Letters: On Fantasy Fiction

I commend William Thomas on his analysis of fantasy literature, in which he highlighted the benefits and drawbacks of this genre. I would like to point out a fundamental difference between the role of magic in the Harry Potter series and its role in The Lord of the Rings saga. Harry Potter's identity revolves around his magical powers. If it were not for his magical powers, he would have been just another ordinary boy, not unlike Frodo of The Lord of the Rings. In contrast, Frodo struggles against the magical power of the ring in order to preserve his identity. The bond between Harry Potter and his friends is founded on their common magical gifts. The Fellowship of the Ring brings together a great variety of individuals whose bond is founded on their common human values. The outcome of the battle of good and evil in the Harry Potter books is determined by which side has the stronger magic. The battle of good and evil in The Lord of the Rings is fought by humans (or human-like elves and dwarfs) against the power of magic. The good has no hope without magic in the universe of Harry Potter, while it only needs a little help from the good magician Gandalf in the universe of The Lord of the Rings.

Michelle Fram Cohen

William Thomas responds:

I have tended to think of Harry Potter as the poor cousin of the fantasy genre but have never systematically marshaled my reasons. Michelle Fram Cohen's thoughtful remarks point to one of them. Certainly, it is disturbing that in the Harry Potter books the non-magical people, the "muggles," never figure in substantial, positive roles. That is one aspect of the broader shortcoming of the series: Potter's world is not very well worked out, and in particular the relations between the muggles and the magicals seem less and less plausible as we go along.

I would note that both series are troubling in their use of magic. In my article, I wrote that magic in fantasy fiction can be an alternative skill that must be rigorously learned, or at the other extreme can appear as a mechanism for wish-fulfillment and effortless knowledge. Harry Potter is explicitly a student of magic at Hogwarts, and his skill grows as the books proceed. Yet there doesn't seem to be much study involved for Harry. He tends to pick up whatever he needs and often acquires skills willy-nilly. (I mentioned his ability to speak to serpents; his talent at Quidditch is another example.) I think his friend Hermione is much more heroic: she actually bothers to do the hard work.

But The Lord of the Rings fares little better in this respect. It is true, as Cohen notes, that great deeds are done without the influence of magic or in spite of it. But the success of the heroes still depends crucially on magic. The heroes take respite in the magical elvish havens of Rivendell and Lothlorien. The wizard Gandalf plays a vital role: he identifies the ring and its danger, he fights the demonic Balrog, he magically frees King Theoden of Rohan, and he uses the magical speed and endurance of his steed Shadowfax to marshal the defense of that realm. Aragorn brings dead heroes to the defense of Gondor. But while magic plays such a large role, it remains entirely mysterious: the reader has no idea what Gandalf can or cannot do, or what powers the elves actually have. And Aragorn studies nothing to master the ways of the dead. In Tolkien, magic appears like a revelation or grace, and indeed it is probably a symbol for divine or demonic intervention.

William Thomas