Fantasy Magic and the Christian Author

In the course of my work with young people at my parish, not infrequently parents seek my advice on the issue of fantasy fiction, especially when dealing with the existence of "magic," as in the Harry Potter novels. I myself have never read Harry Potter; I know some Catholics are adamantly opposed to the books, while others (such as the contributors of Gilbert magazine) praise the Potter books as being full of Christian virtue. Having never read them, I can't say.

However I can speak to this issue as one who has read a lot of fantasy fiction in my life and who has also written fantasy fiction. Thus I offer my reflections here on the issue of magic in fiction more from the standpoint of an author than as a theologian or a moralist, though my opinions will of course be shot through with Catholic moral and theological thought.

The issue of magic is an sub-category of the subject of fantasy fiction. While magic is not strictly necessary to make a story "fantasy," it is almost ubiquitous in most fantasy fiction today. What role will it play in the fantasy world? How will it be utilized, and will the manner in which it is utilized say anything about the worldview of the creator of that world? This makes the difference between whether the presence of the magic is benign (as in Tolkien) or perhaps malevolent and damaging to the mind of the reader.

There are really only two options when dealing with the issue of magic: either magic is a craft that can be learned and mastered by any person who applies themselves, much like any skill in the natural world, or it is something that must be innate within a being, something one is born with, not unlike the concept of the Jedi in Star Wars. Wizards are either made or born. Is any one of these options more appropriate to the writer trying to incorporate magic into his world in a way not harmful to Christian morality?

J.R.R. Tolkien adopted the latter model, that of magic being innate. The elves possess magical powers by virtue of their nature, which they understand not as magic but as part of who they are - "magic" is what the human peoples of Middle Earth refer to it, a reflection of their lack of understanding of the powers and nature of the elves. The wizards also use magic, but as any Tolkien fan knows, Gandalf and Saruman are not truly men; rather, they are powerful angelic beings called istari who only appear in the forms of men, and their powers are as natural to them as angelic powers are to the angels. The Dunedain possess a kind of magic, but only by virtue of the elven blood in their veins. Thus, there is really no opportunity on Middle Earth for any one to "become" a wizard if they choose: magic is the prerogative of the elves and the Maiar exclusively.

The Dragonlance Chroncles of Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman adopted the former route of magic being learned: anyone who wanted to become a wizard was able to, provided they passed the training, which included a rigorous life or death struggle in a sort of magical "academy" called the Tower of Wayreth. Thus the popular book The Soulforge, which tells of the endeavors of Raistlin Majere to overcome his weakness and become a mage. Having not read Potter, I'm not sure which category Harry falls into, but I think it is a mixture of the two: wizards are born, and once identified, are taken to Hogwarts to train and hone their skills, not unlike the situation of Professor X's school in X-Men.

While I don't think that either approach is strictly moral or immoral, I do think that from a Christian perspective, the concept of magic as learned is more problematic than magic as innate. Christians accept the existence of angelic beings, and therefore also the existence of angelic powers. If we believe and angel can disguise himself as a human, and in that form use the powers natural to him (either for good or ill), then it is no ideological jump to posit some like beings in another universe that operate in a similar manner, which may or may not be called "magic" by the uninformed human populace. In Middle-Earth we see this in the elves, who are superior beings from beyond the sea that have extraordinary powers which mere mortals would call magical or even godlike. I can see nothing objectionable in this form of "magic."

The other approach, treating magic as a skill to be mastered, is a little bit more difficult for a Christian to deal with. A Christian acknowledges that there is only one God, and that all supernatural power must come ultimately either from that one God, or from His nemesis, the devil, who is a very powerful fallen angel. Now, God dictates that mankind not attempt to contact or harness magical abilities, which leaves us in the real world with no other option than that all magic, both black and alleged "white" magic, are diabolical in origin. Christianity does not deny that magic can be mastered, but asserts that all magic is from the evil one. This means that it is intrinsically evil; there is never a time, place or situation in the real world when it is licit for a person to attempt to use magic.

All fine and good within the real world, but how does this transfer into a fantasy world?

This is a dilemma, for once we acknowledge that in the real world magic must always be viewed as an intrinsic evil, this puts the Christian fantasy author in the dilemma of possibly taking something intrinsically evil and making it neutral or even a positive good within the context of the fantasy world (here's a parallel - imagine a fantasy world where adultery was a positive good). There really is no conflict if we retain acquired magic but reduce its use to evil mages (for evil men may in a fantasy world attempt to harness magical powers just as much as evil men in the real world); but the true difficulty arises when a character that is supposed to be a hero or morally upright person is required to acquire or use magic. Can this ever be licit? One could see in it the equivalence of making an otherwise "good" character commit adultery or theft and present it as justifiable. To present an intrinsic evil as justifiable, even in a fantasy book, is sinful, mortally so if it leads the reader to conclude that those evil acts are permissible based on what he reads.


Ursula K. LeGuin in her famous "Earthsea" novels came to a middle position, in which magic was able to be acquired but which consisted not in developing or harnessing any powers from within the agent, but in expanding knowledge of the "names" of all things, which represented their underlying reality as opposed to their external phenomenon. Thus, one became a magician by learning the true names of all things and gaining authority over reality, to manipulate it according to one's will. This gets us past the difficulty of communing with an evil power, but it does so at the expense of presenting a very eastern, almost Buddhist worldview, in which the present world is somewhat illusory and can be overcome by contact with the "real" underlying reality, which is unity as opposed to the multiplicity of the world, and can be manipulated according to the will of the wizard. Though this is an interesting approach, I do not see it as any more consonant with Christianity than the other approaches.

I think there is some mitigating factors depending on the role of magic in the fantasy realm. For example, in our real world, magic is proscribed precisely because it goes outside the boundaries of what God has decreed for mankind. But if magic is an acceptable and normative part of the fantasy world, this position would likewise change. Another parallel - we may not agree with the worship of Athena or Zeus, but once we read the classics and accept thematically the existence of a world and culture in which Zeus and Athena are presented as real, then we must not be surprised nor appalled if consequences follow thematically from this accepted premise. I don't think most intelligent readers (and I leave a large gap here for those outside the category "most") read fantasy and decide to try to practice real magic because of it, anymore than we go off looking for real elves and dragons after reading Tolkien. The real question regarding magic is a contextual one: "What is the origin of the magic in the novel, and how does it conform (or not) with the context of its place in the larger fantasy world? Is this overall context one that is edifying or damaging to faith?"

The best thing to do, from a Christian standpoint, is to avoid the difficulty by not creating any magician protagonists. In fact, it is best to avoid the problem of magic by minimizing its importance; I do not have a taste for these modern fantasy stories whose whole plot revolves around magic or its uses. From a purely stylistic point, too much magic ruins the "fanastical" mood; we are more excited to see a world where magic is possible than where it is normal. If magic is made the norm, it is no longer magic, but simply the way things are. This may be permissible thematically, but it is not as exciting to read. But morally speaking, if one chooses to adopt a world where acquired magic is possible, I think I have come up with two solutions to minimize the negative impact of such an approach to the point of making it acceptable to the Christian reader (and soothe the conscience of the Christian author!).

First, if magic is used, make it about effects over process. What I mean is that the focus of the magic should be on effects of the magic in the plot instead of a preoccupation with the process of bringing it about. It is enough, when I write about a mage, to say that he "cast a spell" and that as a result of this, a fireball came shooting out of this hand and consumed a party of goblins. The reason for using the magic is to come up with the fireball. Now, instead of saying that the mage cast the spell, suppose I say he sat down inside a magic circle, got out a ritual bowl, started mixing ingredients and chanting mystical words; suppose I even translate some of those words into the book and describe the gestures that the mage goes through before finally consummating his spell and casting the fireball. Well, I still get my fireball, but now with a more (in my opinion) unhealthy focus on the process of casting the spell. I can seldom think of a reason why an author would need to include details about the procedure (unless the character was evil and this was a method of bringing out his evilness), and the procedure is what kids who are attracted to magic will want to emulate. If you just say that the character "waved his hand and shot a lightning bolt," you detract attention from the process and focus it where it should be, on the effect of the magic in the story.

Second, use of magic should be sparse and mages should seldom be used as protagonists. Morally, this protects against the implicit notion that magic is a normative means of getting out of difficulties or obtaining what one wants (contrast this with the Harry Potter books where magic is the normative means of operating in the world). This is more a question of emphasis - less magic means less attention drawn to magic. But it is thematic, too; a single, well-placed and well thought out placement of magic in the story might create more of a mystique or fantastical quality about the story than a ton of episodes of wizards shooting lightning at each other until it is as commonplace as an Indian shooting an arrow or a bat in a cave.

These two methods render the concept of acquired magic more acceptable. By refusing to go into the procedures for becoming a wizard or casting a spell, you deprive the audience of anything to possibly mimic and draw the reader's mind to what is important: the furtherance of the plot. By making the use of magic rare but strategically placed, you reinforce the idea that magic is something "fantastical"; i.e., doesn't exist in the real world and can happen only in a fantasy world, which is where it belongs. Both methods allow for a broad literary use of magic while minimizing the possibility that it will "bleed" into the real world. Taking into account also the simple overarching context that in a fantasy world, many things can happen that are not necessarily affirmed about the real world (for example, a fantasy world can have a differing but really existing set of "gods" without the author personally affirming the existence of any such beings in the real world), I think we can affirm a moderate and acceptable way to incorporate acquired magic, if it is necessary.

I don't know if this helps, but it is interesting to ponder. If you want some good, non-standard fantasy in the epic tradition, please check out my book, available here.