Note: Some of you may recognize this series from my old blog, "Whispers in the Earthquake." I'm working on a novel at the moment and have decided to repost some older stuff for the next four weeks to give myself more time with it. I think it still holds up. In fact, I guarantee you'll love it, or your money back.

In my last post, I argued (very well and persuasively I think, with just the right amount of subtle humor) that we need a better definition of the wizard character, that there are, in fact, entirely too many people claiming the title, and that, as a rule, I spend way too much time every day thinking about this.

But now that we've settled the question of what a wizard is, we can ask ourselves the next question: What makes a wizard awesome? To answer that question, I present to you a new ranking scale, bound to take the geek world by storm…

The MERLINS

The MERLINS system is designed to account for all of the things that we love about wizards, from the tops of their peaked wool hats to the tips of their holly-wood wands. It is a rubric by which we can compare wizards across multiple books, movies, and T.V. shows. (OK, fine, graphic novels as well. Nerd.)

It also has the benefit of appearing to be more objective, though of course I'm making everything up based on my own personal preference. But I think you'll agree with me on most of it.

Here's how it works. There are seven categories representing the seven most important characteristics of any given wizard (the number seven being, as Tom Riddle points out, the most powerful magical number). Competing wizards can score 5-15 points in each category, depending on how important that category is and how awesome they are in that category. There are a total of 70 points possible.

Sooooo...

• A "perfect" wizard would score 70 points on the MERLINS scale
• An "average" wizard would score 35 points
• A level 85 Mage in World of Warcraft would score -18 points

I should also note that, come hell or high water, I was set on calling this system MERLINS from the get go, and I spent a long, long time trying to get the abbreviations to work. So yes, I know some of them are a stretch, but it was totally worth it. Trust me, you'll talk yourself into it eventually.

OK, one last note before we get started: I noticed while writing this that I kept awkwardly referring to "a wizard" to describe things, and then I wouldn't know what pronoun to use after that (because, as I noted in the last piece, wizards can be female). This led me to write sentences like, "If a wizard is hungry, then a wizard could conjure up a delicious Subway chicken breast on hot and toasty flatbread to enjoy while on a wizard's picnic."

So in order to avoid terrible sentences like that, I'll be using a hypothetical wizard named Hyp O. Thetical. (You see what I did there?) Hyp is a vigorous, balding gentleman from the low hills of southern Italy. When he's not out helping young heroes complete their quests, he spends most of his time drinking copious amounts of red wine and shooting fireworks out of his ears. I'll be subjecting Hyp to each of the following MERLINS categories, just so we can all see how things play out in practice. We good with that?

Excellent! Then let's dive right into the wonderful world of...

Magic

15 points possible

Magic is the measure of a wizard's supernatural power. There are two subcategories within Magic: Raw Power and Relative Power. The total Magic score is simply the sum of the two subcategories, like this:

Magic = Raw Power + Relative Power

Raw Power

12 points possible

Raw Power is worth 12 of the 15 points in the Magic category. We will be judging wizards in this sub-category based entirely on the absolute awesomeness of their magic. The more awesome their power, the more points we award. The precise amount of awesomeness is determined by the Theodorus Scale, named after my favorite character in Heroes of Might and Magic III, because it's my system and I get to do whatever I want.

Below you'll see nine different categories of Raw Power. Wizards earn points in a category by being able to do something within that category. Any one thing will do. There's no need to do multiple things, nor do we award any bonus points for being able to do multiple things.

Why not? Because I've fiddled with different scoring systems for an hour now, and this is the simplest. Also, it's impossible to list all of the things that might fit within a category. Magic, after all, is bound only by the limits of the imagination.

Remember also that you can only score 12 points in Raw Power, so any wizard that would otherwise go over 12 points will have their score reduced. Again, this is entirely because I'm tired of trying to make the numbers work out.

The Theodorus Scale is as follows, from lamest powers to coolest powers:

Party Tricks - 1 point

This category includes all of the following:

• Lights: Abilities that create or remove light - fireworks, mage-lights, the Deluminator, etc.
• Sounds: Abilities that create or deaden sound - snaps, crackles, pops, etc.
• Tricks: Minor abilities that make life easier - cooking, cleaning , opening locks, starting fires, etc.
• Jokes: Weasley's Wizard Wheezes. 'Nuff said.

Martial Arts - 1 point

This category includes any form of power that improves a wizard's strength, speed, endurance, quickness, skill, aim, stamina, jumping ability, hand-eye coordination, tap-dancing, Frisbee throwing, or Kan Jamming. Basically, wizards get points here for kicking ass on a regular basis with anything other than their magic.

This also includes what most video game players would call "buffs," where a wizard uses his/her magic to increase the strength, speed, stamina, etc of somebody else, usually before an important battle or something. I love it when Martial Arts get invoked, since they often lead to some pretty sweet sequences where old men rip through hordes of evil creatures with staff and sword. See also: Lord of the Rings, Gandalf.

Plants and Animals - 1 point

Potions, potions, potions! Also includes powers that help wizards talk with animals, improve crop yields, and encourage the local male and female goats to get friendly.

These kinds of powers are very useful to have around when you're in a tight spot and need something to move the plot forward. Looking for a quick update on the latest evil doings of the Dark Prince? Just grab a quick chat with the local raven! They always seem to know everything. It's like a magical version of Twitter.

Second Sight - 2 points

I'm afraid Professor Trelawny did quite a bit of harm to the reputation of Second Sight, being such a hopeless, owl-eyed fraud (well, a quasi-fraud at any rate). Future predicting is old news in the wizard world, however, so luckily there's a large tradition of awesomeness to fall back on when old owl-eyes fails us. Also included in this category are certain "far seeing" forms of magic that can look on current people and events at great distances.

If this power worked perfectly all of the time, however, there often wouldn't be much of a story to tell, so Second Sight is notoriously finicky and unreliable. ("Always in motion is the future," says a wise little green man.) This probably has something to do with our distaste for the idea that our choices don't matter. In spite of much evidence to the contrary, we like to think we are in control of our lives. See also: The Matrix, NE0.

Elemental Spells - 2 points

Almost everyone is familiar with Elemental Spells in some form? Here's a quick review for those of you who don't - a good, clean, elemental wizard duel.

The men faced each other across ten grim yards of broken flagstones, the two masters of Gramarye, last workers of the ancient magic of the Old Times. The ruins of the once-mighty palace stood around them like onlookers, hidden in the shadows &em; silent witnesses to this, the final battle of the Twelfth Cycle.

Then Old Maelk gestured sharply with his oaken staff, and lightning burst from its tip with a terrifying shriek, hurtling toward the heart of The Heron-Prince. With a roar the Prince struck down with his sword, turning the bolt from his heart, flinging it back to the earth.

The light broke on the ground beneath his feet, and the earth trembled as if in pain from the great blow. Then with a shudder the earth split in front of the Prince and yawned away from him like an arrow, flagstones flying into the air in its wake. But ere it swallowed up Old Maelk, it broke and passed around the old man's steady staff, washing away like a wave around the rocks on a granite shore.

Undaunted, the Heron-Prince lifted his sapphire ring into the sky, and called upon the spirits of the wind in a strange and fell tongue, which no mortal man can speak and yet live. The blue of his sapphire burned bright in the gathering gloom, and the powers of the whirlwind spun above him. Faster and faster the darkness spun, and faster and darker, until a great tornado of black wind twisted to the ground between the two masters, dwarfing them with its howling malevolence. Again the prince called, and flung his arm toward Maelk, as if to pierce him with a javelin, and at his command the whirlwind attacked, snarling like a lioness eager for her prey.

Maelk again held his staff before him, his lined face grimacing in pain and effort. But though he stood in the midst of a black power which would have uprooted a mighty oak tree, yet still his body stood as if in a dead calm, untouched, and not a hair on his head was moved. Then the tip of his staff blazed red as if alight with flame, growing and burning, until it's fiery light matched the icy radiance of the Prince's sapphire. A red serpent of flame blazed forth, hissing through the black wind, shattering its power, twisting up into the sky. Then down the serpent struck, mighty as a comet, red fangs tipped with a fire so hot that they burned white.

The Prince called aloud again, desperation twisting his face. With a rushing roar came a solid wall of water, surging out of the earth, still cracked before his feet. Water and flame met in a great crash, and steam billowed forth in rolling waves, obscuring Old Maelk and the Heron-Prince, enveloping, indeed, the whole palace, so that even the silent stone watchers could not have seen how the battle fared.

Though many years later, some old women still swore that one could look on that great battle of the elemental powers from a distance, and see in the rolling steam clouds two great and terrible shapes, throwing lightning back and forth like a child's ball...

Mind Control - 2 points

The two uses of mind control that stick in my memory the most are:

1. Obi-Wan Kenobi talking to the Storm Troopers in Mos Eisley. ("These aren't the droids you're looking for...")
2. Mad-Eye Moody jerking a spider around like a puppet in Harry Potter. ("Think it's funny do you?" he growled. "You'd like it, would you, if I did it to you?")

The weird part is that one is the action of a good guy, and the other is supposed to demonstrate the incredible evil of the exact same action. Mind control is both a Jedi trick and an Unforgivable curse, and somehow I manage to hold both of these contradictory characterizations in my head at the same time. Thus it's awesomeness is tempered by the dangers of it, and the fear we all have that our choices are not our own.

Transfiguration - 3 points

I'm thinking more about human transfiguration here. Turning a porcupine into a pincushion is closer to a Party Trick than an awesome power. But turning yourself into a wolf or a bear or a penguin? Pretty awesome.

Space and Time - 3 points

Space and Time powers help wizards bend the laws of physics to suit their purposes. We're talking Apparition, Traveling, super-speed, stopping time, traveling through time, and confusing people by traveling through time.

One of my favorite Space and Time powers is in The Wheel of Time series, where magic wielders can use a fearsome (and forbidden) weapon called balefire. Balefire looks like liquid light and destroys everything it touches. The unique part is that this destruction occurs backwards through time, so that a very strong beam of balefire can undo a person's life for hours, days, or sometimes even weeks. Thus anything that person had done within that erased time period is undone, people they kill become unkilled, sandwiches they eat become uneaten, etc.

Light or Darkness - 3 points

There are a lot of really awesome powers that don't seem to fit into any particular category except what I'm calling Light or Darkness. Some examples include:

• Darkness
  • Necromancy - Communicating with the dead or raising undead servants like zombies, Inferi, skeleton warriors, Cauldron-Born, etc.
  • Demonology - Calling on demons, Satan, or evil spirits.
  • Corruption - Causing disease, pain, or madness.
  • Unmaking - Killing or destroying with dark magic.
• Light
  • Protection - Defending or shielding someone from evil, like a Patronus charm or Gandalf's last stand on the Bridge of Khazad-dum.
  • Brilliance - Hard to describe, it's basically anytime you see a beam of white light shooting at a bad guy
  • Healing
  • Love

Relative Power

3 points possible

So that's all for Raw Power. Not all magical worlds are created equal, however, so I wanted to build in a small correction that recognizes wizards who are stuck in less powerful worlds. We'll call it Relative Power.

Relative Power = Power of a wizard relative to all other magical beings within a given world.

For example, I think we'd all agree that if Hyp (remember him?) could do everything on our Magic list, he'd be pretty awesome. But I'd also say that even with all those cool abilities, Hyp would become a lot less awesome if there were fifty other characters in his world who could do exactly the same things that he could do, since all those marvelous wonders would suddenly be rather commonplace. It would still be a pretty sweet common place, but not as sweet.

The Relative Power scale (often called the Einstein Scale by absolutely no one) is pretty simple.

• 3 points - for being the most powerful being in your fictional universe
• 2 points - for being in the top three
• 1 point - for being in the top twelve
• 0 points - for being below the top twelve

Hyp's Score: Unfortunately, the only supernatural thing that Hyp can do is shoot sparks out of his ears (the ability to drink copious amounts of red wine being, of course, quite common). So he's stuck in "Party Tricks" category and scores only 1 point in Raw Power. However, since he hypothetically lives in our hypothetically real world, which (as far as we hypothetically know) does not contain any other person with magical powers, Hyp would score 3 points on the Relative Power scale.

So his total Magic score would be:

1RAP + 3REP = 4 points

Exploits

10 points possible

This is not "exploits" the verb, as in "That greasy oil tycoon regularly exploits Nature for his own gain." This is "exploits" the noun as in, "The court bards sang songs of his exploits for three ages of men."

Exploits refer to adventures, deeds, and other risky and unexpected undertakings. This category is basically a list of everything cool that a wizard has ever done. Harry Potter lovers can think of this as very similar to Chocolate Frog Cards. Wizards receive points based on the number, nature, and importance of their Exploits. So the more things you do, the cooler those things are, and the more important those things are to the history of your world, the more points you get.

This is a highly subjective category, and a really fun one, since we basically have to make impossible decisions.

For example, tell me which of these famous wizard Exploits should receive more points:

• Dumbledore's defeat of the Dark Wizard Grindewald.
• Gandlaf's defeat of the Balrog of Moria.

I'd personally go with Gandalf. The gigantic Balrog is more badass and terrifying than the blond, blue-eyed, second-most powerful Dark Wizard of all time; the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog actually appears in the books and movies (and is satisfyingly epic); and the stakes of that battle were higher. It's a bigger deal if Gandalf loses that fight, since there's a good chance the Balrog would have gotten it's demonic claws on the One Ring. I don't think that would've ended too well for Middle Earth.

But you could make arguments against it, so this can lead to some fun debates.

Hyp's Score: Hyp doesn't have a whole lot to go on in this category. He is regionally famous for allegedly breaking the world speed record for drinking a yard of ale, but that's never been confirmed. Other than that, old Hyp O. strikes out.

(By the way, isn't it great that something like the yard of ale exists? Thanks 17th century England!)

o points

Raillery

10 points possible

Word of the day! Raillery is defined by the internet as "good-natured banter or teasing." As a category, it's basically a measure of how funny a wizard is. Everyone likes funny people, especially old funny people, and the best wizards offer plenty of quips, jokes, and well-pointed sarcasm.

Some good ones:

• Brides are radiant. Bridegrooms are nervous. Does that give you any inclination as to who really runs this world?" - Belgarath the Sorcerer
• "What do you mean, ["good morning"]? Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?" - Gandalf
• "Now I think I'll have a nice cup of tea, or a large brandy." - Dumbledore
• "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything." - Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander

Hyp's Score: Big points here! Hyp is a natural clown, and a blast at parties. He's spent much of his two hundred years of life collecting a growing assortment of dirty jokes, and is currently the six-time defending champion of the annual O'Henry Pun-Off in Austin, Texas. There's not a whole lot of wisdom in Hyp's jokes though, so we'll dock him a few points for that, as well as another point for getting pretty cruel around 2:00 AM most nights.

7 points

Looks

5 points possible

No fake scoring system would be complete without taking into account the visual appeal of a wizard, so here it is. This category is pretty wide open, but some common point scorers include:

• Hats, especially pointed, wool ones in solid colors
• Spectacles, especially if the story refers to them as "spectacles," instead of glasses. (Isn't it odd that wizards can move space and time and the minds of men, but they're still a bit behind the Muggles when it comes to laser corrective surgery?)
• Sandals or boots
• Beards
• Long robes
• "Active" eyes. If they twinkle at you, penetrate you, or swallow you up, then they score. Also, that last sentence sounded vaguely dirty.
• Rope belts
• Unusual height, either tall or short
• White hair, especially if it is "wild" or "unruly"
• Staffs, wands, rings, or other magical items

I'm usually not one for style (cut to my wife Madelyn nodding vigorously), but I've always loved the traditional wizard look, as well as all of the various permutations and combinations of that look. It marks a wizard out as a unique being, with a unique purpose. It's fairly easy to fake or mimic though, so it's not worth as much as some of our other categories.

Hyp's Score: Points here for Hyp's wine gut and red-face, as well as his distinctly mismatched Wellington boots. Hyp is also often spotted wearing the unused celebratory T-shirts for Super Bowl runner-ups, particularly the 2007 Patriots. Hyp is severely short-sighted, but, alas, he wears contacts.

3 points

Intellectum

5 points possible

Yeah, I know, I'm really stretching for this one.

Intellectum is a Latin word that means "to understand." This category basically measures a wizard's wisdom. I could have just called this "Intelligence," but that doesn't have quite the same connotation as "understanding," and "I" was the only letter left. Also Intellectum looks more wizard-ish.

Wisdom is one half of Wizard Rule #2, so you might think it would be worth more than five points. But it's actually worth less because it is so necessary. All wizards have wisdom; if one didn't, he would cease to be a wizard. Therefore there's not really as much range in the amount or quality of wisdom among wizards. They're all fairly equal.

We'll score this one simply by adding up the number of wise things that a wizard says or does, scoring one point for every instance of wisdom, up to a maximum of five. We can expect that most wizards will score four or five.

Hyp's Score: Hmm...Well not all wizards. Let's just move on.

1 point

Normalishness

10 points possible

Yeah, I know, I'm really really stretching on this one.

Normalishness is a nonsense word that I made up. It is defined, roughly, as "the extent to which you think you would enjoy yourself if you split six beers with this guy/gal over a ballgame." Sure it's great to be stoic and somber and serious and unruffled and phelgmatic and imperturbable and halycon. (Thanks thesaurus.com!) But I also want to know that my wizard is a real person, with actual human emotions. I want to know that he could still exist outside the world of dangerous adventures and epic battles, even if I never get to witness him actually living in that world.

Ask yourself the following ten questions about whatever wizard you are scoring. If you can answer "Yes" to a question, then give your wizard a point for that question, up to the maximum of ten. Just be sure to replace the word "Hyp" with the name of your wizard, OK? And remember to breathe... (OK I'm running out of jokes, need to wrap this one up)

Hyp's Score

1. If you went to a ball game with Hyp, would you enjoy yourself? +1
2. Would you let Hyp babysit your kids? +0
3. Would Hyp go with you to a sports bar and buy a pitcher for the table? +1
4. Would Hyp ever fart in a crowded elevator? +1
5. Would he admit it? +1
6. Would Hyp ever consent to letting a five year old girl ride him like an imaginary pony? +1
7. If Hyp made a mistake, would he apologize for it? +1
8. Would Hyp cry from watching any of the following movies: Old Yeller, Titanic, E.T., It's a Wonderful Life, or Ghost? +1
9. Does Hyp ever seem worried about anything? +0
10. Has Hyp ever been in love? +0

7 points

Story

15 points possible

In this category we award wizards points for the quality of the story in which they appear. This is one of the most subjective and personal categories, and thus is likely to see the largest swings from one judge to the next, and the most contentious debates.

Here's how you score. Think of every story you've ever read or seen in a movie that has a wizard in it. Every single one. OK got it? Now rank them 1-15. You don't have to do it exactly if you don't want to, just get an approximation. Some of you, n fact, may be struggling to come up with fifteen, in which case I say, God bless you for reading this whole damn thing.

Now, where does the wizard in question appear? Wherever he/she is, give him/her a corresponding number of points such that number one on the list receives 15 points, number two receives 14, number three 13 and so on until number 15, which receives one point. If the wizard in question does not appear on your list, than give them 0 points.

For me, Lord of the Rings still holds the title belt in this category, and probably always will. It's really not even very close. I'm not going to get into all of the reasons why in this post (cut to Madelyn weeping with relief), but I've got a lot of them.

The big problem with this category is that it's almost totally dependent on everything else that you've read. For example, I hear that The Mists of Avalon is a really good book, but I've never read it. I have no idea how it compares to Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Same goes for Discworld and Xanth and a hundred other fantasy series. So if you've never read Lord of the Rings, I can't really fault you for picking Harry Potter as your number one and giving Dumbledore a full 15 points in this one. Though if you've read both and you still think Harry Potter is better then you are crazy.

Hyps Score: Since Hyp doesn't really have a story yet, and never will, he gets a fat goose egg in this final category.

0 points

Recap

So that's it! The MERLINS scoring system for ranking all wizards. Hyp ended up with the following score:

Magic: 4
Exploits: 0
Raillery: 7
Looks: 3
Intellectum: 1
Normalishness: 7
Story: 0

That gives Hyp a grand total of 22 points, a significantly below average score. But I'm sure a few cases of wine will cheer him up.

And now we're finally there! A yard of ale for all of you who read everything up to this point. Next week, on to the list!

---

Jordan Jeffers apologizes for continuing to forget to post these on Friday and asks for your forgiveness, whoever you are. Probably his sister-in-law. Feel free to give him electronic encouragement via the little Facebook and Twitter buttons below. It means more to him than you might think.

Note: Some of you may recognize this series from my old blog, "Whispers in the Earthquake." I'm working on a novel at the moment and have decided to repost some older stuff for the next four weeks to give myself more time with it. I think it still holds up. In fact, I guarantee you'll love it, or your money back.

A friend of mine recently sent me a TIME magazine list of the "Top 10 Most Beloved Wizards." I guess I should give the magazine a pass since they called it "beloved" wizards and not "best" wizards, but I hated almost everyone on their list. (Not that they care what I think any way. And I probably read that list half a dozen times, so they certainly got plenty of traffic from someone who claims he doesn't like their work. (Yes I just referred to myself in the third person. I couldn't think of any better way to write that sentence. Plus it gave me an excuse to do a double parenthetical phrase)).

So I asked, why not make my own list? Why not come up with the ultimate, definitive, irreproachable roster of the ten greatest wizards in fictional history? Why not show that highly successful, multi-million dollar magazine how the real professionals do it? Why not ask yourself a number of rhetorical questions in order to introduce a really over thought and unnecessary essay? Why not talk to yourself?

What Makes a Wizard?

I'll get to the list and the ranking system in a bit. First I want to deal with the two problems I had with the TIME list:

1. Gandalf was not number one. (Did I just spoil the ending of this piece?)
2. The list basically includes everyone who has some sort of magical association, even if only by name. Hence their list includes such greats as Mickey Mouse (from Fantasia's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice") and Thomas Edison of all people, who was apparently referred to as the "Wizard of Melo Park" for all of his inventions.

But Thomas Edison is not a wizard, neither is Mickey Mouse or the Wizard of Oz or even Harry Potter. Yes you read that right - Harry Potter is not a wizard. He is a stupendous, short-sighted, brave, remarkable, frustrating hero who also happens to be able to do magic. But he is not a wizard.

The only real wizard at Hogwarts is Albus Dumbledore. In my opinion he is the only wizard in all of the wonderful magical world that Rowling created for us. And I don't mean that he's the coolest or most powerful, and so everyone else looks insignificant next to his greatness. I mean he is literally the only one that qualifies.

Wizards have a very specific function in a story; they exist for very specific reasons, and it takes more than the word "wizard" to make you a real wizard. Otherwise we could put Michael Jordan on the top-ten list for his brief stint with a certain Washington DC basketball franchise that shall not be named (and coming in at number 6,385...Kwame Brown!). But of course that's not at all what we mean by the title of "wizard."

As a devoted reader of fantasy stories, and especially as someone who (cough) takes them seriously, I'll take a little time to try to explain what I mean. Let's try to answer the question: What makes a wizard?

There are two rules:

Rule #1

A wizard must have supernatural powers

OK, so this is the most obvious rule, the one that just about everyone outside of TIME will agree on. Shoot lightning, move swords with your mind, turn yourself into a badger, do something.

This immediately rules out the Thomas Edisons of the world, as well as the Wizard of Oz. The Wizard of Oz is clever and interesting and a great character, he just doesn't qualify as a wizard. The whole point of his character, in fact, is that he's masquerading as something he's not. The fire and the booming voice are masques to cover who he really is, a lovable conman without any real power.

But a character needs more than magic to be a wizard. Consider the following characters:

1. Tinkerbell
2. Professor X
3. Harry Potter

I think we would all agree that the first two characters are not wizards. Tinkerbell is a fairy, darting about, slinging dust on unsuspecting children, and generally being rather spiteful.

But she has magic correct? So why wouldn't we call her a wizard?

"Well she's not really even human is she?" you say. "A wizard at least has to be a human."

"Aha!" I say in reply, smugly happy with myself. "But what about number 2 on our list, the great Professor X? He is human (even if everyone calls him a mutant, the bigots!) and yet he also has extreme super natural powers. He can take control of people's minds and force them to do whatever he wants them to do." I lean in very close, punctuating each word with a jab of my pale, bony finger into your shoulder. "Sounds an awful lot like an Imperio curse doesn't it? A power which one Mr. Harry. Potter. also has, and which power you claim somehow gives him the title of wizard? Admit defeat!"

"I think I'll have lunch with someone else now," you say, as I feverishly turn back to my computer screen.

If magical power is the only thing that turns an ordinary human into a wizard, then the only difference between a super hero and a wizard is a relative tightness of clothing. Sure Harry can do a lot of different things with his power, but so can the Green Lantern.

My wife, Madelyn, (who is never going to agree with me on this) says that I'm being stupid and that no one is going to agree with me or like me. And I agree with some of her points, like, for example, that there is a difference between the power that Green Lantern has and the power that we usually refer to as "magic." Her argument is that:

Wizard = Human + magic

It's that word "magic" that throws me off. Magic comes in so many shapes and sizes and methods that it's impossible to say with certainty what should be and what should not be considered magic. It is governed by hundreds if not thousands of different rules and regulations, depending on the world you happen to be inhabiting. Rowling treats it rather like a machine in many ways - say certain words, flick your wrist just so, and (poof!) magic happens. Tolkien, on the other hand, is much more obscure about the mechanics of his wizards' power; Gandalf uses his staff, many different languages and words, and what seems to be simply his will to accomplish all kinds of magic. Robert Jordan (late author of the Wheel of Time) calls his magic the One Power, his magic-wielders "Aes Sedai," (which means "Servant to All" in the language he made up) and describes the use of magic as a kind of weaving. Ursula LeGuin's Sparrowhawk uses words taken from the Making of the World, which have power in and of themselves.

Then take Stephenson's Thomas Covenant, who uses neither words nor spells to wield the wild magic contained within his white-gold ring. He just wills it to happen, in basically the same way that the Green Lantern does. So what is the difference between these two characters? That one calls his power "magic" (and thus must be a wizard) and the other calls it simply "power" (and thus must be a super hero)?

My point is that there lots of different kinds of supernatural power, and trying to determine which powers do and do not qualify as "magic" is impossible (though fun). At least, it's impossible to do with any kind of consistency. So using the magic criteria is kind of like using an "I'll know it when I see it" approach, which may work for Potter Stewart and hard-core pornography, but doesn't work for me. That's the kind of thinking that lands Mickey Mouse a spot at number 4 on the list, and I can't deal with that emotionally. We need a much simpler, better defined system.

Now I admit that this is a hard case to make to most people, especially people whose first encounter with magic was in the pages of Harry Potter. It's harder to unlearn something than it is to learn a new thing, so if you were introduced to the word "wizard" by Rowling's books, than you're probably going to have a natural inclination to agree with Rowling's use of the word. Very respectfully, however, I would say that Rowling is misapplying the word in this case, that she is taking one of the most obvious aspects of the wizard archetype (magic), and assuming that this is the only thing that anyone needs in order to claim the wizard title.

The main difference between Rowling and I is that Rowling depicts "wizard" as a race, whereas I believe that wizard is more of a profession. The other main difference between us is that she's sold about 450 million books.

I'm sure I haven't convinced most of you, but I will go to my grave defending this, so if it makes you feel better, we can call the kind of wizard I'm insisting on a "true-wizard," and you can substitute that word from now on whenever I use the word "wizard." A true-wizard must have some sort of supernatural power, sure, but he (or she! - my particular brand of nerdishness is equal opportunity) also has to serve a particular function, have a specific role in a story.

Which bring us to...

Rule #2

A wizard must try to use their Wisdom to mentor a hero

Rule #2 is really what separates the true-wizards from the faux-wizards. Tinker Bell or the Green Lantern may have power very similar to that of a wizard, but they lack Wisdom, as well as someone to give it to.

Rule #2 contains a couple of sub-rules:

1. A wizard cannot be the hero.
2. A wizard cannot exist without a hero.

This rule also helps us see the difference between faux-wizard Harry Potter and true-wizard Dumbledore. Dumbledore is there to guide Harry, to defend him from the things he's not strong enough to handle, to correct him when he's being selfish or obsessive, to give him the Wisdom that he will need to defeat the evil both outside and inside of himself, and, in the process, to help him grow into an adult (and all the power and responsibility that adulthood carries with it). In short, Dumbledore is the replacement for Harry's parents, the father and mother that he was denied.

This is actually often the case with wizards - they step in to help heroes who parents have died or are otherwise unable to fulfill their roles. Gandalf is another good example of this. He is present in The Lord of the Rings to guide and protect Frodo, whose parents die when he is twelve, and whose adopted father leaves him as soon as he comes of age, and to a lesser extent, Aragorn, whose father dies when Aragorn is only two.

The Wisdom of a true-wizard is much like that which Solomon received from God - a discerning heart to see right from wrong, and the courage to choose what is right. It is much more than just directions to the next stage of the quest or advice on the latest evil-fighting spells. Wisdom is timeless and powerful. In fact, it is often more powerful and more important to the story than the wizard's magic.

If you're like me, you can quote some of these true-wizards by heart, or at the very least, you've absorbed some of their lessons:

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf the Grey

"It takes as much strength of heart to share in honor as to face shame." - Dallben

"Great warrior, eh? Wars not make one great." - Yoda

"You thought, as a boy, that a mage is one who can do anything. So I thought, once. So did we all. And the truth is that as a man’s real power grows and his knowledge widens, ever the way he can follow grows narrower: until at last he chooses nothing, but does only and wholly what he must do." - The Master Summoner

"Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" - Albus Dumbledore

Rule #2 also allows evil characters to claim the title of wizard, though the guidance they give is demonic rather than holy, leading the hero on the path of destruction rather than salvation. Emperor Palpatine is a good example of this. (He's the old, evil guy in the black cloak, from Star Wars, though, if you don't know that, then I'm amazed that you made it this far. Perhaps you are my mother). His guidance turned a would-be hero (Anakin Skywalker) into a villain (Darth Vader), who then helped his new master bring evil to power rather than defeat it. Thus, in my informed and humble opinion:

Wizard = (Wisdom + Hero) x Magic

Such are the rules of wizards both good and evil. They use their wisdom and influence as much as their magical power, and they always use both to try to turn a hero towards the proper path...or else towards destruction. Where a good wizard will become a mentor and friend, an evil wizard will become a tyrannous master. Remember that, if the fate of the world is ever on your shoulders.

---

Jordan Jeffers doesn't think there will be a wizard in his novel, but don't let that dissuade you from hyping it as much as possible when it gets released. Feel free to give him electronic encouragement via the little Facebook and Twitter buttons below. It means more to him than you might think.

Book review in one tweet

Last man on Earth fights monsters. Becomes monster. Makes long, boring explanations about monsters. #NotTheWillSmithMovie

Favorite quote

He had such a terrible yearning to love something again, and the dog was such a beautifully ugly dog.

Review

My copy of I Am Legend has a giant red sticker on it that tells me the book is "NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE STARRING WILL SMITH." It should probably say something like "NOW LENDING ITS NAME TO A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE STARRING WILL SMITH."

Actually, it should probably say something not in all-caps. My point is, these two stories are very different, and whatever your experience of the movie, you'll probably have a totally different experience reading the book.

The basic premise is the same; most of the people in the world have either been killed by a deadly infection or transformed into some form of bloodsucking humanity. One guy, Robert Neville, is left alone, trying not to get eaten and carrying the torch for non-bloodsucking humanity. In the movie, the bloodsuckers are called "Darkseekers," which is basically just a way for the movie to have scary half-humans that are kind of like vampires and kind of like zombies and definitely avoid the long mythology behind both of those creepy creatures that might complicate our experience of watching Will Smith hunt deer.

The bloodsuckers in Matheson's book are straight up vampires - garlic-hating, mirror-hating, religious-symbol-hating vampires. Matheson doesn't shy away from the mythology at all. In fact, he spends most of the book trying to find scientific explanations for the mythology. Vampirism is caused by a facultative saprophyte (a bacteria basically), garlic is an allergen causing anaphylaxis, fear of crosses is "psychological."

Essentially the book tries to make everything deep and interesting about vampires as boring and technical as possible. I found myself losing interest, wanting to hear more about Robert's former family or the dog than his experiments with vampire bloodletting in an artificial vacuum. Horror and fantasy are supposed to places where we explore what we don't understand about our lives. They use a deep (caution: English-major word approaching) symbology to explore our non-rational side. All that power is lost the moment you start talking about facultative saprophytes.

Nerd rating

4 wizard staffs (out of 10)

The most intriguing part of this book is the way it plays with ideas of monstrosity and normalcy. Basically it asks whether "monster" is a relative term. If everyone in the world is a monster, does that make the monsters "normal" and the "normal" hero a monster? It's an interesting question, but not something I couldn't get from multiple Twilight Zone episodes.

Non-nerd rating

4 cold, frosty beers (out of 10)

The book is better than the movie, but neither of them are that great. And the book doesn't have Will Smith hunting deer.

---

Jordan Jeffers always wants a beer after writing these reviews. Feel free to give him electronic encouragement via the little Facebook and Twitter buttons below. Peace.

Book review in one tweet

Super smart people wearing space suits with laser fingers fight goiter-headed, fish-eyed aliens. 1000 years later, they use swords and spears. #actuallymakessense

Favorite quote

The 1143-year-long war had been begun on false pretenses and only continued because the two races were unable to communicate. Once they could talk, the first question was "Why did you start this thing?" and the answer was "Me?"

Review

My brother-in-law got me The Forever War for Christmas last year. At the time, he described it as Apocalypse Now in space, which sounds about right to me. Of course, I've never seen Apocalypse Now, so that should mean nothing to you.

You might've guessed this from the title, but this book has a lot of fighting and a lot of commentary on why we fight. It takes place over a thousand years, though we follow the same main character throughout the book, William Mandella. William stay alive and young due to the magic of time-dilation; basically, he spends a lot of his time traveling at near the speed of light. At such high speeds, time passes more slowly, and a few months of time aboard his spaceship turns into hundreds of years on Earth. This is one of those freaky physics phenomenons that are actually true. The faster you go, the less time passes for you.

This leads to a very weird life, because every time William returns to Earth from a mission, he finds things have changed drastically since he left. It's fun to watch the book's vision of the future unfold in that way. Like a lot of science fiction books, however, The Forever War can't really deal with God except when he comes before the word "damn," so the future of religion, which I'm super interested in, is totally ignored.

Ultimately, the book forces you to question the motivations and causes of war, as you might expect a book written during the Vietnam War to do. Its vision is sort of limited to that particular war, however. There is no concept of a war in which real, moral differences exist among the different sides; war is here envisioned solely as an economic and nationalistic tool of corrupt government leaders. And modern warfare, at least, often seems all too similar to that vision.

Nerd rating

7 wizard staffs (out of 10)

Lots of super inventive fighting techniques and imaginative planets. I particularly liked Haldeman's concept of a "stasis field," which leads to one of the coolest battle sequences I've ever read. Definitely worth checking out from your local library.

Non-nerd rating

8 cold, frosty beers (out of 10)

If you don't normally like science fiction, this is a good introduction to the genre. There's a minimum of nerding out and a maximum of action. Plus a random love story thrown in for good measure.

---

Jordan Jeffers still thinks the best science fiction book on war is Slaughterhouse Five. Feel free to give him electronic encouragement via the little Facebook and Twitter buttons below. Peace.

Book review in one tweet

I fought at the Last Battle and all I got was this lousy T-shirt. #epicfantasy #12thousandpageslater #totallyworthit

Favorite quote

He came like the wind, like the wind touched everything, and like the wind was gone.

Review

The Wheel of Time turns, fourteen books come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, then disappears altogether by the time the last book comes out, and some character you don't remember from The Shadow Rising makes an appearance and does something important, and you're like, "Wait, who is this person? I am not rereading the whole series again."

So then you spend twenty minutes on the Dragonmount forums trying to figure it out, but then some jerk reveals that [name of main character] dies so you spend another twenty minutes typing up a biting, sarcastic response chastising the person who posted that information in a non-spoiler section of the website, but you get bored and go back to reading and it turns out they were just messing with you, but then [insert second main character's name] actually dies, and you try really hard not to cry, but darn it you've been reading these books for nearly twenty years, and who cares if the sneezy guy at the doctor's office is giving you a weird look? It's not like you're going to see him ever again.

I guessing that if you've read A Memory of Light, you probably had an experience like this. Robert Jordan's final book in the epic(ally long) fantasy series The Wheel of Time brings the story of Rand al'Thor and the Dark One to a satisfying ending, if a bit bittersweet. The series started back in the early 1990s, survived Hurricane Andrew, the Star Wars prequels, and even the premature passing of Robert Jordan in 2007. The last three books have been completed by Brandon Sanderson, using extensive notes and scenes that Jordan finished before his death.

This book is the culmination of twenty years and 11,000 pages of work, and as much as its possible for anything to live up to that kind of hype, A Memory of Light does. There's a chapter in here called "The Last Battle," that is over 200 pages long. Just that one chapter. I bet you can't guess what it's about.

Nerd book rating

9 wizard staffs (out of 10)

If you're a nerd and you haven't read the Wheel of Time, you're wasting time reading this review. Trust me, you'll need all the time you can get.

Non-nerd book rating

1 cold, frosty beer (out of 10)

Not for normal people.

---

Jordan Jeffers encourages you to punch him in the face if when he writes a book series that's 12,000 pages long. Feel free to give him electronic encouragement via the little Facebook and Twitter buttons below. Peace.

This book in one tweet

Dead, cape-wearing English guy from early 1900s still wiser/funnier than anyone you know. #apologetics #iwishpeoplestillworecapes

Favorite quote

But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.

Review

Reading G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy is a bit like wandering through an art museum. There are a lot of pretty things to look at, a lot of artists whose names you kind of recognize but don't actually know anything about, and at the end of it you buy something pretty from the gift shop to hang up in your room. Only it doesn't seem quite as cool in your house as it did when you were there.

I got Chesterton's most famous book for Christmas this year. Because Christian apologetic books from the early 1900s are the sort of thing I ask for (suck it Nike+ FuelBand!). It's filled with stunningly beautiful passages like the one quoted above, references to other early 20th century thinkers I know nothing about, and lots of sound, practical apologetics that I mostly forgot about the second I put the book down. Chesterton was sort of like C.S. Lewis 1.0; he has a way of putting things that just make so much sense you feel stupid for not having thought of it yourself. Also, they both abbreviated their first and middle names. And as far as names go, "Gilbert Keith" pretty much wipes the floor with "Clive Staples."

Also, Chesterton used to wear a cape around all the time. This was as weird in his time as it is now.

Nerd book rating

8 wizard staffs (out of 10)

Plenty of obscure references and biting wit. Worth a read, even for you non-Christians out there.

Non-nerd book rating

5 cold, frosty beers (out of 10)

A lot of obscure references and biting wit. Spend twenty minutes going through his Goodreads quote page, instead. It's worth the time.

---

Jordan Jeffers really likes capes. Has he mentioned that before? Feel free to give him electronic encouragement via the little Facebook and Twitter buttons below. Peace.