Implicit vs. Explicit Magic, Or Why I Respectfully Disagree with Sanderson's First Law
For those of you who don't know (or need a refresher), Brandon Sanderson's First Law of Magic is: An author's ability to solve conflict satisfactorily with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic. I'll admit that when I started writing this blog post, I had forgotten the rest of the essay in which Sanderson lays out his argument for this principle (linked above). He actually makes allowances for authors writing different styles of magic than he prefers. But his scale runs from "soft" magic (i.e. little or no explanation in the story) to hard magic (i.e. the rules are given and followed within the story). I'd come to this topic inspired by a conversation in the Books thread over at NarniaWeb about logical vs. intuitive stories. I've recently read a couple of books that seemed to work in stark contrast to Sanderson's First Law, and I thought perhaps the logical vs. intuitive distinction might be relevant...