I have never read anything by Brandon Sanderson. Not for any particular reason; I’m just not a very diligent reader of fantasy. I like certain authors, and dislike others. My taste runs to either high fantasy (Tolkein), or pulp fantasy (Brust). The mid-level stuff has always bored me.

I think the problem lies in the fact that I don’t like wizards as main/viewpoint characters. Wizards are best when dispensing otherworldly wisdom, as supernatural helpmates to the hero. Wizards as mains tend to be fledgling nerds or author proxies or both. I don’t care at all about “magic systems”. Even the phrase makes me groan internally.

That being said, I think Sanderson has a few very good points when discussing his First Law:

SANDERSON’S FIRST LAW OF MAGICS: AN AUTHOR’S ABILITY TO SOLVE CONFLICT WITH MAGIC IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO HOW WELL THE READER UNDERSTANDS SAID MAGIC.

“Sanderson’s First Law“, brandonsanderson.com

He differentiates between Hard Magic, which has clear rules that the reader clearly understands, and can therefore be used to resolve the story, and Soft Magic, which is enigmatic and only dimly perceived by the reader. How, precisely, does destroying the One Ring defeat Sauron? Tolkien only tells us that Sauron put much of his power into the One Ring. This is all the reader needs to know. It explains why the Ring corrupts those who bear it, and it establishes that no one can use the Ring against Sauron. Only by walking the damn thing to the fires of its creation and tossing it in, can it be undone. It is too powerful for anyone else to master. This is all the story requires.

But if you’re going to have magicians/wizards/magic-users contend with the plot directly, then the reader needs to know what the wizard can and can not do. This makes sense from a plotting perspective, you set things up and pay them off. Doing otherwise runs into the danger of Deus ex Machina.

The Second Law operates on a similar level:

LIMITATIONS > POWERS

“Sanderson’s Second Law” -brandonsanderson.com

In a nutshell, what makes Superman interesting is his ethical code and the fact that kryponite weakens him. Otherwise, he’s an unstoppable Mary Sue. What makes Gandalf interesting is not his return from death, but the fact that he cannot contend with Sauron directly, and he cannot command the nations of Middle-Earth, even though he knows better than they do.

Limitations are what drives a character to grow in order to resolve the conflict. A hero defeated once must become stronger or learn to fight differently to defeat the villain. This feeds conflict, adds tension, and helps build to a satisfying climax.

The Third Law is general good advice for fantasy writing, not just magic:

Expand what you already have before you add something new.

“Sanderson’s Third Law of Magic“, -brandonsanderson.com

This means “depth comes before width”, or build a character or city or system you already have, adding details and depth to it, before you introduce a new one. It’s a warning to streamline, to avoid worldbuilding bloat.

What’s important to note is that these are all literary rules, not rules about magic per se. Magic can be whatever you want, from intensely detailed and specific to purely supernatural and abstract. If you, as an author, want the wizard to be able to conjure up a sausage from thin air to feed to the hero, you can do that, and nothing of these three laws will negate you. However, you will need to do the following things:

1. Establish how Porkulus the Wizard is able to conjure sausages, or that such things are commonplace in this world.
2. Limit this sausage power in some significant way. Perhaps the sausage can only be created at night, or perhaps only once per fortnight, or perhaps it requires a really skilled wizard, such as Porkulus, and his apprentice Beeferinus has not learned the skill.
3. Build up the key magical powers of both Porkulus and Beeferinus before we bring in the Dark Wizard Vealtine, who can conjure up entire meat pies at will.

In other words, magic systems are just an aspect of world-building, the purpose of which is to aid the story in entertaining the reader.

Next time, an analysis of how well I’ve done this in my recently published collection of stories.