfast. We watch him practice jumping on rooftops and shooting webs. By the time he gets to school and fights the bully, we already know he's got "incredible powers" and it's no surprise that he can use them to beat the bully.
And, of course, X-Men also does this. The movie points out at the beginning that mutants have incredible powers. And we know that Wolverine is a mutant who is good at fighting before he gets into the bar fight ("No man takes a beating like that without a mark to show for it"). So while the details -- his claws -- are new, the idea that he can use his powers to beat the guys in the bar is not.
-
But you said that deus ex machina cannot come about through the actions or powers of a character, and I must disagree with you there.
Fair enough, and so scratch all but the last sentence of my second bullet point, then. This just highlights why I think providing definitions is useful: the meaning has gotten rather more dilute since I learned it. My 9th ed Merriam-Webster gives a first definition much as yours, a second that refers only to the introduction of a character or event to resolve an unsolvable situation, and has no third definition (see also http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deus%20ex%20machina).
MattD
-
As I read it, your main point seems to be that Sanderson's First Law only applies to magic systems. In particular, you're saying that it doesn't apply to Spiderman. You might also be saying that it doesn't apply to the prologue of Warbreaker (but I'm not sure whether that's what you mean).
Essentially I am saying that most books including Brandon's own seem to violate the law and to good effect, and many great books violate it to great effect (Tolkien is just the beginning). I write "seem" however because I'm not sure I understand his definitions -- "magic" and "magic system" are both used (interchangeably?) and as we've seen, there's even debate about what "conflict" means. Books where deus ex machina is appropriate for what the author wants to convey, however, violate the law inarguably, it sounds like. This is why I have been calling it an "idea" and not a "law" -- it is demonstrably not universal, and to call it a law doesn't seem to me very different than the "only the kind of fiction that I write is good" comments of Goodkind. The best parts of the essay were I think the discussions about how different methodologies could help convey an impression or mood, and it might be better if the "law" similarly focused less on what to do and more on why or in what situations to do it. Help beginning writers understand, don't just tell them what to do.
I don't think we're going to get any further by arguing about it more. I vote we let Brandon field this one, if he wants to.
That was in fact my hope all along... ;)
MattD
-
It is notable that in some systems (such as the Harry Potter system of magic) you have the backwards Deux ex machina. The character learns something in the beginning of the book and now you know it will be used at the very end of the book to make everything go right.
On page 8 we see Harry learn the "Nameless one gets turned into a newt" spell and we know that the nameless one will turn into a newt and he does.
A way to avoid the backwards DEM is to do like B. Sanderson, who has the effects happen throughout the book in Mistborn -- even ones which aren't used in the end (like pewter exhaustion).
-
Hello everyone! I just registered on TWG, and that only so I could join what is a pretty great discussion about Brandon’s First Law. This being my very first post, I hope that all will have patience with me and forgive my coming late into the conversation (I feel kinda like one of those wannabe cool people at a party who wander from group to group trying to insinuate themselves into the more popular crowd).
I don’t know that this particular topic is the place for some Brandon-praise, but before I go on I must say that, to me, Brandon is the Pixar of fantasy authors right now; new, fresh, bankable, exciting. There are many great movie studios in Hollywood, but even the best occasionally produce a major lemon. Pixar is, in my opinion, the exception to this, as everything they have made has been good (so far). Until they make a bad film, I will continue to see each of their movies simply because it has their name attached to it. Brandon has achieved this same position of trust with me as an author. Until he writes something bad, I will continue to purchase each of his books (in hardcover Brandon--hope you’re happy) as they are released. Here’s hoping my bookshelf quickly fills with Sanderson novels…
We read in his EUOLogy that the other members of the Worldcon panel attacked the use of laws and rules in magic systems because of a belief that such would kill the wonder inherent in good fantasy. I cannot speak for anyone else, but my ability to feel wonder as a reader is not dependant whatsoever on the relative softness or hardness of the magic system. In fact, there need not be magic at all. Who can read something like The Bourne Identity or The Count of Monte Cristo without experiencing a sense of wonder? Indeed, I would say I felt more wonder while reading those two non-SF/F books than I did reading many a fantasy novel with a soft magic system. If an author’s chief (or heaven forbid, only) way of generating wonder in the mind of his readers is the use of a soft magic system, no amount of dragons or wizards or treasure or unexplored depths will make a good novel.
If this is true, then the question changes. All things being equal, does a magic system devoid of rules and laws generate more wonder than a harder system? And is generating wonder the true narrative reason for writing fantasy? If so, is that as it should be?
I would take a somewhat more cynical approach to Sanderson’s First Law and phrase it like this: The degree to which an author’s use of magic to solve problems becomes DEM is inversely proportional to the degree to which the reader understands said magic. The temptation (both conscious and subconscious) for an author to resolve conflict arbitrarily gets higher and higher the softer the magic system.
Sanderson points out that in Tolkien’s LOTR books a soft system works because it gives the setting a fantastical appeal. “In his books,” he says, “you rarely understand the capabilities of Wizards and their ilk. You, instead, spend your time identifying with the hobbits, who feel that they’ve been thrown into something much larger, and more dangerous, than themselves. By holding back laws and rules of magic, Tolkien makes us feel that this world is vast, and that there are unimaginable powers surging and moving beyond our sight.”
I have a few issues with the use of LOTR as an example to defend a softer magic system. First and foremost is my belief that Tolkien’s ability to make his world seem vast, with unimaginable powers surging beyond our sight, has very little to do with a lack of magical rules. Middle Earth seems vast because it is vast. Tolkien wrote hundreds and hundreds of pages of background into the nations and histories and battles and landscape and people and cultures and conflicts and songs and poems that occasionally peek out through the narrative to say, “This world is BIG. It is very, very rich in detail and wonder.” He wrote out tide charts for his oceans and phases of the moon as seen in different parts of his geography. And, though much of this is never seen by the casual reader, somehow a part of the profound spirit of Middle Earth is transmitted and the depths of the world are felt. This is primarily due to the astronomical skill of Tolkien, not the absence of magical laws.
The other reason LOTR (both in movie and in book form) is not a good example of a soft magic system in use is that it really does not have a lot of magical conflict resolution in it. Tolkien apparently was taking Brandon’s advice and asking himself quite frequently “How can my characters solve this problem without magic?” Hear me out here. Sure, it has magical creatures, if one’s definition of “magical” is “cannot be encountered in our world.” But what magic do we ever see a hobbit, a dwarf, a Watcher, an orc, an Ent, or an eagle perform? They are simply smaller people or bigger squid or uglier jocks or longer lived sentient trees or…the bigger thing again. And when we do see magic, it is either exceedingly arbitrary (nice to have an entire legion of undead unkillable spirits to fight for you right when you need them most, isn’t it?) or actually very hard (the Elves’ superhuman senses and agility). Then there is Gandalf. Is his magic soft? Yes. Does he really solve major plot conflicts with it? Yes and no. After his healing of King Theoden and confrontation with Saruman in the book, or his driving off of the wraiths with the light from his wand in the movie (which by the way, Peter Jackson only included because he felt the Gandalf character was disappearing from the film and wanted some way to dramatically throw him back in), what conflict does he ever actually resolve with magic (other than the use of Shadowfax, which does not count because (1) it is not his magic and (2) it is pretty DEM)? We have a being who killed a Balrog and casually disarmed Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas with the wave of a hand fighting orcs by banging them over the head with his staff?? His major magical strength throughout the books seems to be his ability to impress others as a Wizard without ever doing anything truly Wizardy. The real magic in the books is the evil stuff, and although it is plenty soft (we never really are sure what the ring can do), it is not used to solve conflicts. Sure, there are errors and exceptions to much in the preceding paragraph, but taking a step back after having finished the books or the movies, I am struck more by the absence of magical conflict resolution than by its presence.
And as long as I am on the subject of LOTR, I also disagree that trying to use magic in LOTR only resulted in things becoming worse (see the end of Brandon’s essay). As a matter of fact, I would say there could have been few things better for the eventual resolution of the plot than Gandalf’s death at the hands of the Balrog. Not only did it enable his transformation into Gandalf the White (a change that set up his later defeat of Saruman), but it also put into motion a chain of events that were probably the only way the ring could actually have been destroyed. With Gandalf gone, Aragorn finally had to step into the role of leader, starting the breakdown of his reservations against becoming King. Without accepting his role as King of Gondor, Aragorn could never have led the army of the dead, and the Battle of Pelennor Fields would have been lost. Had Gandalf been there, Strider might never have become Aragorn. Gandalf’s absence also enabled the splitting of the Fellowship and the insertion of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas into Rohan. Without their help, Rohan would most likely have fallen and without Pippin and Merry, the Ents never would have joined the battle. With Gandalf present, none of this would have taken place. Most importantly however, is the fate of Frodo and the ring. Would a party that included Gandalf and Aragorn, the two beings under the most constant worry of Sauron, ever have reached the Pit of Doom? It was Gandalf’s very absence and the resulting distraction of Sauron that allowed the ring to enter Mordor at all. So rather than being a worsening of fate, the death of Gandalf is perhaps the single most fortuitous event in the entire trilogy.
But the main point I wanted to make (I know, I’ve typed this much and haven’t even reached my main point yet?! I am WAY too long winded for my own good) is that everyone seems to be forgetting that DEM is not the only danger to an author in using an insufficiently hard magic system. Even if the author never chooses, in the use of his soft system, to solve a conflict arbitrarily with magic, inadequately explained magic systems still cause another significant problem. They create inconsistencies in the relative strengths of the characters. To continue using LOTR, look at Gandalf VS. Balrog VS. Legolas VS. Oliphaunt. We see Gandalf defeat the Balrog and Legolas defeat the oliphaunt, each single-handedly. But, although we know Legolas could never kill a Balrog, we also do not really get the impression that Gandalf could take down an oliphaunt by himself. Even though at one point, we see Gandalf easily disarm Legolas, subsequent events make us wonder who is truly the more dangerous (at least in the movies). This confusion is the result of not knowing what Gandalf can really do, or how often he is “allowed” to do it. The reader never knows who stands where on the hierarchy of any particular strength because no two situations or conflicts are alike. Any victory or defeat of any hero or villain can later be explained away by the use of some extenuating magical circumstance, and all assumptions made from the encounter called into question. These explanations are often very good ones, and often make logical sense, but the absence of set magical rules nevertheless undermines an author’s attempt to establish the pecking order of power.
Anyway, I had fun posting this and I hope I haven’t completely bored anyone. I have been super impressed with everyone’s insights and comments so far, even the ones I don’t agree with. Obviously, I am a huge fan of much harder magical systems (probably more extreme on that issue than Brandon himself) but I have enjoyed many novels where the systems are not so well explained. I just wonder how much greater my enjoyment of those books might have been if I hadn’t noticed so many incidents of DEM or inconsistencies in the relative character strengths that were the direct result of poorly defined magic. That being said, I can’t wait to see how everyone picks apart my points. Have fun!!
-
Hello everyone! ...to join what is a pretty great discussion about Brandon’s First Law.
Yes. But a discussion that sorta ended back in February....
Interesting post, though. But why not read the Forum FAQs while you're here. http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=11.0
This will help you see how to make the most of the discussions. Take a look to see what current threads interest you--or perhaps start your own on a new topic. :)
-
Actually Shrain Brandon's forum has it's own rules and he allows thread necromancy.
-
Yeah, I know it's allowed... Honestly, though, even on EUOL's forum, thread necromancy has seemed to irk others besides myself in the past. (shrug)
Anyhow, if our new member wants to participate in other parts of TWG, I thought it would be good to link to the FAQs, as I've seen admins do a number of times for other newbies. That way there won't be any rude awakenings, so to speak. Speaking of which, my post wasn't meant to be rude, just mainly to point out that he may not have realized how old the topic was because the content was so interesting. From the way he said it, I thought that might be the case: "I just registered on TWG, and that only so I could join what is a pretty great discussion about Brandon's First Law."
-
Welcome MatthewM! Sprig is right, I actually appreciate "thread necromancy" as I use these forums to allow people to post on past articles from my blog. Checking out the FAQ as Shrain suggests is not a bad idea, though, since TWG can be a pretty crazy place! I've been thinking a lot about this article lately, as I've been meaning to go back and trim it up. Knowing your interpretations and opinions on these ideas is very helpful.
-
*nods* Editing is good. ;D
When are we going to get Sanderson's Second Law though, hmm?
-
Hey, sorry about that guys. How embarrassing to commit such a major faux pas on my very first post. Let me be honest with you all, as ashamed as I am to admit it...not only was this my first post on the TWG forums, but it was pretty much my first post ever on any forum or blog of any kind. I had no idea there were any rules like this to be followed. As someone who has an unhealthy number of pet peeves, I know how annoying it must be for people to come in and flaunt an established set of rules/traditions that have worked for so long for the older members of TWG. I did go over and take a look at the FAQ, and it was very helpful. Thanks for the suggestion. You would think that someone as old as I (and sadly, as inflated with his own supposed intelligence) would think to check the date on the last post of the thread, but alas, I had a total brain fart. I blame my excitement over the lure of the topic--soft magic systems have long been one of my own pet peeves. Anyway, I'll take the advice to look at the most recent threads and post in them in the future. Until then!!