Quote Originally Posted by Zrak View Post
Sanderson's contention is that "An author's ability to solve conflict satisfactorily with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic." ... Sanderson is advocating explanation as almost purely positive. According to Sanderson's law, so long as the psuedoscience continues to provide new information about the magic system in an intelligible manner, it will make the author more able to solve conflict satisfactorily with magic.
Is that really what Sanderson is saying, though? There is a level of explanation which is sufficient to convey all the understanding that the reader needs, and in many cases, that level doesn't have to be very high. To take an example from Tolkien (I have read other fantasy authors, really!), it's enough to say, "wearing the magic ring makes you invisible." Invisibility easily solves some conflicts, is useful in many others, and is no use at all in some, and it's pretty clear to the reader which conflicts are which. More explanation wouldn't really be of any use, unless the author wanted to also provide the ring with more powers and/or limitations.

I would consider my reducto ad absurdum objection to be overly pedantic, as many of my objections to various "laws" of writing are, were it not for the fact that some authors, including Sanderson himself, seem to take the law to precisely that absurd extreme; I am, after all, far from alone in complaining about Sanderson's tendency to overexplain.
I've never read any of Sanderson's work, so I can't comment on that. Maybe that was what he was saying, after all.