Classification of magic users.

[owlcroft]

Reading some James Branch Cabell tonight I ran across a distinction he made between wizards and sorcerers. I won't repeat it here, but rather will ask the question that it provoked in my mind: how, if at all, do most readers sense any differences between the various types of magic-users described in fantastic fiction? Individual authors may, in one or several books, make some distinction, but others will make others. Is there a readerly consensus?

A probably incomplete sampling includes:

• wizard
• warlock
• sorceror
• magician
• witch
• magus
• mage
• conjuror
• enchanter

 

[Rulkez]

I see those examples as all being sub categories of a mage (probably due to playing a lot of western RPG's)

The only real distinction would be power ( magus and warlock being the most powerful down to conjurers and enchanters )

The way is see it is that they are all mages, and where a magus or warlock could probably do conjuration and enchantment ( aswell as say destructive or healing magic ) an enchanter or conjurer will be restricted to their respective disciplines.

I think it will be impossible to find a general consensus amongst fantasy fans, there simply isn't any real hard and fast rules governing magic users (or their distinctions) within the genre .

 

[JCD]

Within a work of fantasy, terms have the meaning the writer invests in them. The only real consensus may be the fact that they are all practitioners of magic in one way or the other. You didn't mention the suffix 'mancer'. Add the suffix 'mancy' to create words like necromancy, pyromancy, geomancy, etc. and you have a magic user who specializes in a specific branch, if you so will. That also seems to be quite an accepted practice.

Since you mentioned it, Goodkind also makes a distinction between sorceror and wizard. There are quite a few wikis out there that further elaborate on that fact.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

The distinction is subjective to the work in question. Some authors use the various terms interchangeably. Others differentiate between them (put them in different fields of magic, or at different power levels).

 

[DailyRich]

D&D makes (or at least used to make) a distinction between wizard and sorcerer as well. A wizard was more a student of magic, required to memorize spells, while a sorcerer was a sort of savant, able to cast spells without preparation, but more limited in scope because he didn't study the way a wizard did.

 

[ObtusePunubiris]

I agree with JCD and Jon. While there may or may not truly be differences in their definitions, I read the terms you listed as synonymous unless an author differentiates among them specifically. Which is, btw, something I like to see an author do.

 

[Bastard]

At the very least I know that Wizards are old dudes with white hair, long beard, pointy hats and a wand... warlock are just evil and like to wear black, a sorcerer has to look seductive and a great manipulator, a magician obviously does magic tricks, and a witch boils frogs in a cauldron and flies on a broom.

 

[Randy M.]

Within a work of fantasy, terms have the meaning the writer invests in them. [...]

To an extent, I agree. However, most writers will play off the meaning already established for a word, choosing that word because of its prior meaning and then redirecting the meaning rather than establishing a whole new meaning.

Of the words owlcroft listed,

sorceror
wizard
mage
magus-- Powerful magic users. The last two would seem to be the strongest of magic users, and the words have the connotation for me of scholar as well as magic user (I admit, I'd like to hit the OED to see what that has to say about these, but I'll blunder on first.)

warlock
witch -- magic users who may be aligned with dark forces; these are words, especially the latter, which Christian mythology colors

magician
conjuror -- might be magic users, might be circus performers; there's the taint of show biz to these words

enchanter -- user of magic that alters the perceptions of others, plays with the mind.


Randy M.

 

[E_Moon]

The distinction is subjective to the work in question. Some authors use the various terms interchangeably. Others differentiate between them (put them in different fields of magic, or at different power levels).

Exactly. It is handy to have quite a few terms, because it allows differentiation, but there's no formal distinction that everyone agrees on, outside the context of a given book or game. "Magic user" would cover them all.

One of the common distinctions, across a range of books, is between magic-using ability someone is born with (though they may need some training in its use, like being born with perfect pitch), magic-using ability that can be acquired by anyone who has a magic artifact, and magic-using ability that can be acquired by anyone (or anyone smart enough) by study (as herbal magic, etc.)

 

[Michael B]

Witches/Warlocks tend to be regarded as more evil than sorcerers/sorceresses than enchantrers/enchantresses. Conjurers are more people doing sleight of hand tricks than real magicians.

 

[Fung Koo]

Hobbit/Mark provided a link in another thread to an article by Hal Duncan on the difference between SF and Fantasy, wherein he puts forth a pretty cogent argument about the different types of magic:

But Ted Chiang has pointed to a key distinction between science and magic: the former is reproducable industrially, on a mass scale, while the latter is not. Generally, in fact, magic is the preserve of a select elite of exceptional individuals, so much so that it’s often a signifier of their selection by the ultimate magic of the divine, a signifier of their destiny. Unpacking this and looking across the field of fiction though, we can say that human application of magic is located on a spectrum of methods of production that runs thus:

facility (gift) | art (talent)| craft (skill) | technique (process)

In any given work, the rarity of magic is largely a product of where it is placed on this spectrum. Magic may be presented as a facility, a gift that only the exceptional have; it may be presented as an art that only the exceptional will have a talent for, but that is learned almost as much as it is innate; it may be presented as a craft, a skill that comes naturally to some, but that’s more learned than innate and therefore open to use by anyone; it may be presented as a technique, a process which can be reproduced industrially because it is abstracted to mechanistic procedures.

This strikes me as a widely applicable conception of magic systems. Presented as continuum, too, wherein the different ends of the spectrum can be included or not, also strikes me as useful.

For example, in the standard D&D system, Sorcerers and Clerics would be more on the "facility (gift)" side and Thieves and Wizards more on the "technique (process)" side.

Say what you will about the rest of the article, but I thought his elucidation of magic to be pretty spot-on.

 

[Wulfa_Jones]

I always remember that David Edding's magical classification system within the The Belgariad and The Malloreon was quite good.

Memory is a little hazy with time, but the Sorcerers had an innate ability (the will and the word) to perform magic.

Then there were wizards and magicians. I might be wrong or mixed up, but pretty sure that wizards have their power granted from a god (Torak) and that magicians need to use daemons?

Might have to re-read them now.

 

[DurzoBlint]

To an extent, I agree. However, most writers will play off the meaning already established for a word, choosing that word because of its prior meaning and then redirecting the meaning rather than establishing a whole new meaning.

Of the words owlcroft listed,

sorceror
wizard
mage
magus-- Powerful magic users. The last two would seem to be the strongest of magic users, and the words have the connotation for me of scholar as well as magic user (I admit, I'd like to hit the OED to see what that has to say about these, but I'll blunder on first.)

warlock
witch -- magic users who may be aligned with dark forces; these are words, especially the latter, which Christian mythology colors

magician
conjuror -- might be magic users, might be circus performers; there's the taint of show biz to these words

enchanter -- user of magic that alters the perceptions of others, plays with the mind.


Randy M.

I think this is a fair assessment but, I'll chime in with my 2 cents.


sorceror Extremely powerful and scholar in magic
wizard Similar to sorceror but older perhaps an honorary title for someone who is up there in years. (IE: Fizbin and Gandalf)
mage Learned and in their middle years
magus Another title for someone strong/gifted in the magical arts.

I also think that of the terms above they can be used interchangably.
warlock The term for a male witch
witch a woman with no formal training but engages in the magical arts through personal discovery or latent/innate ability. Unlike the western thought where these two are usually seen as people with evil intent. I prefer to see them as having the ability of going either way depending upon their personal goals.

magician person who has an affinity towards magic and has some ability but overall more of a dabbler in the arts.
conjuror Slightly darker than a warlock in that they have very little if any training but have the ability to call upon minions to do their bidding.
enchanter for some reason I see this as a female only talent. The ability to sway or alter a persons thoughts through nefarious means ie: chemical, sexual, etc. It seems that when you come in close proximity to the enchanter you loose the ability to hold your own opinion and are powerless if you are not strong willed/minded.

I really think that it depends on how an author uses the terms within their novel that define the terms. Of course we all have our own mental picture of what the characters look like and their power levels. So to a certain extent it is define by what we read and what we see in our minds that truly define the term.

It is an interesting topic that is for sure and I would love to hear other people's opinion on the subject.

 

[Michael B]

I really think that it depends on how an author uses the terms within their novel that define the terms. Of course we all have our own mental picture of what the characters look like and their power levels. So to a certain extent it is define by what we read and what we see in our minds that truly define the term.

This is a very good point. If you look at the Arthurian legends or Greek and Norse myths magic workers of all persuasions are regarded in a negative light because real men use brute force to achieve their aims, not sneaky underhand methods like spells. In such worlds Gandalf and Harry Potter would not the darlings they are in ours but at the very least dark personages to be avoided what possible.

 

[owlcroft]

Fascinating.

Thank you for the various responses. I was curious to see if anyone had any sense of a well-ordered hierarchy, which I did (and do) not, and it appears that though there are general senses, it is all rather vague and--as several have noted--really up to an author who uses any of those terms to define them for the given setting.

Even terms often felt negative can, for a given author, be neutral or good (as witness Glinda).

 

[KatG]

There's no consensus at all. The words are synonyms and interchangeable, used commonly in multiple cultures and languages. There are multiple meanings to all of the words in the real world languages, and then authors invent new definitions for the words. You don't even need to use any of those words; authors can use completely different terms for magic use. Only a few of the words, such as necromancer, which means something specific, define an idea of particular magic, and even there, the term is highly mutable for fantasy fiction.

In the real world, people often bring assumptions to words that are not necessarily accurate. Witch is not a woman -- it applies to male or female. It is not necessarily a Satanic or evil designation. It was used as the equivalent to priest in older times and that meaning has been renewed for religions such as neo-pagans and santeria/voodoo. Warlock is a term from Old English meaning one who lies, breaks faith. It eventually was used to apply to those accused of using black magic, and in modern times was sometimes used to designate male Satanic witches.

So saying that a witch is this and a magnus is that is largely useless, except for your own amusement. Certainly it isn't a system that any fantasy writer needs to be constrained by. In addition to magic users, as well, there are magical forces, magical energies, magical creatures, etc.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Certainly it isn't a system that any fantasy writer needs to be constrained by.

This is a great forum. I just found it. And for aspiring fantasy writers, these topics and discussions provide startling insight into readers' perspectives and palates.

Anyway, I read over all the previous posts, and the statement quoted above seems to make a wise point. As someone else wrote earlier, these terms are mostly interchangeable depending on the perspective and specific subjectivity of the actual author who is using them.

Of couse, we all bring our own particular, perhaps peculiar, perspectives with us when we view these designations. For example, forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't notice "Shaman" or "Witch Doctor" or "Medicine Man" added to the list. Depending on culture, custom and/or education, it is most likely that many people would view these designations as weaker magic-users. Perhaps, but then perhaps not. These types of designations most likely evoke images of aboriginal, native, self-schooled, religious-type magic-users. And certainly, no bone-in-the-nose shaman who dances to make it rain can compete with a powerful sorceror who can shake the foundations of mountains with a wave of the hand. But, then again, maybe the shaman can compete.

It is up to the author, the story's creator, to make their story believable, or at least acceptable to our fantasy palate, regardless of how fiercely it challenges traditional concepts and models. It could also give budding writers ideas about possible plots . . . imagine the story of a formally-trained, studious Mage getting somehow outmatched by a shoeless witch doctor. It is up to the author to make us see this. And too, depending on the author's particular perspective and their ability to make us see it, perhaps it is the witch doctor who went to magic college, while the mage got his credentials online.

 

[owlcroft]

You could look it up.

It occurred to me--better late than never--that illumination might well be sought from the premier resource on the meanings and derivations of words in English, to wit the Oxford English Dictionary. Here are some brief summaries of what the OED has to say about some terms of interest here (the full entries for each are very long, and include many dated examples of use and evolution, but this is--with, I hope, acceptable accuracy--the gist.

• conjuror (also conjurer): The root sense is "swear together" (and many older uses with no reference to magic have that meaning). In relation to magic: "to invoke by supernatural power, to effect by magic or jugglery". In its oldest use as relates to magic, it seems to have been applied to religiously acceptable use: "to call upon, constrain (a devil or spirit) to appear or do one's bidding by the invocation of some sacred name or the use of some 'spell'." Later, the sacred association waned, "Passing from the mediaeval sense sanctioned by religion, through that belonging to the belief in magic and witchcraft, to the modern professional 'conjuror' or juggler."
  
• enchanter (also enchaunter): From the root sense "sing on" or "sing against". One who exerts a magical influence upon; bewitches, lays under a spell. Also, one who endows things with magical powers or properties.
  
• mage: merely the Anglicized form of magus.
  
• magician: From, of course, the root "magic". "One skilled in magic or sorcery; a necromancer, wizard", a definition that obviously confounds several other terms. Further note: "The 'magic' which made use of evil or doubtful spirits was of course always regarded as sinful; but 'natural magic', i.e. that which did not involve recourse to the agency of personal spirits, was in the Middle Ages usually regarded as a legitimate department of study and practice so long as it was not employed for malificent ends."
  
• magus: From a Persian root, originally denoting "a member of a Persian priestly caste (said by ancient historians to have been originally a Median tribe). Hence, in wider sense, one skilled in Oriental magic and astrology, an ancient magician or sorcerer." (Note again the conflating of terms.) Also "applied by Irish historians to the heathen sorcerers who opposed St. Patrick."
  
• medicine man: Obviously from the root "medicine". That root word is, in one sense, "used to represent the terms applied in their native language by North American Indians to denote any object or ceremony supposed by them to possess a magic influence; a spell, charm, fetish; sometimes = Manitou. Hence used, by later writers, to express the same or similar meanings as current among other savage [sic] peoples." There is a sub-note: "As savages usually regard the operation of medicines as due to what we should call magic, it is probable that their word for magical agencies would often be first heard by civilized men [sic] as applied to medicine, and hence it would be natural that 'medicine' should be regarded as their primary sense."
  
• shaman: Root origin Oriental, but unknown in detail; supposed derivation from the Persian shemen, "idol" or "temple" is spurious; it is most likely from a Mongolian rendering of the Chinese term sha mên, a variety of ordained Buddhist, but firm evidence is lacking. "A priest or priest-doctor among various northern tribes of Asia. Hence applied by extension to similar personages in other parts, esp. a medicine man of the north-western American aborigines."
  
• sorceror: The word doesn't exactly have a "root", in that it has always meant, in much the same form, "The use of magic or enchantment; the practice of magic arts; witchcraft." (Yet again a conflating of terms.)
  
• warlock: The roots of this one seem to include a mix of traitor, liar, enemy, deceiver, and the like. The first part, "war", probably signifies covenant, truth, vow, solemn promise; the second, "lock", signifies lie, belie, or deny; the sum, then, seems much like "oath-breaker". Indeed, the known senses seem to have progressed from "oath-breaker" or "traitor" through "wicked person" (a general term of reproach or abuse), to the greatest of wicked oath-breakers (in the mediaeval European mind), Satan; thereafter it came to signify any devil, demon, or inhabitant of hell, thence a savage or monstrous creature hostile to humans. Finally, it settled into the modern acceptance, "one in league with the Devil and so possessing occult and evil powers; a sorceror, wizard (sometimes imagined as inhuman or demonic . . .); the male equivalent of witch."
  
• witch: Older forms include most or all of the bizarre spellings revived of late, but the word always had the same meaning: "A female magician, sorceress; in later use esp. a woman supposed to have dealings with the devil or evil spirits and to be able by their cooperation to perform supernatural acts."
  
• witch doctor: same as medicine man, above.
  
• wizard: The root is "wise man", hence philosopher or sage--though in early times the use was "often contemptuous". Thence "a man who is skilled in occult arts; in later use, a man who practices witchcraft (the masculine correlative of 'witch')." Also sometimes used for witch doctor or medicine man."

As we seem all to have agreed, a given writer can use any term in any way without flagrantly offending any prevailing understanding, because few if any such standards in fact prevail. But there are general senses: a benevolent warlock, say, seems strikingly oxymoronic.

 

[KatG]

As we seem all to have agreed, a given writer can use any term in any way without flagrantly offending any prevailing understanding, because few if any such standards in fact prevail. But there are general senses: a benevolent warlock, say, seems strikingly oxymoronic.

Well no, it's only oxymoronic if you stick with the original meaning of "warlock." But you don't have to. You can make warlock mean something else entirely. The warlocks may in fact be the benevolent guardians of mankind, protecting it from dark forces. Warlocks may be the word in your alternate world fantasy given to great chieftains or their magical advisers, and it may not mean breaking faith, but something else entirely. I can also call magic users breadmakers or oranguatans. Dark doesn't have to mean evil, light can be bad. Up can be down and right can be left. The North can be hot and the South can be cold. The tooth fairy may eat children. The Devil may be the good guy. Vampires can be the love of your life instead of ghouls. And many gods, like Kali, Isis, etc., may be good or bad, depending on the myth, the situation, the aspect, etc.

So I don't think you're going to have a classification system that applies across the board, even vaguely. It's all raw material to writers.

 

[owlcroft]

But who knows what's next?

What I meant is that where a given term has no strong prevailing sense, a writer can do anything with it fearlessly. But when a particular term has a strong sense of some sort associated with it--as evil is with warlocks--it requires a conscious decision to go against the grain, and the writer had best have some some strong reason for defying common expectation.

Baum accustomed us to "good witches", and I get the impression the the current rage for vampirrhea has made the concept of "nice" vampires possible, and Gandalf was, well, Gandalf--and so on. Even Mephistopheles, in the robin-hood-cap-and-goatee version has been, to some extent sanitized.

But Willy the Warm-Hearted Warlock definitely has an uphill walk.