Hm... I'm not sure if "simpler" is the right word for Sanderson's magic systems - Edit 1
Before modification by beetnemesis at 09/12/2010 04:40:47 PM
Maybe "harder" (in the sense of hard sci-fi or soft sci-fi), or more focused.
Sanderson's magic systems are always intricately thought out. He figures out what you can do, how you can do it, and why it works. They're very... mechanical, I guess you could say, in the sense that they have rules and ways of acting, and anything that seems to contradict those rules is really just an odd quirk or loophole.
Compared to, say, Harry Potter magic, where you shout Dog Latin and things happen, or Sword of Truth, where whatever is convienent to the plot happens. I'd argue that both of these magic systems are "simpler" than anything by Jordan or Sanderson.
I understand what you mean, though. Channeling can do pretty much anything, whereas Sanderson's magic tends to be rigidly defined.
Sanderson's magic systems are always intricately thought out. He figures out what you can do, how you can do it, and why it works. They're very... mechanical, I guess you could say, in the sense that they have rules and ways of acting, and anything that seems to contradict those rules is really just an odd quirk or loophole.
Compared to, say, Harry Potter magic, where you shout Dog Latin and things happen, or Sword of Truth, where whatever is convienent to the plot happens. I'd argue that both of these magic systems are "simpler" than anything by Jordan or Sanderson.
I understand what you mean, though. Channeling can do pretty much anything, whereas Sanderson's magic tends to be rigidly defined.