(no subject)
Doing my entry yesterday, I started thinking about the different fantasy archetypes. They can be divided in all sorts of ways: Magicians/Fighters, Magicians/Fighters/Rogues, Magicians/Priests/Knights/Barbarians etc. But the general point is, as time goes on, magic users become more and more common. It seems strange when you compare it to a lot earlier fantasies. In Lord of the Rings, there are only five true wizards, and I imagine combined with sorcerors, you only roughly get one non-Elvish magic user per sovereign nation. "Wizarding schools" were not particularly common, in fact, when Gandalf or Merlin took pupils, it was in lore, not wizardy, they instructed them in. (With a notable exception on Merlin's part, and I'll get to that in a bit) In fact, the earliest example I can find of such a school with a multiple student body was Scholomance, a Transylvanian institute run by the devil. So why are wizards, witches, or whatever you want to call them, so much more common?
The first and easy answer is that we're a more secular society, so we don't flinch as much to magic. It's usually the result of some neutral, all--powerful force, not bargaining with demonds. At least in cases where the magic-using populace is pretty large; Pact magic is still used in cases where magicians aren't very common and I suppose, when not part of the main course. Having magic have a "cost" makes for less escapism, and potentially a less likeable lead.
Secondly, it's a reflection of our society on a technological level, and the values that ensue. When we have inventions that can allow us to see in the dark, travel great distances, and communicate with the other side of the globe, it takes a lot more to wow us. Granted, a lot of period pieces are still popular, but this is the thing; Most period fiction has emphasized more and more, how different and maybe difficult it was in olden times. In our relatively comfy, anti-septic lives, it's exotic. But there's a risk to throwing too moderate an amount of magic to the mix, because then you sanitize that setting, and a sanitized, non-modern setting is neither familiar, nor compelling. If it's not going to be heart-breakingly gritty, it should be wondrous, and that takes a lot in the age of cell-phones that can do anything. I wouldn't be surprised to find, in the real world, magic feats in folklore escalated as technology improved. (Grimm's fairy tales were collected not too long before the Industrial Revolution)
Similarly, in such a high-tech heavy era, we have relocated what we value as assets in human beings. The Knight in shining armor types are not trendy right now. What we have are dirty, gritty antiheroes, or brainy, introspective sorts, which, in fantasy settings, are wizards. I mentioned yesterday how people kind of switch technology/science as the setting goes, and the more intellectual and less brawny folks that make up our engineers and scientists are seen as more important on the world stage. (Or at least, the bookish, possibly outcast people more likely to read and write these books in the first place) Also, it may be our aspirations towards egalitarianism at work. If Middle Earth only has as many wizards as it does monarchs, what happens when we have a house of representatives. While hardly "populist", there is a sentiment that maybe power should be shared a little bit.
And finally, I think it's the equality of women, to a certain extent. If there's one area that women weren't given a lack of spotlight in folklore, it was the realm of magic. Unfortunately, that was not meant to be flattering. But as women and witchcraft are both less marginalized, what was once meant to be a mutual slander is now a beneficial partnership. Because a good sized chunk of half the population was good at it, why not play it up? Maybe the stud muffin of the party is good with the sword, but the woman is handy with the universe.
The first and easy answer is that we're a more secular society, so we don't flinch as much to magic. It's usually the result of some neutral, all--powerful force, not bargaining with demonds. At least in cases where the magic-using populace is pretty large; Pact magic is still used in cases where magicians aren't very common and I suppose, when not part of the main course. Having magic have a "cost" makes for less escapism, and potentially a less likeable lead.
Secondly, it's a reflection of our society on a technological level, and the values that ensue. When we have inventions that can allow us to see in the dark, travel great distances, and communicate with the other side of the globe, it takes a lot more to wow us. Granted, a lot of period pieces are still popular, but this is the thing; Most period fiction has emphasized more and more, how different and maybe difficult it was in olden times. In our relatively comfy, anti-septic lives, it's exotic. But there's a risk to throwing too moderate an amount of magic to the mix, because then you sanitize that setting, and a sanitized, non-modern setting is neither familiar, nor compelling. If it's not going to be heart-breakingly gritty, it should be wondrous, and that takes a lot in the age of cell-phones that can do anything. I wouldn't be surprised to find, in the real world, magic feats in folklore escalated as technology improved. (Grimm's fairy tales were collected not too long before the Industrial Revolution)
Similarly, in such a high-tech heavy era, we have relocated what we value as assets in human beings. The Knight in shining armor types are not trendy right now. What we have are dirty, gritty antiheroes, or brainy, introspective sorts, which, in fantasy settings, are wizards. I mentioned yesterday how people kind of switch technology/science as the setting goes, and the more intellectual and less brawny folks that make up our engineers and scientists are seen as more important on the world stage. (Or at least, the bookish, possibly outcast people more likely to read and write these books in the first place) Also, it may be our aspirations towards egalitarianism at work. If Middle Earth only has as many wizards as it does monarchs, what happens when we have a house of representatives. While hardly "populist", there is a sentiment that maybe power should be shared a little bit.
And finally, I think it's the equality of women, to a certain extent. If there's one area that women weren't given a lack of spotlight in folklore, it was the realm of magic. Unfortunately, that was not meant to be flattering. But as women and witchcraft are both less marginalized, what was once meant to be a mutual slander is now a beneficial partnership. Because a good sized chunk of half the population was good at it, why not play it up? Maybe the stud muffin of the party is good with the sword, but the woman is handy with the universe.