Magic Elitist?

[yellowdingo]

Source: When did that happen?

[Dark_Mistress]

I am magically delicious... does that make me a elitist? :)

[Gary Teter]

I have to say that this is one of the things that make it hard for me to get through the Harry Potter books. The idea that some class of people are "inherently" more magical or better than others is one that I find absolutely foul, distasteful and repugnant. I have similar problems with midichlorians. Get your stupid hamhanded eugenics crap out of my fantasy, plzkthxbai.

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

Gary Teter wrote:

I have to say that this is one of the things that make it hard for me to get through the Harry Potter books. The idea that some class of people are "inherently" more magical or better than others is one that I find absolutely foul, distasteful and repugnant. I have similar problems with midichlorians. Get your stupid hamhanded eugenics crap out of my fantasy, plzkthxbai.

I suppose it's the magical version of good genetics, but you made me laugh. Kudos. I prefer the "its a skill" version myself.

[Stockvillain]

Huh; guess that's why I've always preferred Wizards over Sorcerers. I don't like the "You'll never understand me, because I *am* magic!" stance. I vastly prefer the "I worked hard to learn how to undo the universe, and there's not a thing you can do to stop me!" approach.

[Gary Teter]

I guess I should make clear that if an individual person happens to be awesome magically, that's pretty much required for any fantasy. It's the "this stuff runs in families and you can divide the world between those who are awesome and those who are muggles" thing that really, really gets me going. I do not believe in the divine right of kings or magicians.

[LazarX]

The author has it completely wrong. Before the advent of common scientific knowledge, magic was almost always the property of the specially destined, gifted,... or cursed. That you could not learn magic even as a wizard unless you were born with the potential for it.

It's a rather modern, particurlarly Western concept that magic would be as egalitarian to be open-admission. Because technology has become open admission as far as useing goes. But then again unlike magic technology can be used even if the user does not understand it. VCRs come to mind.

[Caedwyr]

I'm a bit curious as to why the author of the article seems to think this is a new thing. In the Greek myths you have certain individuals, who due to their parentage/birth are more imbued with magic/supernatural abilities. In the Harry Dresden books, while anyone can learn some magic others will almost always be further ahead due to inborn abilities. Wizards in the Forgotten Realms typically had an innate talent/capability for magic that others will not through no fault of their own. Lord of the Rings had some characters with stronger magic due to their birth (Aragorn) or race (Elrond, elves in general).

Some people being more capable/able to learn to use their magic isn't a particularly new idea.

[yellowdingo]

Gary Teter wrote:

I have to say that this is one of the things that make it hard for me to get through the Harry Potter books. The idea that some class of people are "inherently" more magical or better than others is one that I find absolutely foul, distasteful and repugnant. I have similar problems with midichlorians. Get your stupid hamhanded eugenics crap out of my fantasy, plzkthxbai.

And all the worse considering the lovers of Eugenics seem to be the ones generating the top selling novels with a cult following. Curse you Adolf and your Mien Kamph!

Back to the perpetual writers block it is...

[yellowdingo]

Gary Teter wrote:

I guess I should make clear that if an individual person happens to be awesome magically, that's pretty much required for any fantasy. It's the "this stuff runs in families and you can divide the world between those who are awesome and those who are muggles" thing that really, really gets me going. I do not believe in the divine right of kings or magicians.

It isnt if it doesnt appear in D&D: Families with a long history of Wizards...living in Mystaran realms like Glantri and Alphatia, Im sure there were others in Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk.

Perhaps Kings do have a divine right to rule...Considering they used to sacrifice children to the Fire God Momus...we need to reassess which divine authority they represent.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Gary Teter wrote:

I guess I should make clear that if an individual person happens to be awesome magically, that's pretty much required for any fantasy. It's the "this stuff runs in families and you can divide the world between those who are awesome and those who are muggles" thing that really, really gets me going. I do not believe in the divine right of kings or magicians.

For me, one of the most memorable parts in Feist's early Midkemia books is the moment where the (good) archmage and Nakor the trickster have a discussion...

Spoiler:

Nakor reveals "magic is a trick"; basically anyone with the right training and dedication can learn magic. Everyone has the capability... you don't need to be touched by a deity or a dragons bloodline or whatever. Naturally this is a secret, because it could completely upend civilization.

It's been years since I've read of of Feist's Midkemia books, and I lost all but one of the ones I had due to a flood from a burst plumbing pipe years back.

[DM Wellard]

I always loved Nakor..he was such a refrshing change to your run of the mill wizard

[LazarX]

Gary Teter wrote:

I have to say that this is one of the things that make it hard for me to get through the Harry Potter books. The idea that some class of people are "inherently" more magical or better than others is one that I find absolutely foul, distasteful and repugnant. I have similar problems with midichlorians. Get your stupid hamhanded eugenics crap out of my fantasy, plzkthxbai.

It's really no more different than some people being inherently talented with music, mathematics, or organisation. While it may be an American ideal that all are created equal, the genetic dice roll differently for each one of us. I've learned to accept that I have no particular special talent without feeling envy for those who do. I was considered a particurlarly bright child in my early school years and as a result school was a living hell for me. On the other hand I know I have no musical ability as I can't carry a tune in a bucket, and I'm practically tone deaf.

The problem that many of us have is that we're hyper-egalitarians. In some cases it's a good thing, but the flip side can be a problematic inferiority complex that makes us lash out at the exceptional.

[Gary Teter]

My problem isn't with individual excellence. I am all for individual excellence. I dislike stories that are basically apologetics for nobility. The members of any given aristocracy are not actually better human beings, as a class, than anybody else. Aristocracies and nobility are hard to dislodge from a society due to their entrenched positions of inherited power, not because they are superior examples of humanity.

Fiction that perpetuates the notion that some subset of people actually are better than anybody else raises my hackles.

[Crimson Jester]

Gary Teter wrote:

My problem isn't with individual excellence. I am all for individual excellence. I dislike stories that are basically apologetics for nobility. The members of any given aristocracy are not actually better human beings, as a class, than anybody else. Aristocracies and nobility are hard to dislodge from a society due to their entrenched positions of inherited power, not because they are superior examples of humanity.

Fiction that perpetuates the notion that some subset of people actually are better than anybody else raises my hackles.

I can see where you are coming from, however I think it does raise of couple of good points in a story. One, that if everyone is special, then no one is. And two how we treat others is more noble than the manner of our birth. I think that the prejudicial actions of a few characters in a book like Harry Potter, actually helps drive the story and shows that the main characters are not special because of birth but because of attitude. Plus even though Harry himself has some special qualities, the books go in to specific detail about how frankly with out his friends, such as Hermione who did in fact study, he would have died in the first book.

The one thing I have always disliked about 3.5 and now PFRPG is that you can't be a Sorcerer who then takes the time to train as a wizard and become a PrC of some sort. Not a Theurgist one. But something that grows from not only inner talent but dedication as well. A true Archmage. Tried building one but my design skills for such things are imitative at best.

[Evil Lincoln]

Gary's railing against ethnic determinism is a cover. We know he comes from a long line of codemages...

[LazarX]

Crimson Jester wrote:

The one thing I have always disliked about 3.5 and now PFRPG is that you can't be a Sorcerer who then takes the time to train as a wizard and become a PrC of some sort. Not a Theurgist one. But something that grows from not only inner talent but dedication as well. A true Archmage. Tried building one but my design skills for such things are imitative at best.

Actually I think the traditional Wizard IS that character. The ability to work magic at all is a bit of a gift and the Wizard starts out bumbling simple cantrips ultimately to command the most powerful magic.

Although for a game that really does a good job with the concept of apprenticeship, nothing beats Ars Magica.

[Crimson Jester]

LazarX wrote:

Crimson Jester wrote:

The one thing I have always disliked about 3.5 and now PFRPG is that you can't be a Sorcerer who then takes the time to train as a wizard and become a PrC of some sort. Not a Theurgist one. But something that grows from not only inner talent but dedication as well. A true Archmage. Tried building one but my design skills for such things are imitative at best.

Actually I think the traditional Wizard IS that character. The ability to work magic at all is a bit of a gift and the Wizard starts out bumbling simple cantrips ultimately to command the most powerful magic.

Although for a game that really does a good job with the concept of apprenticeship, nothing beats Ars Magica.

I have heard that yet never had the opportunity to play it.

[Aubrey the Malformed]

Gary Teter wrote:

Fiction that perpetuates the notion that some subset of people actually are better than anybody else raises my hackles.

Clearly you have never seen Prince Charles in action.

I was going to disagree with Gary's point but Rowling is pretty much a product of the British class system. That said, there are examples of class mobility (Hermione, for example) but by and large it is true that a largely privileged subset of humanity get to go to a fancy school separated off from the common herd (who barely figure in the books, except maybe the vulgar Dursleys). Which sounds a lot like the moneyed classes sending their kids to public school (which is what we Brits call our poshest private schools). So, yeah - though I have to admit, it bothers me not a jot as it's not very different from non-magical versions of kids stories by middle class authors involving orphans, wicked step-families and so on (or, indeed, A Wizard of Earthsea to some extent, which although vastly superior as a book, is also an "inherent magic" sort of place with gifted kids taken off to hone their skills in solitude). It does make it surprisingly old-fashioned - Billy Bunter with spells - but then that was probably its appeal.

Also, Potter tidbit - Rowling is from Bristol. Just outside Bristol (up the M5) is the town of Dursley. Presumably she didn't like the place.

[Lord Fyre]

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

Fiction that perpetuates the notion that some subset of people actually are better than anybody else raises my hackles.

Clearly you have never seen Prince Charles in action.

I was going to disagree with Gary's point but Rowling is pretty much a product of the British class system. That said, there are examples of class mobility (Hermione, for example) but by and large it is true that a largely privileged subset of humanity get to go to a fancy school separated off from the common herd (who barely figure in the books, except maybe the vulgar Dursleys). Which sounds a lot like the moneyed classes sending their kids to public school (which is what we Brits call our poshest private schools). So, yeah - though I have to admit, it bothers me not a jot as it's not very different from non-magical versions of kids stories by middle class authors involving orphans, wicked step-families and so on (or, indeed, A Wizard of Earthsea to some extent, which although vastly superior as a book, is also an "inherent magic" sort of place with gifted kids taken off to hone their skills in solitude). It does make it surprisingly old-fashioned - Billy Bunter with spells - but then that was probably its appeal.

While this subject here here is "magic" we do have an inherently 'American' version of this idea as well.

We call them the X-Men.
Consider how many parallels exist between the Mutants of Marvel's Universe an the Wizards of Rowling's.

This is not really about how people view magic, but more about different forms of social "angst" about being some kind of "other."

But no, this feeling is not new.