The Sci Fi Catholic Yak Module
Holy Cow! There's enough here to keep us arguing for a month! But I'd add to the list the chapter on this in Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" entitled "The Ethics of Elfland": glorious in its prose, even if you disagree.
I'd like to address both of O'Brien's comments, as I understand them. The point made by others about Van Helsing in "Dracula" (the book, not any movies) is that Van Helsing was essentially using Christian sacramentals & rites as a scientist would use any other tool. As soon as magic becomes predictable, whether as "good magic" as O'Brien suggests above or as Stoker used it in "Dracula", we've entered into a materialistic understanding of it as power separable from a personal God with free will. It's not a suspension of natural law so much as expanded jurisdiction. The gratuity of miracles is erased, and in that sense I think O'Brien's criticism of the Potter books is correct. But for the same reason, I think his explanation of "good magic" in traditional fairy stories as a metaphor is flawed.
A comment on witches....
I had the opportunity to interact with "witches" on two occasion---both times in the military. One was a "white witch", who was required to wear long sleeves because of the Satanic tattoos she had on her arms. Another was a heavy practicioner of Wicca, who was a self-proclaimed warlock. Both folks gave me the absolute CREEPS being around them, what I call the "goose walking on your grave." Were they good people--sure, great to work with and did their jobs well. But their dabbling in the occult--especially when I had heard--rumor or other wise-0-that the "white witch" was looking for baby girl umbilical cords and cord blood--she would also casually inquire about who were virgins and who were Catholic--was just a dark cloud of evil. I ALWAYS made sure I had my crucifix and always tried to discretely put Holy Water around my work place.
My own thoughts are these:
1. O'Brien is off his rocker if he thinks "traditional fairy stories" (whatever those are) are pious Christian allegories.
2. O'Brien's conception of fairy tales is distinctly different from that of Tolkien's, though O'Brien claims Tolkien shares his opinions.
3. O'Brien does not grant the same generous interpretation to Rowling that he grants to "traditional fairy stories" and, in fact, contradicts himself in the two quotations.
4. Fantasy witches and real-life magical practitioners are different animals and should be discussed separately.
5. If magic in fantasy is analogous to nature (as Tolkien allows), it can conceivably, within a fantasy universe, be studied like nature (as in Harry Potter or Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, among other works).
6. Conceptions of magic and practice thereof have differed significantly in different cultures.
7. Tolkien's conception of magic, as far as I have been able to discover information on it, ascended around the Renaissance and may be termed what John C. Wright has called "a magical view of nature." The conception itself, less formalized, probably predates the Renaissance.
8. O'Brien's conception, by contrast, apparently originates in his own head.
9. O'Brien represents the "possessive mother" of Houselander who attempts to control and over-sanitize children's imaginations. It is no particular wonder that he is especially popular among home-schoolers.
My first thought: it is probably not possible to hold a very relevant discussion about "magic" in general, or even "magic in stories." What do the Force, Harry Potter's wizardry, and the songs of Tolkien's Elves have in common? Well, they all make it possible to do things not possible in our world. But that's about it, I think.
Very good, rhinemouse. I have been working on a set of definitions of magic that I hope will enable everyone to have a more profitable discussion of the subject. I'm up to about ten definitions, I think.
The stereotype of home-schoolers is uninformed, offensive, and entirely gratuitous in this discussion.
The home-schooling movement is very diverse and many are giving a Classical Liberal Arts education, precisely to educate students in their Western heritage without it being "sanitized" of its moral content or politically incorrect ideas and literature. Catholic home-schoolers are conspicuously well represented among the home-schoolers who honor their childrens' imaginations and judgement with a Liberal Arts curriculum.
I'd largely agree with you, Xena Catolica, on your characterization of homeschoolers. I was one myself, from first grade all the way through highschool, and I got to experience the benefits of a classical education firsthand. (Like, the way that *nothing* is shocking after Suetonius.)
But--because they *are* a very diverse group--there is a sizable contingent that is heavily into protecting their children. And there's also a sizable contingent (at least in the Catholic sector; I don't know about Protestants) who really, really like O'Brien and his theories on literature. My general impression is that those two groups often coincide.
In fairness to O'Brien and homeschoolers alike, I think I should add that I think one of the reasons he's so popular is that he expresses himself without sounding totally paranoid and issuing blanket condemnations of all fictional magic everywhere.
"...whether as "good magic" as O'Brien suggests above or as Stoker used it in "Dracula", we've entered into a materialistic understanding of it as power separable from a personal God with free will. It's not a suspension of natural law so much as expanded jurisdiction."
Its my understanding that this is the general position on magic within the context of the Biblical narrative. It's not a matter of whether it works or not, or if its real or not, its all about trying to grab power and assert our will in areas we're supposed to leave to God. If you apply that to any mention of magic anywhere, then I suppose O'Brien's general point is valid. But...
"What do the Force, Harry Potter's wizardry, and the songs of Tolkien's Elves have in common?"
Exactly. Good luck on those definitions, Deej, but I think we're gonna be stuck having to argue the subject on an author by author basis.
I think anyone who reads fantasy comes across what C.S. Lewis mentioned in the "Abolition of Man": That magic is similar to science, in that people saw both as a means to conform reality to the will, one was merely abandoned (magic), because it was unsuccessful. Now O' Brien's statements about J.K. Rowling's depiction of a ultilitarian type of magic are spot on. Where he falters in his criticism is falsely blaming Rowling for getting kid's into "dark magic" like Voldemort's experimentation with Horcruxes. Magic in Rowling's world seems to be an indeffirent form of energy that can be put to good or bad use. The "shifting" of morality only occurs probably due to Harry & Co. often breaking the rules. or Snape's killing of Dumbledore at the end of HBP. Although the rules that govern Rowling's magic are murky at times, nowhere is the usage of Dark Arts condoned unless as a strict necessity by the Auror's or other adult figures. The only thing Rowling changes about how young people will view magic, is how it can be dangerous if used in malignant or irresponsible hands. She makes use question how magic as a tool should be used. Her books remain largely a battle between Good vs. Evil, but we're not exactly talking Good=beautiful or Bad=ugly stereotypes like in the Wizard of Oz or Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter gives us a very interesting moral tale, and I loved how Voldermort's death at the climax of DH showed the self-destructive nature of evil. The only thing I hated was the anti-climatic (to me,anyway), fight scene between Harry and Voldy. I was spoiled by reading HP fanfics where the endings had a truly titanic battle, with excellent pacing, atmosphere, detail, and great action. I agree with Tolkien's statements about interpreting Fairy Stories 100%.
I also agree with using "Ethics of Elfland" as a comparison piece.
He knew that some of the most enduring lessons in life come from reading mythology or fairy tales. They're the oldest stories in the world, for God's sake they'd *better* convey eternal truths in order to last this long.
Among the pagans, before faith in Christ, there *was* no "good magic." There was only the awful, terrifying, and uncontrollable power of the divine. It might help you in the short run, but at what cost? It would certainly kill you in the long run (but how long is long to a god?) It might or might not destroy your humanity; the risk was great that it would, but it was still too powerful a tool to refuse to make use of. But in no sense could it be called "good."
It is only after faith in Christ has robbed the faerie of its awfulness, that the concept of "good magic" creeps in. So let us not be deluded about the sources of such magic. We are still dealing with what is at root awful, unpredictable, and set against us; what is, in short, demonic.
The stereotype of home-schoolers is uninformed, offensive, and entirely gratuitous in this discussion.
I accept the entirely justified rebuke. I'm sorry.
Now O' Brien's statements about J.K. Rowling's depiction of a ultilitarian type of magic are spot on.
The statement may be more-or-less correct, but I agree the criticism isn't.
Here's an interesting twist on the matter: John C. Wright's only criticism of Rowling is that her magic isn't systematized enough. In a work of fantasy, an author must have worked out exactly what magic can and can't do, and what the price is. Otherwise, it becomes a deus ex machina, which is bad writing. O'Brien appears to be criticizing writers who don't use deus ex machina; indeed, if I'm reading him correctly, deus ex machina is the only kind of magic he does accept.
EegahInc, the trick is making the definitions broad and appropriate enough.
Among the pagans, before faith in Christ, there *was* no "good magic."
Some of your ancient pagans may have disagreed. Among archaeologists working in the Near East, the general conception for a long time was that magic was a home-brewed religious practice separate from and in some ways opposed to the formalized religious systems promulgated from the cult centers. That view has shifted. In particular, I recommend Raz Kletter's discussion of magic in The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah; some magic had official sanction of some ancient religions, including patron gods of magic.
Its my understanding that this is the general position on magic within the context of the Biblical narrative.
On the contrary, the biblical narratives have no concept whatsoever of materialistic understandings or a "natural law" (which I assume here means a natural order of the universe rather than a moral code), but instead depict all the workings of the universe as the deliberate acts of divinity. Magical practices are forbidden because they involve unauthorized interaction with the spirit realm divorced from the orthodox religion. Officially sanctioned magic, however, such as divination by Urim and Thummin, are approved.
"On the contrary..."
Okay, let me rephrase, since I think we actually agree. The Bible doesn't worry over the mechanics of how magic works, it just says no when you try to sidestep God and use it for your own purposes. That sound better?
The Bible doesn't worry over the mechanics of how magic works, it just says no when you try to sidestep God and use it for your own purposes.
Yes, I think that captures it.
I agree that magic in Rowling's world is not systematized enough; I've seen fanfic authors pick up the slack in that area as well; some of the theories they came up with were truly weird. Like using a kind of quasi-quantum physics to explain Transfiguration. There were many favorite add-ons to the official canon, such as Technomagic, or making Harry an Empath, or an Elemental user.
Everyone who reads fantasy soon picks up that Magic might break Scientific Laws, but must work by it's own principles to make sense of it.
However, to bring us back on track, I called Rowling's magic "ultilitarian" because one must define magic in Harry Potter's world as "good" or bad depending on it's use.
I don't understand the blanket statement about all pagan magic being "awful, terrifying, and uncontrollable." I understand calling it uncontrollable and terrifying, because people could not understand it, and any powers were deemed gifts from the gods. What about the power to Heal? Must it be suffused with the sanctifying grace of thee Trinity? I must answer yes, because all good things derive from God, and this power, like in Lord of the Rings, could be used in the service of the divine. Remember, many of the Church Fathers were advocates of pagan philosophy, and one of Tolkien's most famous observations is that all myths before Christ carried some measure of the Truth, which was fulfilled in Christ, who was Truth made flesh. Chesterton made the same observations in the chapter "Demons and Philosophers" in the "Everlasting Man".
Here's where I'd like the discussion to go if anyone is interested in taking it there. Contemplate the following questions:
1. Is the boy described by Houselander doing something wrong in imagining a world populated by, among other things, "magic children?"
2. Is there any way to reconcile O'Brien's depiction of magic as supernatural with Tolkien's depiction of magic as natural?
3. Is either Tolkien's or O'Brien's view correct? Are they both correct? Are they too narrow? Are they true in some circumstances but not in others?
4. Is the argument of Nesbit's character acceptable, too simplistic, wrong-headed, or correct but underdeveloped?
5. What is Baum trying to get at? Anything? Is The Wizard of Oz morally problematic?
On the subject of magic, I go along with Frazier's view of magic as incompetent science. Both magic and science believe in a cause-and-effect relationship, but while science verifies such relationship, magic assumes one, even if it does not exist. As Frazier says, magic does not work, because if it did, it would be science.
Thus real world magic.
Fantasy magic,is just fantasy, and can be remodeled at the pleasure of the writer, provided that it is internally consistent.
As for wizards, or withches, or any practitioner, the quesion is how have they acquired their powers?
Is it an inborn ability, as being able to sing on a high register, or hving greater visual acuity, or any other inborn gifts? Or has it been acquired by means that can be proven unethical?
In the second case, you can make judgements about those who acquire their powers by unethical means, but in the first, the only ethical advice is to have those natural abilities trained so that they cannot be used wrongly by ignorance.
By the way, anyone read C.S. Friendman's "Coldfire" trilogy. His world has magic, in the sense that there is an energy in this world that tends to produce what the person is thinking about, and this causes quite an amount of havoc as stray thoughts, or even certain metaphors come to life with dire results, and there is a need to "tame" the power so that it will work only on certain conditions (in Friedman's world, mechanical contrivances oftne fail to work, because it is enough that one person doubts that they work for it to fail).
Magic: that which is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology?
Magic: that which is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced technology?
I don't accept Clarke's statement that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You can watch technology working and can potentially take it apart and examine how it works. But very few, if any, people have observed magic working. Magic is extremely unreliable.
Even in cases where it might be effective, the cause-and-effect relationship between the magic ritual and the result cannot be demonstrated. If you cease having children after you have buried a placenta under the threshold, can you demonstrate that this is because of the buried placenta? I do not think you can.
Forgive me for stirring up the homeschooling pot....but I DO have to get my two bits in...
I have yet to come across a homeschooling curriculum that adequately prepares young students for the rigors of pre-med or pre-law or engineering or computer science or any of the other science/math-intensive fields of study. Their studies in the Liberal Arts and Fine Arts may be commendable-- but the programs I have personally observed are very weak in the math and sciences.
And in this day and age--that's where the good jobs are..if your student isn't prepared to jump in Calc I their freshman fall semester it will be a constant struggle to catch up.
And on a personal level...I currently work with several individuals that are the product of home-school environments, and their emotional maturity has not been well-developed--what I call "Sandbox 101". That's where other kids pick on you and call you names, and you stand in line at the lunch counter, and sometimes you work just as hard as you can yet you still get a C on the project. You build character and a bit of a thick skin, and you learn that there are successes as well as failures. These folks have a tough time in the ugly business world where things aren't necessarily fair.
Forgive me for stirring up the homeschooling pot....but I DO have to get my two bits in...
I quite regret stirring that pot myself. My comment was, as Xena pointed out, uninformed. My experience with home-schoolers is both very limited and extremely negative; it's hardly the basis for a generalized opinion. Mea culpa.
I did once read a book (I think it's by Timothy Zahn, from memory, I think the title was _Triplet_) which posits a world where technology was manufactured specifically to appear to be magical. Unfortunately for the people in the book, for various reasons, they had no way to take it apart to see how it worked, since no one there had any non-"magical" tools, and the "magic" was all set up to make sure no one figured out how it worked. There was another world in the same book where there was magic that was magic in itself, though with a semi-scientific explanation by the end of the book, but I can't say much more without spoilers.
I wrote: "Among the pagans, before faith in Christ, there *was* no "good magic."
Deej wrote: "Some of your ancient pagans may have disagreed. Among archaeologists..."
My point is not that the ancient pagans didn't *use* magic; certainly they did, both within and outside of various kinds of religious contexts. Rather, my point was that they knew very well that what they were using was far more dangerous and scary than beneficent.
In general (and I recognize the limits of generalizing; there will be some counter-examples, but still...) the different kinds of religious experience in the pre-Christian world all tended to foster a view of the supernatural (both what is supernatural properly speaking, that is, grace; and what is supernatural because it can't be explained any other way) that was basically negative, but that also implied the impossibility of NOT trying to manipulate that world. OK, that sentence was a cracker even for me. What I mean is that ancient pagans learned early on that the gods, spirits, demons, etc etc were not friendly, but also too powerful to ignore. Therefore the basic mode of pre-Christian religion is propitiation: bribe them not to crush us. But one of the things that made polytheism so detrimental to human dignity was that it was basically impossible to bribe one divine power without angering another. So all human activity had this layer of meaning that was both debasing of human worth, and also terrifying practically.
It was not until after Christianity had penetrated deeply enough into society to redefine the primordial, cultural relationship of human and supernatural that there appeared the concept of "good magic," that is, a supernatural power (other than grace) that was not more likely to harm than to help.
Your ancient pagan was eager enough to pop down the road to the hauruspex for an amulet against the pox, not because he thought that the hauruspex or the forces he or she served were safe or friendly, but because he was terrified of the pox, and slightly less terrified of the amulet's source. THe pox was completely uncontrollable and horrifying; the magic of the hauruspex was only mostly uncontrollable and horrifying.
Tackling questions 2 & 3 . . . my answer would be yes-no-maybe-it-depends, with a side order of how-are-we-defining-our-terms.
Interpreted strictly and applied globally, they cannot both be right. O'Brien, as far as I can tell from the quote (and remember from my reading of his book a few years ago), thinks that magic is always a symbol of the religiously supernatural--divine or demonic power--whether the story identifies it as that or not.
Tolkien, as far as I can tell (again with the same disclaimers--I sadly do not have a copy of Tree & Leaf at hand) not only rejects this idea of intrinsic metaphor, but seems to be taking the line that magic is not ever (or hardly ever?) truly "supernatural," because it is the domain of the Fairies, who are (following Thomas the Rhymer and similar folklore) neutral ground between heaven and hell.
(Please correct me if I'm not remembering "On Fairy-Stories" correctly.)
I'd say that O'Brien is wrong insofar as he asserts that magic must always symbolize the (religious) superantural and/or underlying moral order. But it's certainly possible for it to work that way in a certain story, just as it's possible for magic to be treated as something "natural." I would even argue that it's possible for magic to function as both in the same story.
Example: Harry Potter. Most of the magic in the books is (as people have observed) pretty mechanical: if you have the talent and you say the words, stuff happens. It's a little more mystical than mixing stuff up in your chemistry set, but not by much.
*But*--there's also the magic that shields Harry from Voldemort--the protection laid on him by his mother's sacrifice. That was not a matter of Lily Potter saying the right words or knowing the right way to swish and flick her wand. It was not, in fact, a matter of any planning or power or technical mastery on her part. It was a matter of love being stronger than death, and it very clearly functioned as an assertion of the underlying moral order.
Rhinemouse, I believe you have remembered all correctly, and I think you have also discovered the great divide between people who think like O'Brien and people who think like me.
It may be that the question we are ultimately addressing--or at least that I am addressing--is, to what degree does an author have the write to establish the rules of his sub-creation?
O'Brien insists on funnelling every work of fantasy through a specific and Christian interpretive framework (though I believe his framework is vague and internally inconsistent), which he uses to assign all works Christian or demonic labels.
Tolkien's view is broader, calmer, and more generous, but also perhaps too narrow in that it does not quite allow the fantasist to define his own rules of magic, something, as you point out with your example, that fantasists do anyway in spite of either Tolkien or O'Brien.
This ultimately brings us to this question: is there a set and unalterable canon of fantasy tropes to which authors must adhere, lest they violate moral rules? O'Brien's answer is yes, though he is hard-pressed to define it or treat it consistently. My own answer is an unqualified no. I believe creating such a canon is neither possible nor desirable. When we have our talk about dragons, for example, we have, I believe, mistaken matters of aesthetic preference for matters of morality.
Deej, I'm tempted to agree with you about the canon of tropoi, except for this:
If an author uses his fantasy milieu, characters, plot, etc to promote what is objective morally wrong, as if it could be right simply by being taken out of a realistic context, then that author is abusing his audience. That's a grave sin.
Now, notice, please, good readers, that I am not refering to characters who promote objectively immoral ends or means, as part of the conflict which drives a plot. This is classic, makes for (potentially) great literature, and a moderately skilled author has several means at his disposal to distinguish between characterization and authorial identity. All too often, however, I pick up a new fantasy or science fiction author, who is perfectly willing to use a character or other plot device in a crude way: as a means to promote a gravely sinful real-world end in the reading audience.
Such authors should have their works banned from the "canon" of readable fiction. If they want to be moral philosophers or theologians, let them write non-fiction.
It may be that the question we are ultimately addressing--or at least that I am addressing--is, to what degree does an author have the write to establish the rules of his sub-creation?
Mmm, of course, that brings to mind the people who defend His Dark Materials by saying that Pullman's Authority is (a) evil and (b) not God as we define the term, therefore it's completely right for the characters to oppose him, and therefore it's not an attack on Christianity.
Disclaimer: I have not, myself, read any of the Pullman books. But I think the logic of that argument can be examined on its own, and I think it's ultimately flawed. I'm certainly not ready to declare *all* of the limits of a writer's powers, or even most of them. But I think one of those limits is that the author cannot write in a vacuum, completely free of any associations his favored words, images, and plot devices possess. I wouldn't say the story is dominated by them, but it will *engage* them, whether the author admits it or no.
Of course, if you're engaging with the trope that dragons are evil by proposing that they're just misunderstood, my response would be a resounding "So what?" I think that O'Brien has a problem of perspective as well as one of literary analytical technique.
I am getting hazy for lack of sleep here, but I would theorize that one of the relevant issues is whether one is writing about something that is real or not. Statements made in fiction about God, or Jews, or women (to name a few hot-button topics) are a lot less possible to defend with the "it's just fiction!" argument than statements made about dragons. (No offense, Snuffles.)
Our sci-fi loving, Catholic to the core family thinks this website is fun! It's one of our daily must reads! We love your wit and whimsy sci-fi guy. All the posters always seem so interesting, exotic, sophisticated even..yet, as a 15 year veteran of homeschool education I'm very surprised that it's getting stereotyped on this site.
Imagining that a public school program will resemble another in a different district or state is uninformed. It would be even more naive to think you can understand the vast diversity within the homeschool community from a limited exposure.
There are many different reasons to homeschool, and a multitude of ways to follow through on that educational path. In my rural county alone the different types of homeschool cultures surprise me.
In both urban and rural, poor public schools districts a motivated parent can secure an excellent education for his/her children at home. Often this education would be absolutely impossible for the public schools to provide.
In our state (PA) wealthier suburban public high schools often do have wonderful college level courses. Homeschoolers use co-op's, community colleges, tutors and online AP courses to get access to higher level courses that they may not be able to teach.
Sometimes they elect to take the course at the high school.
The same part of me that recoils when I hear someone relate a negative experience with any minority cringed when I read the shared ideas about homeschool.
Are some homeschoolers bad at math? Sure! But some live for math and science and go to MIT as Merit Scholars.
Does my local school district have only a handful of students that take higher level math courses? Absolutely! A friend's son who is now a successful engineer had to share his calculus book with two other boys in his public school senior class. He struggled at Penn State his freshman year but he caught up and got a fabulous first job when he graduated.
The man who hired him asked him if he knew what made him stand out from all the other applicants (many went to expensive private high schools). It was because the young man had spent years working on his poor parents' dairy farm. His future boss said "if you can shovel smelly, heavy, sh** for hours a day, being a hardworking engineer will be a breeze". Turns out that man was a farmer's boy too, once upon a time. So being a good engineer (or anything) might have more to do with things other than math skills.
My sister often bashed homeschooling until she learned about it through her nieces and nephew. Now as a public school teacher of 23 years, she complains to me about all the untrue info. teachers/school districts (she's in Philly now) spread about home educators.
Please just be charitable everybody. My children are taught that we're all sinners, hopefully trying to be saints. Please don't hold all homeschoolers accountable for the perceived faults of a few.
My oldest (in college) knows to pray for
One of the things I think we're all struggling with, is how fantasy should be interpreted within a Christian perspective, and a confusion regarding the nature of magic within the all-too cliched fantasy genre.
For one thing, they had "His Dark Materials" in the library of my catholic high school. I jumped into the books without knowing anything about them beforehand. The thing that irked me the most at the time that I finished the trilogy (this was when I was 17, just four years ago), was the shrill, preachy tone that Pullman adopted by the third book. I was far less offended by his atheism, because I wasn't very interested in my own religion then. By contrast, I only saw the Catholic symbolism that permeates Tolkien's works after reading his biography, and trying to seek them out as I read. Tolkien was a man of deep faith, yet he never makes explicit references to religion, he was so devout to the point that he putting references to his religion subconciously, ironically not with an overt agenda that anyone can notice in almost every line within "Amber Spyglass." We see Tolkien as thr better writer for two main reasons: 1)He far more subtler at handling his themes than Pullman; in other words, many can see him as the better writer in how he handles the basic rules of writing (as John C. Wright has pointed out numerous times). 2)He reinforces our own sensibilities and beliefs as Christians. No matter how derogatory,spiteful, insulting, condescending, and angry Pullman's narrative unravels into, we must recognize our own biases when we judge an writer's story.
To Be Continued...
Onto the nature of magic. Now, we've all agreed that in fantasy, magic must always follow basic principles. We can say magic is "supernatural" in that it might break scientific laws; for example, conjuring can be said to break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, "matter cannot be created or destroyed." It might not be the best example, for magic probably does what science-fiction technologies can do ( just manipulate existing matter, not create new matter). If you read C.S. Lewis's "Space Trilogy" (especially "That Hideous Strength") or the "Abolition of Man", Lewis points out that magic and technology share the same goal: to conform reality to humanity's will. Now Lewis, who wrote the book shortly before the production of the atom bomb, criticized sci-fi writers like H.G. Wells who believed that all technologies and advancements in scientific knowledge would be used for the benefit of humanity. This belief has been taken to an extreme in the ideal of "transhumanism", the belief that technology will one day allow us to surpase our biological limitations and maybe even become immortal. Now as a Christian, Smiter has a problem with stuff like this (and the dark magic in Harry Potter), inflaming our pride, and for that I don't blame you. But do you condemn painkillers because it dulls pain, when as Christians we are taught to offer our sufferings to God? Of course not-why should we condemn the pagan for wanting to be rid of the pox? Is it because they were trying to escape the ounishment of the gods? Maybe, maybe not; I believe it was common for people to think that magic was a power given to mortals from on high. You must remember that magic, like technology, is always a double-edged sword. It can cause great harm or arrogance, or give great benefit and a sense of humility.
(in Friedman's world, mechanical contrivances oftne fail to work, because it is enough that one person doubts that they work for it to fail).
Hmm, sounds rather... "Orky". 
If an author uses his fantasy milieu, characters, plot, etc to promote what is objective morally wrong, as if it could be right simply by being taken out of a realistic context, then that author is abusing his audience. That's a grave sin.
Absolutely agreed. This needs to be defended sometimes (and if anyone wants to argue it here, he's more than welcome), but I assume that, among Catholics, this is a given.
However, I believe it is the underlying philosophy of the text that is the most morally significant while the overlying tropoi are less so. I believe also that it is impossible to produce a story without a moral message (though it is certainly possible to produce one from which different people may extract conflicting messages, as has been proven many times).
Now, if a story teaches that people ought to be noble in their behavior, this is a good message. It matters not at all if it delivers the message through a friendly dragon or a bad dragon or some other kind of dragon or something that doesn't involve dragons at all. If Rowling wants to try to deliver Christian (or Christian-esque) ethics through stories of magic children, I say let her.
There may be some exceptions to this; it may be possible to deliver a positive message by a method so crass or lurid that it violates good taste, but I believe we are headed for trouble if we try to ban magic or nice dragons; trying to define the canon of acceptable fantasy imagery will bog us down in endless definitions and qualifications, and besides that, it will kill creativity. Not only that, but what we would have in the end would be an arbitrary system with no real moral weight, and I don't think any artist of integrity, Christian or otherwise, would pay heed to it. Trying to ban or criticize cutesy dragons or vampire boyfriends is a pointless enterprise.
Mmm, of course, that brings to mind the people who defend His Dark Materials by saying that Pullman's Authority is (a) evil and (b) not God as we define the term, therefore it's completely right for the characters to oppose him, and therefore it's not an attack on Christianity.
Anyone who makes that argument is severely lacking in reading comprehension skills. To turn around and report that opinion in a published document is doubly irresponsible. Pullman's work, unlike some others, are neither complex nor vague. It is quite clear what he is attacking, and if you still doubt after reading the books (something I find impossible), you can read any of his numerous interviews. The argument should be that his attack is misguided or ineffective, not that he's attacking something other than Christianity.
Such authors should have their works banned from the "canon" of readable fiction.
For young children, perhaps. The canon is larger for discerning adults. My opinion on what is acceptable material for children and adults both, is, I should warn anyone who reads my reviews for the content advisories, much, much broader than that of many conservative Christians. I think we have Disneyfied children's entertainment to the point that we believe they can handle less than they can (while I also acknowledge that certain pernicious writers are actively trying to pervert them). I concur with C. S. Lewis that The Faery Queene is excellent and wholesome reading for fourteen-year-old boys, naked bathing erotic nymphs and all.
All the posters always seem so interesting, exotic, sophisticated even..yet, as a 15 year veteran of homeschool education I'm very surprised that it's getting stereotyped on this site.
I'll apologize for this just one more time...I'm sorry...but now I think we'll have to move on! 
(And thanks for reading, Dianne!)
Templar:
I do not know what you mean by "orky" but it points out the drawbacks of magic handled by untrained people.
Magic is basically imposing your will on reality. Now if you have the power you need training to know when to use it and when to shut it up - and to concentrate your thought and do not be distraced by stray thougths.
In the Coldfire trilogy this is what does not happen. Everyone gets the power, and everyone's stray thoughts comes true. The result is utter chaos, so much that ages ago the belief was imposed that in order for a desire to work you had to make a sacrifice - which meant that people who did not make a sacrifice did not expect their stray thoughts to come true - thus giving them some predictability in their world. At the end, the magic can only be worked through self-sacrifice - thus shutting the spigot for good.
In certain ways, it is a cautionary tale about magic.
Part of the confusion, too, is that we are--every one of us, me included--failing to distinguish whether we are talking about real-life or fantasy magic when we enter the discussion (hence my previous comment about the need for definitions).
A Christian will say--indeed, we frequently do say--that all magic is immoral, and to some, that means magic should always be depicted as immoral in a work of fantasy as well (O'Brien appears to say this sometimes, but then changes his mind other times). However, this will turn fantasy into a form of horror: stories focused on, even obsessed with, a frightening and uncontrollable evil. Presumably, O'Brien doesn't really want this, since he describes horror literature as a "cult" (I'm never clear on what he means when he tosses that word around, but a Catholic should know how to be more responsible with it than that).
However, I can demonstrate from scripture and other things that some magic is acceptable and moral if our definition of the term is broad enough. Christian blessings are magical. The sacraments are magical. The Old Testament ritual system was magical. To say, "magic is wrong," and to expect that you've made your point is too simplistic. We have failed to define terms.
Fine, then let's start nitpicking definitions. I'll go with; Magic is the attempt to produce a desired effect by invoking or manipulating agencies presumed to be supernatural.
Let the tearing down of my definition begin.
I do not know what you mean by "orky" but it points out the drawbacks of magic handled by untrained people.
Warhammer 40,000 reference. The peculiar psychic power the Orks (not really Orcs in the traditional sense, but rather large, green Cockney football yobs) manifest allows them, for example, to cause a metal tube with some rocks stuffed down one end to be a workable firearm simply because they believe it to be so.
Is there any way to reconcile O'Brien's depiction of magic as supernatural with Tolkien's depiction of magic as natural?
There is as long as we are clear about what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural." A natural power is a power that belongs to some being insofar as it is this particular instantiation of the type of being that it is. A supernatural power is a power that does not belong to a being insofar as it is this particular instantiation of the type of being that it is, but belongs to it rather as a power infused into it by something that is in some manner (ontologically) greater than itself.
I think a perfect example of this is in the scene that takes place in "The Mirror of Galadriel" in The Fellowship of the Ring. Sam asks to see magic and Galadriel is confused by the term. Galadriel's powers are "magic," i.e. supernatural, to Sam Gamgee because they are beyond what he is capable of as a hobbit. But Galadriel's powers are completely natural to her. They do not come to her from something outside of herself, nor is it something beyond her nature to have them. She may be more gifted than other elves, or she may have had to work to get he skills to the level they are at, just as Sam would have to do with his gardening or cooking skills, but her "magic" is no more supernatural to her than Sam's gardening and cooking are to him.
So something can be both "natural" and "supernatural" at the same time as long as we are not talking about it in the same respect. To use an example from reality, an angel's powers are natural to it, but supernatural as far as man is concerned, since an angel is a being ontologically superior to man and higher than he is on the chain of being. Or to take another look at fiction, the magic in the Harry Potter books is in no way supernatural because those who use it do not have these powers infused into them by some outside force, but rather have them because they are particular instantiations of human nature that are born with the ability to tap into whatever the energy source is that Ms. Rowling's subcreated world calls "magic."
I love this topic, because it's something that I really struggled with for a long time, especially after reading O'Brien. Having Ignatius Press as his publisher gives added weight to his opinions, but I think that in his zeal to protect people (especially kids) from harm, he's misinterpreted some things.
Tolkien explained the elves "magic" as their art, taken to a higher level. Dumbledore spoke of music as a higher form of magic than any that is practiced at Hogwarts. Dante showed the ultimate purpose that art is supposed to have - that it directs us to God.
The ring that Sauron made ruled the other rings, but why? Where did he learn how to make it, and invest power into it? The elves taught him how. Evil can't create, it can only mock and corrupt things that already exist. Sauron learned from the elves, but he used what he learned to try to overpower and rule everyone else.
Brendan: To use an example from reality, an angel's powers are natural to it, but supernatural as far as man is concerned
They can't be both natural and supernatural. Angels' powers are natural, because they are part of the created or natural world. Human beings can be fooled because they have powers that we don't have, and they can seem just as mysterious to us as we would to plants if plants could think. "Supernatural" refers to things above the natural world, which only God can do. The term gets used much more loosely in today's English, but it's not the correct definition when talking about ontology. When the Church rules that an apparition is not supernatural, it doesn't mean an angel wasn't there, it just means that the angel was not sent by God. If an apparition (or unexplained occurrence) is declared "supernatural" then it means that God acted, either directly or through one of His angels.
When Tolkien talks about magic as facing nature but the mystical facing the Supernatural, you can see that both Sauron and the elves practiced "magic" in that they worked within the natural world. The elves enhanced the material world (ropes, cloaks, the mirror, etc.) while Sauron corrupted it. Both of them were overcome by the Supernatural - the Providence that directed a hobbit to find the ring and then shame the "wise" of the world by directing that Hobbit's path and allowing the ring to be destroyed.
Wright was right about Rowling's magic not being systematic enough. In the last book, she decided that magic couldn't be used to produce food, and yet both McGonagle (book 2) and Mrs. Weasley (book 4) use magic earlier to create food out of thin air. Why "food" in particular? Only because it served the plot for the last book, not because it made any sense. If you can turn a pincushion into a hedgehog, why not into a cooked hedgehog?
Commenting by HaloScan
