Jump to content

RawToast225

Recommended Posts

I have noticed something amazing while I have been in this writing group: We all are trying to emulate Brandon Sanderson's writing style. We use a similar tone in our writings, we format things similarly, and we all try to build our worlds after the pattern of Sanderson.

Maybe this has been brought up before, and it's too general to be a true statement, but I just thought I should point out how much Sanderson is influencint the writing world, at least on the forum. It makes reading things others submit fun. I get to look for similarities between his writing and ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all likelihood this is true as most of us are probably participating in this writing group versus others because we are fans of Sanderson's style of writing.  But you also may be simply seeing something you expect to see.  All writing looks similar if you stare at it long enough.

 

I've read plenty of submissions that seemed to be inspired by Sanderson.  I've also ready plenty of submissions that stray away from him in both genre and style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good shout Sprout. For my part, I've always found Brandon's style to be pretty straight-up fantasy. It's very accompalished and very detailed, engaging, but I don't find it especially distinctive, like say Moorcock, Pratchett or Vance. That's not meant to be a criticism of Brandon, I'm not convined there are many authors who you can apply the phrase 'distinctive voice' to.

 

As for the writing on here, I think we are all striving to find our voice, so it's reasonable to assume we'll find ourself beginning in the 'middle of the road' - which I think mean I agree, Arthur!

 

Was it Steven King who said an aspiring writer needs to write a million words before they know what you're doing? (BS quotes this in Reading Ex, but I can't remember the attributiion, sorry) - anyway, I suspect something similar is true about voice. I've read pretty much every submission since I joined and I too can think of some that stood out as being quite different in style.

 

Interesting topic, good post.

 

Hey, Mandamon, what are your thoughts on this topic?

 

<invokes presence of Mandamon by performing traditional summoning dance, which as everyone knows, is both complex and unnecessary...>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poof! <appears in a puff of illogic>

 

Well, I was going to comment on this, and then saw Robinski had already invoked me.  So does that make this a double post by default? ;-)

 

I've had a similar thought before, that since we're all familiar with Sanderson here, we all like at least some of the same sort of things.  Thus we might get a false positive on some feedback because we're predisposed to like the things we submit.  Dunno if that's true.

 

I've also had concerns that many of us (intentionally or un-) might copy his plot points, magic systems, or characters.  The writing style I'm not as concerned with.  I tend to Agree With Robinski® that Sanderson's writing style is not particularly distinctive.  His prose is good, of course, but I don't think it's what he sells books on.  He's actually mentioned in some Writing Excuses episodes that his first drafts are not that great prose-wise and he does a lot of editing.  Mary Robinette Kowal was surprised his first draft of the Shadow's Beneath submission was as good as it was (that was a funny podcast...).

 

Personally, if I'm in the middle of writing something and finish one (reading) book and start to read another, I'll see bits and pieces of the other author's writing creep in as I write.  It used to be a lot worse, but as I come closer to that million words, I find it easier to write in what will someday be my own style.

 

So is a roundabout way, I think I agree with Sprout as well.  I've seen both similar and distinct voices submit here.  That said, I'll certainly agree with Arthur Dent that Sanderson's influence on the SciFi/Fantasy community is huge, and a big thanks to him and the administrators here for inspiring and creating this forum.  It's improved my writing, and gives a great place to debate things like this!

Edited by Mandamon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you all for the positive feedback for this idea!

Second, I disagree when you say Sanderson doesn't have a distinctive writing voice. Specifically in the dialogues he writes, he is distinctive, at least to me. It's a very moderate, interesting, tone. Maybe I'm wrong.

The influence that Sanderson has on us specifically is in our characters. The influence in the rest of the community is the uniqueness of his magic systems and the kinds of plot twists. Again, I may be wrong, but this is what I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, now, you've started me on something here, which I remember now I've posted about before. Brandon's magic systems are heavily prescriptive and rigidly themed, and I think that is something that comes through in some of the writing here. I don't necessarily mean this is a bad thing, but it does mean that, in a sense, all of his magic systems are the same (type), define by a single element (metal; light; sound; etc., etc.). Compare this with the approach of Tolkien, the mechanics of whose magic is basically unknowable to the reader.

 

I'm not saying Brandon is wrong, quite the opposite, his approach always produces interesting effects and the magic system is like central character in his stories. What I'm saying is that his approach is the same, the dynamic of the system in the story is essentially the same. I suppose this is because all his stories take place in the Cosmere, and that tends to define his style (tropes).

 

That approach to magic, I think, is one thing that often stands out in stories here as being clearly and deliberatley Sandersonian - for better or worse. I've certainly commented on stories before by saying (or at least thinking!) something along the lines of, if you don't want run the danger of being considered a Sanderson imitator, try to take a different approach to your magic system.

 

This is a good topic - it's nice to have some discussion around subjects other than submissions.

Edited by Robinski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, thank you!

What you are describing is the difference between a hard and soft magic system. A hard magic system has its rules clearly defined for the reader, while a soft one is a Deus ex Machiana (spelling?) feel to it. It can solve any problem because its parameters are infinity. A good example of this is Harry Potter. I hate Harry Potter's magic system so much because there are no clear rules on what can and can't be done. Every time some rules are set, they are contradicted. A good example of a hard magic system is, of course, Allomancy. It has limitations and the reader knows them. It also has loopholes that the author can exploit. It's super awesome that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be implying that soft magic systems are inherently worse than hard ones.  I disagree.  I think it's easy to be biased in favor of hard magic as Sanderson does a great job with them again and again.  He makes them seem almost effortless.  

 

However, soft magic has numerous benefits.  It does not need to have a Deus ex Machina feel to it, if it does then it is done poorly.  A good example of a soft-magic system done right is the Wheel of Time.  The capabilities of it are not entirely defined (ie. no clear input->output system). Yet Robert Jordan and later Sanderson did an admirable job of foreshadowing the capabilities of it so that when it was used in a solution to a problem it never felt forced.  (Read the prologue of the first book in the Wheel of Time to see a marvelous example of soft magic.  The reader has no bearing on what's going on mechanically, but that doesn't diminish the power of the scene as the magic works only to drive home the character's reactions.  It's great stuff.)

 

I'm not saying that soft magic is better.  I think that how well a magic system functions for a reader ultimately comes down to the author's construction of the story, and not how defined the rules of said system are.  Any magic system, no matter how well defined, is meaningless unless it servicing the plot and characters.

 

I also think the magic system in Harry Potter serves it's purpose in terms of the story very well.  It has a slightly whimsical nature, which is very in tune with at least the early books.  But that's a discussion for another time.

 

I agree with Robinski.  Fun topic for discussion.  Lots of interesting stuff to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't really considered this topic before, but -as I digest my lunch here at work (in the final minutes of mental freedom)- I will try to grapple with it using my one free hand (the other is engaged in three fingered typing).

 

I think I agree (in my admitedly meager not-yet-a-writer way) that Brandon might not have an overpowering and distinctive voice in the way that it is typically defined but, like spoken language, communication and good storytelling go beyond voice. If there is one thing I am trying to learn from Brandon it is the complex weaving of his plots, sub-plots, magic, worldbuilding, dialogue and themes etc. (The magic system in Mistborn seemed very inventive to me).  The characters were believable, they tried, failed, suffered and grew in ways that I could accept despite the fantastical setting. The world was interesting and cohesive.

 

I recently saw a BYUtv "Call of Story" http://www.byutv.org/watch/6b6c3ccb-68e2-4d34-baf3-da2c482714c3/call-of-story-call-of-story (worth seeing) and it becomes apparent that the storytellers 'true voice' is much more than the modulation of his vocal cords. What I am trying to say, in my clumsy way, is that Brandon's voice is powerful and distinctive if you take in the entirety of his storytelling. For some writers a single aspect is so notable that it immediatedly draws the focus of our attention, but in Brandon's case there seems to be a more even focus on many aspects of the writing.

 

So it is either hard to emulate -or perhaps just hard for us to recognize the emulation, since no one element calls excessive attention to itself.

 

Does that make sense, or was it just my lunch speaking (weight watcher's microwave dinner)? :)

Edited by stormweasel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just nonchalantly (as much as writing permits) say I've yet to actually read a Brandon Sanderson book. I'm exclusively from the Writing Excuses Podcast fan-base at the moment. I have a few friends who have read some of his works though.

I believe it was Sanderson himself though, that said the more interesting aspects of magic are more to do with the limitations. I know in my current project, I have soft magic, but I as the writer am fully aware of where I've set my limitations and the magic, while it has its presence, it isn't pervasive in the story, and is far from powerful enough to be a problem solver. While the magic in my story doesn't really have an explicit input and output (to a fair extent, it tends to be more of output without much input), it is a two-sided sword that has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Like Sprout said, soft magic doesn't mean deus ex machina. Deus ex machina means deus ex machina, and it could happen just as easily with hard magic where something wasn't fully explained, or is broken for convenience sake.

I also like Stormweasel's comment on voice as being the sum of writing elements, rather than just the word choice and phrases, because even if the word choice isn't super unique, you'd probably be able to recognize the writing of someone you knew well if they were consistent in certain things.

Edited by Lord Juugatsu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as you know the limitations, it's good. Magic shouldn't be used like it was so often in LotR.

P.S. You should probably read a Sanderson book or two. It actually amazes me that you have managed to get through a month in this writing group without doing so.

Edited by Arthur Dent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the hard elements of Allomancy and something like Patrick Rothfuss's Sympathy. This rules based approach to magic does make it seem real to me. The limitations or cost of these systems helps keep things in line and make them believable. Yet I have to say I found Tolkien's magic believable also, perhaps in part because I saw it as an elemental struggle between the power of good and evil. I saw magic as an expression of that power - in other words it was rooted and drew its power from two pure and very fundamental concepts in which I believe. I think there needs to be a certain clarity to magic - not that you need to understand all the whys and hows of it, but that our mind (which constantly seeks structure, meaning, patterns and so on as part of the process of categorization, cataloging and understanding the world around us) can grasp onto something recognizable -or acceptable.

 

In Tolkien's case the magic - which could seem ill defined- also grew out of very well defined races and histories which might have further helped to anchor it.

Edited by stormweasel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not really arguing for or against. I was simply musing as to why soft magic and hard magic 'works' as a concept or a device. With hard magic it is easier to see because you build a structure of rules. It's how science works, computer programming, logical arguements etc - it's something we humans do naturally. It's like mental Legos. We put bits together until we approximate something we can understand.

 

With soft magic it sometimes seems disconnected from realtiy, or only connected in some nebulous way. I was saying that as I thought about Tolkien the magic is actually built upon a structure - albiet a more primitive and basic one. i.e. Good|Evil.

 

In addition I wondered if I found it more acceptable because - even though the magic itself doesn't seem to have a lot of rules, the races of Middle Earth do. They are very well defined and if you think about it the magic actually grows out of the races (or so I remember it with Elf specific magic etc but is has probably been 30 years since I last read the books). So maybe Tolkien's soft-magic is borrowing the attributes or 'rules' of the races which allows it to work for our minds.

 

Hope that is clear. Sometimes I look too deep. :)

Edited by stormweasel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, Sprout.

 

And I'll be the one to stand up for JKR. In the same way that the scope of Channelling is extensively trailed through Egwene and Elayne progressing through their education to becoming Aes Sedai, we learn about the main elements of Rowling's magic through the education of Harry, Ron and Hermione.

 

Also, presented with a situation where there is hard and soft magic, I think we should all strive to defeat those categories and develop a system that either lies between or beyond categorisation - don't push the envelope, rip it open!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, presented with a situation where there is hard and soft magic, I think we should all strive to defeat those categories and develop a system that either lies between or beyond categorisation - don't push the envelope, rip it open!

 

It would be interesting to speculate about a system that was a hybrid or defied categorization as you suggest. As I think on what I am writing, despite the fact I think they are original - or at least not overly done (within what I have read)- I have to admit that they would probably fall into hard and soft categories. I'll have to think some to see if a system that is not hard or soft - not rule based or 'rule-less/not defined' - is even possible. It seems on the surface that the hybrid approach is possible, but rule/rule-less' seems like a simple either or choice (or am I definig the soft incoorectly hmmmm...)

 

You got my brain churning. :)

Edited by stormweasel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be curious as well as to what would be the definition of a middle ground. Hard magic for me is explicit rules known to the characters and readers for the most part (limitation and capabilities, if not the micro-'science' behind it) where soft magic is kind of, mysterious, a lot of the capabilities and limitations aren't known except for the specific cases where it succeeds or fails within a piece. The closest I can think of at the moment to a hybrid is only forming in my head as 'transitional magic'. That is, within the plot, characters are taking hard magic, discover something new about it, and it starts to transition into soft magic, or vice-versa, you have soft magic that characters have been trying to work out. The transitional phase would definitely permit an interesting co-habitation as rules are defined or broken.

Or alternatively, the magic system could just incorporate multiple 'systems' in the scheme of 'magic'. I know one idea I've thought was appealing was having different faucets of magic within the same realm/story, each with pro's/con's. Example: Elaborate rituals, which requires components, incantations, specific symbols, etc. could be very powerful, but obviously very tedious and could have a full 'science' behind how to get certain results, if not how it actually works. Next to that, you could have people with innate magical capabilities, less powerful, but useable on demand, where it'd be a lot softer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see a hybrid - for example a hard magic that was illusory (imagine the users could basically generate 3D models in the real world, but they are only images). Those who could use the old magic's of earth and stone, etc, could turn the illusion into reality - possibly within limitations (no organic i.e. cannot create humans or it is forbidden to do so).

 

What trips me up would be a system that is neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually got an idea for a short story that's been rumbling around in my head for a couple of weeks. Whether or not it falls into 'The Third Way', or is just a mish-mash of hard and soft (let's call that squishy magic), I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about a split system. Maybe it can be done well, but there was a series I read called Adventures Wanted that almost had a hard system of magic, but it couldn't make up its mind. It kept switching back and forth between the two and it wasn't good. I am thinking until I get better, I am going to have to stick with one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually got an idea for a short story that's been rumbling around in my head for a couple of weeks. Whether or not it falls into 'The Third Way', or is just a mish-mash of hard and soft (let's call that squishy magic), I don't know.

I like the name squishy magic. :) It will be interesting to see what people come up with. I haven't fully explored the magic for what I am writing (I haven't written those parts yet) but have two very distinctivly different systems in mind. At the very least this thread has made me consider the interaction between the soft (old magic) I am considering, and the more science based hard 'magic') and how they might work if someone were to bridge the two.

Edited by stormweasel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...