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.