Activity

This was a fascinating discussion to read through. Thanks for the tag (or at least the attempted tag, @kate! 😉

The philosophy behind Sanderson’s works is really interesting. When asked once about how his Mormon faith influences his writing, he once responded that one of the main ways was through his understanding of deity. Since he believes that all humans will eventually become god in heaven, his stories explore how people would act if given god-like powers (either with magic or with the Shards). I think this is one of the reasons why his symbolism fails to be as transcendent as it could be. Since Mormonism (to my knowledge) has less of a transcendent difference between God and man, this is reflected in his stories. The Shards are supposed to represent men-who-became-gods, not the true God, and as a result they aren’t transcendent in an evocative way.

I also agree with @taylorclogston about the difference between hard and soft magic. The difference in my mind is how much magic can be defined, controlled, and logically analysed. The more it’s like a science, the more it falls into the category of hard magic. The less it’s like a science, the more it falls into the category of soft magic. There’s perhaps an interesting connection between this and the above discussion about the nature of the transcendent in Sanderson’s works. The more hard the magic is, the less transcendent it is and thus the less sense of “natural wonder” it evokes. I personally prefer harder magic in my own writing because I’m a very analytic person, but there’s a definite loss that accompanies it (even if it gains other things).