![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Preconceptions: What you bring in with you.
Start with one word.
Wizard.
Tell me, what did you think of? What could you say about the character that came into your head as soon as you read that word? If all you know about a character stems from that word, what does your mind fall back upon?
We all have defaults, images, ideas, archetypes, that our mind bring into a story. During a discussion with some friends, we talked about the idea of that default. What is your default for a wizard-like character? For many, even those who identified as non-gamers, the default for was a "D&D wizard". This preconception would hold sway in the mind until such time as the author distinguished otherwise. I found it interesting. I said at the time, that the "D&D wizard" was not my default when I read. When confronted with the obvious question: well, then what is? I hemmed and hawed a bit, and I'm certain that I never answered the question. At least, not really.
And it's true, my default concept of what a "wizard" is doesn't stem from D&D. In fact, to me, magic, and wizards are things I conceive in spite of D&D, not because of it. Of course, that then begs the question: What is it you mean by a typical D&D wizard. Because frankly, the answer to that question is probably more important in defining why I don't consider my default archetype to be the "D&D" standard.
So what do I think of when I think of the "D&D Wizard"? Physically weak old men. (Yes, specifically old men.) Limited in what they can do, both in terms of choices of magic (that whole "Vancian" magic system), how often they could use it, and how magic interacts with the world. Magic always seemed entirely external to the wizard, not supernatural, but extranatural. There's an emphasis on memorization, and forgetting; formulas, and power or command words. It's filled with strange limitations, like only being able to wield a dagger, or never being able to know more than a set number of spells. An absolute path--one you chose early--and come by through long, hard hours of study. Binary. You're either a wizard, and can use wizardly magic, or not. No in-between. Magic is an accomplishment of intellect alone, an ultimate form of knowledge.
Yes, that's a rather old school approach to the "typical" D&D wizard, and while the game may have moved beyond that prototype, that notion stuck in my head of what it means to be a "D&D wizard" has not.
Perhaps that's not all that far off from what you think of as a wizard. If you distill it: Old man. Long beard, funny hat. Lots of knowledge that gives him access to power. That'd fit right in with quite a lot of wizards throughout fiction, right? You could say that Gandalf fits that mold, right? Merlin too. Belgarath perhaps? Kulgan? Allanon? Zedd for a somewhat more modern figure? Heck why not throw in Obi Wan Kenobi while I'm at it.
Sure, the trappings seem true to the mold of the D&D wizard. All of them old men, with great knowledge and power. (Heck I'm damned near positive that they all even have the beard and strange hat, if you consider a cowl/cape to fit that role.) So yeah, there's some overlap here. But if you take a step back, you look at every one of those characters you'll see something else. Every one of them is a mentor figure. Not a one of them is the main character of the stories within which they are most well known. Now, when you take a look at how they work, yes they can do amazing things, and wield great power. But most importantly what they all wield is knowledge. Self knowledge. And what they impart is not intellect; it's wisdom. Their age is a symbol, and a signifier that this isn't their story. Though by the time they show up, you probably knew that. Notice that right when the going is toughest, each of these characters steps off the stage. Their point is to enable the main characters to see how they, and the magic they will wield is a part of the world within which they live. Whether its Arthur, whose magic is his kingship, his link with the land, or whether it's Luke learning about the Force and how it binds all things together. It's not coincidental to link the wizard with this archetype of mentor. Knowledge is a kind of power, no question. But where D&D misses out, in my opinion, with their concept of the wizard, is that they divorce knowledge from wisdom. The wizard in their mold is about intellect, its about a knowledge to the exclusion of all else. Whereas the kinds of knowledge as I understand a wizard, is one that encompasses everything. Knowledge of the world. Of the supernatural, and of ones place within that sphere. And I never got that sense from anything that came out of D&D.
Of course we know that's not the only type of wizard you'll see in fiction. Luke, after all is every bit a wizard as Obi Wan is. But is Luke really the one you think of first at the mention of wizard? I suspect not.
Do you have a different view? Was there some other image that came to your mind when you first read the word above? Do you think I'm pointlessly splitting hairs in my distinction? Feel free to chime in.
Wizard.
Tell me, what did you think of? What could you say about the character that came into your head as soon as you read that word? If all you know about a character stems from that word, what does your mind fall back upon?
We all have defaults, images, ideas, archetypes, that our mind bring into a story. During a discussion with some friends, we talked about the idea of that default. What is your default for a wizard-like character? For many, even those who identified as non-gamers, the default for was a "D&D wizard". This preconception would hold sway in the mind until such time as the author distinguished otherwise. I found it interesting. I said at the time, that the "D&D wizard" was not my default when I read. When confronted with the obvious question: well, then what is? I hemmed and hawed a bit, and I'm certain that I never answered the question. At least, not really.
And it's true, my default concept of what a "wizard" is doesn't stem from D&D. In fact, to me, magic, and wizards are things I conceive in spite of D&D, not because of it. Of course, that then begs the question: What is it you mean by a typical D&D wizard. Because frankly, the answer to that question is probably more important in defining why I don't consider my default archetype to be the "D&D" standard.
So what do I think of when I think of the "D&D Wizard"? Physically weak old men. (Yes, specifically old men.) Limited in what they can do, both in terms of choices of magic (that whole "Vancian" magic system), how often they could use it, and how magic interacts with the world. Magic always seemed entirely external to the wizard, not supernatural, but extranatural. There's an emphasis on memorization, and forgetting; formulas, and power or command words. It's filled with strange limitations, like only being able to wield a dagger, or never being able to know more than a set number of spells. An absolute path--one you chose early--and come by through long, hard hours of study. Binary. You're either a wizard, and can use wizardly magic, or not. No in-between. Magic is an accomplishment of intellect alone, an ultimate form of knowledge.
Yes, that's a rather old school approach to the "typical" D&D wizard, and while the game may have moved beyond that prototype, that notion stuck in my head of what it means to be a "D&D wizard" has not.
Perhaps that's not all that far off from what you think of as a wizard. If you distill it: Old man. Long beard, funny hat. Lots of knowledge that gives him access to power. That'd fit right in with quite a lot of wizards throughout fiction, right? You could say that Gandalf fits that mold, right? Merlin too. Belgarath perhaps? Kulgan? Allanon? Zedd for a somewhat more modern figure? Heck why not throw in Obi Wan Kenobi while I'm at it.
Sure, the trappings seem true to the mold of the D&D wizard. All of them old men, with great knowledge and power. (Heck I'm damned near positive that they all even have the beard and strange hat, if you consider a cowl/cape to fit that role.) So yeah, there's some overlap here. But if you take a step back, you look at every one of those characters you'll see something else. Every one of them is a mentor figure. Not a one of them is the main character of the stories within which they are most well known. Now, when you take a look at how they work, yes they can do amazing things, and wield great power. But most importantly what they all wield is knowledge. Self knowledge. And what they impart is not intellect; it's wisdom. Their age is a symbol, and a signifier that this isn't their story. Though by the time they show up, you probably knew that. Notice that right when the going is toughest, each of these characters steps off the stage. Their point is to enable the main characters to see how they, and the magic they will wield is a part of the world within which they live. Whether its Arthur, whose magic is his kingship, his link with the land, or whether it's Luke learning about the Force and how it binds all things together. It's not coincidental to link the wizard with this archetype of mentor. Knowledge is a kind of power, no question. But where D&D misses out, in my opinion, with their concept of the wizard, is that they divorce knowledge from wisdom. The wizard in their mold is about intellect, its about a knowledge to the exclusion of all else. Whereas the kinds of knowledge as I understand a wizard, is one that encompasses everything. Knowledge of the world. Of the supernatural, and of ones place within that sphere. And I never got that sense from anything that came out of D&D.
Of course we know that's not the only type of wizard you'll see in fiction. Luke, after all is every bit a wizard as Obi Wan is. But is Luke really the one you think of first at the mention of wizard? I suspect not.
Do you have a different view? Was there some other image that came to your mind when you first read the word above? Do you think I'm pointlessly splitting hairs in my distinction? Feel free to chime in.
no subject
I know it's a bit of a cliched image, but Tolkien's works (via the animated Hobbit) were my very first introduction to the world of fantasy literature. And Gandalf is such an iconic wizardly character.
For me, D&D came later, and just reinforced the visual image. I never really gave the deeper stuff much thought. Most of my wizards died too swiftly to develop much character.
Of course, you also have the younger wizard, the apprentice or novice just learning his craft and lacking in wisdom, like Ged from A Wizard of Earthsea. Then the whole point of the story is the gaining of that wisdom However, that's not what I think of first, though it might be a close second.
no subject
I suspect that we imprint these preconceptions sometime in our youth. When, it's hard for me to guess, but thereafter, wizard becomes synonymous with that character in our mind. I would not be shocked to hear that for my generation it's Gandalf. I'd be curious if it's different for younger folks. Perhaps now, Harry Potter will be that new iconic concept, especially for those who grew up in the 90's and 2000's. I'm also curious, for those whom are older, what characters they might have stored in their head.
I always think...
'Nuff said.
no subject
The D&D separation between Int and Wis has also been a puzzle for me. But then, maybe it draws on a different archetype--say, the maddened "wizards" we see in things like Faust or Lord Byron's works. More like Jonathan Strange or Gilbert Norrell than Merlin or Gandalf, in fact.
no subject
or the original Vancian magicians who could only cast so much magic and had to decide on their use, because a failure could kill them spectacularly.
no subject
Faust is a great counter example of what a wizard archetype might be. In fact, if you go back to the pulp era, that idea might hold a stronger sway. I wonder if I ask my father, what he'd say, for an idea from an entirely different generation.
no subject
no subject