How do you feel about movies with magic and such?

[Brother Rick]

Fantasy and Sci-Fi can overlap, but the distinct difference is that Sci-Fi has to try at least to be based somewhat in reality.

An example is Star Trek: theoretically, if you could dematerialize people and turn them into energy, you could also shoot them across space like you would a radio signal and then rematerialize them on the other side - i.e. beam me up, Scotty. Also, I think the idea for the faster-than-light warp drive propulsion system is based in Einstein's theory of space wormholes: go through a hole on one side of space and pop out the other. I think warp drives regulate matter and anti-matter, or something like that, and create a wormhole for the ship to fly through and then come out the other side. I might be wrong, I don't know for sure. Time-travel stories are Sci-Fi because there is an actual theory for time travel that I think Einstein came up with as well. The point is, even though Sci-Fi mangles and bends real science – it is supposed to be based loosely in science and therefore it has some rules it is somewhat accountable to.

Star Wars, the other side of the coin, even though it looks like Sci-Fi, is actually fantasy. The popular mantras, "The force be with you..." and "a long time ago in a faraway place..." all speak of a time and world that is not our own, and "the force" is a religion whereas there is no religion, per se, in Star Trek (other than Evolution, sadly enough). The Star Wars universe is not based in the future, but Star Trek is. The world of Star Wars, being fantasy, can do whatever it wants because it’s not based on science at all.

I think I just revealed my inner nerd.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[Annie]

Okay, first of all...
What is fantasy? My definition has always been 'fictional stories that take place in a fictional world unrelated to our own.' This distinguishes it from true-to-life fiction and historical fiction. It also makes it a cousin of sci-fi, although I think nowadays we tend to separate fantasy into 'dragons, knights & magic' and sci-fi is futuristic - aliens, spaceships and other planets. Does this match your definition?

(and I'm sorry for my overly-hot response. I was actually going to edit that post... )

Salyan, you weren't at all "overly-hot"; in fact, I thought your response was very gracious. I guess what I'm asking is what you mean by saying that these stories "contradict" the "rules of God's world." How do they contradict the rules of His world any more than a child pretending that he is flying, or a girl pretending to be a princess? Hasn't God given us the ability to imagine...to wonder, "what if...?" Is it wrong to imagine how things would be if, say, we walked on our hands instead of our feet, or if we could travel anywhere we wanted to by just blinking our eyes, or if animals could really talk, or if we had the ability to travel back through time? All of this is simply fanciful imagination, a product of the creative human mind; any "magic" involved is certainly not "real" magic, because of the very definition of fantasy--which, by that definition, is an entirely separate category from "reality." Logically, a person who believes that "indulging in fantasy" is wrong must forbid his/her children from ever pretending something that isn't "true" (being a princess), or something which "contradicts the rules of God's world" (like flying). They cannot permit themselves ever to wander from "the facts" into the realm of imagination and speculation.

I'm sure there are many different definitions given for "fantasy," but I think that the generally agreed-upon definition is "a genre of fiction that uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary element of plot, theme, or setting." (I just pulled that particular one off Wikepedia.) IOW, "fantasy" at its root means "things that could not and do not happen in the real world." The very definition sets fantasy apart from the real world...Anything can happen in fantasy. Pinocchio's nose can grow when he tells a lie; a wooden puppet becomes a real boy; children can fly; animals can talk. So, "magic" in works of fantasy is really just the way things are in the fantasy world, and follows, if you will, the "rules" of that fantasy world. It has nothing to do with the real world. Works of fantasy are simply extensions of the imagination of the author...what would a world filled with hobbits, elves, wizards, orcs and dwarfs look like? How would those creatures interact? What if there were a powerful and dark force seeking to engulf that world? Etc.

That's why I say that people who complain about magic, mythology, etc., in fantasy really don't understand the nature or essence of fantasy. They fail to separate fantasy from the real world. So, when a fairy waves a magic wand in a fantasy story, they see only "sinful sorcery"; and when a wizard gazes into a crystal ball, they treat it like it's happening in the real world...but it just isn't!

BTW, salyan, you didn't miss anything by not seeing Disney's movie about Prince Caspian. Talk about a disappointment. Even my kids disliked it; too many liberties were taken with the plot and whole character of the book.

EDIT: I should add that if a person is unable to separate fantasy from reality (i.e., he/she believes the magic in fantasy stories is "real magic") should stay as far away from fantasy stories as he/she can. Edited April 8, 2011 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

Salyan, you weren't at all "overly-hot"; in fact, I thought your response was very gracious. I guess what I'm asking is what you mean by saying that these stories "contradict" the "rules of God's world." How do they contradict the rules of His world any more than a child pretending that he is flying, or a girl pretending to be a princess? Hasn't God given us the ability to imagine...to wonder, "what if...?" Is it wrong to imagine how things would be if, say, we walked on our hands instead of our feet, or if we could travel anywhere we wanted to by just blinking our eyes, or if animals could really talk, or if we had the ability to travel back through time? All of this is simply fanciful imagination, a product of the creative human mind; any "magic" involved is certainly not "real" magic, because of the very definition of fantasy--which, by that definition, is an entirely separate category from "reality." Logically, a person who believes that "indulging in fantasy" is wrong must forbid his/her children from ever pretending something that isn't "true" (being a princess), or something which "contradicts the rules of God's world" (like flying). They cannot permit themselves ever to wander from "the facts" into the realm of imagination and speculation.

Interesting you should say this. Growing up, my parents were very much against all things with the label "magic." But all things Sci-Fi were okay. This is why I grew up loving superheroes, because most superhero stories aren't fantasy that involve magic or some other universe (there are some exceptions). Superman comes from another world and on Earth has the ability to fly (no magic), Flash has chemicals spilt on him and now he's super-fast (no magic), Batman has no super powers, he's all high-tech and martial arts (no magic), and Spider-man is bit by a radioactive spider and gets super spider powers (no magic). In a way they're fantasy, but being based in our world they're more Sci-Fi than anything else.

[HappyChristian]

Interesting you should say this. Growing up, my parents were very much against all things with the label "magic." But all things Sci-Fi were okay. This is why I grew up loving superheroes, because most superhero stories aren't fantasy that involve magic or some other universe (there are some exceptions). Superman comes from another world and on Earth has the ability to fly (no magic), Flash has chemicals spilt on him and now he's super-fast (no magic), Batman has no super powers, he's all high-tech and martial arts (no magic), and Spider-man is bit by a radioactive spider and gets super spider powers (no magic). In a way they're fantasy, but being based in our world they're more Sci-Fi than anything else.

Sci-Fi is fantastic, not fantasy. "Imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality." That is also the heading (fantastic, not sci-fi) under which imagining one is a princess, a groundhog (I knew a girl who pretended to be one...who knows why! ) or even Superman would fall. Ergo, Annie's logic falls apart...

And, really, Rick - since the Bible condemns all sorts of "magic" - witchcraft, necromancy, etc., your parents are to be commended. After all, even if people don't understand what fantasy is (and, really, I think it's arrogant for someone to claim that a person who doesn't like fantasy because it uses magic and the supernatural, which the Bible forbids, doesn't understand it!!), they can understand that God is against magic. Magic is a counterfeit for the supernatural miracles of God.

~~~~~~
Hmmmm - there's an awful lot of really good material out there to read...why not find that instead of fantasy?

[Annie]

Interesting you should say this. Growing up, my parents were very much against all things with the label "magic." But all things Sci-Fi were okay. This is why I grew up loving superheroes, because most superhero stories aren't fantasy that involve magic or some other universe (there are some exceptions). Superman comes from another world and on Earth has the ability to fly (no magic), Flash has chemicals spilt on him and now he's super-fast (no magic), Batman has no super powers, he's all high-tech and martial arts (no magic), and Spider-man is bit by a radioactive spider and gets super spider powers (no magic). In a way they're fantasy, but being based in our world they're more Sci-Fi than anything else.

Interesting, Rick...I think the Superman example comes the closest to "fantasy" of any of the superheroes. What would, in our world, be "magic" (i.e., accomplished only through supernatural power--which means enabled either by God or by Satan's forces) is not "magic" in a fantasy world...It's just the way that world works. The world to which Superman belongs works in a different way than our world...It's not "magic" in his (imaginary) world to be able to fly...no divine or demonic forces are needed to perform those feats...It's just what everyone can do naturally. But it's considered SUPERnatural (or beyond-natural) in our world. The same thing is true for other fantasy worlds, like Narnia and Middle Earth.

My logic stands, in that fantasy is merely an extension of the kind of fanciful thinking LuAnne was talking about. A child who pretends that he can fly, or that she can see through walls, is engaging in "magical" thinking. Why? Because a person who could really, truly do these things in the real world would have to be enabled by forces outside himself, either demonic or divine. But in the child's play world, flying and seeing through walls is possible--indeed, because his world is pretend, made up. It's not the real world, so he's not "guilty" of indulging in "sorcerous" (?) thinking. Edited April 8, 2011 by Annie

[HappyChristian]

Interesting, Rick...I think the Superman example comes the closest to "fantasy" of any of the superheroes. What would, in our world, be "magic" (i.e., accomplished only through supernatural power--which means enabled either by God or by Satan's forces) is not "magic" in a fantasy world...It's just the way that world works. The world to which Superman belongs works in a different way than our world...It's not "magic" in his (imaginary) world to be able to fly...no divine or demonic forces are needed to perform those feats...It's just what everyone can do naturally. But it's considered SUPERnatural (or beyond-natural) in our world. The same thing is true for other fantasy worlds, like Narnia and Middle Earth.

My logic stands, in that fantasy is merely an extension of the kind of fanciful thinking LuAnne was talking about. A child who pretends that he can fly, or that she can see through walls, is engaging in "magical" thinking. Why? Because a person who could really, truly do these things in the real world would have to be enabled by forces outside himself, either demonic or divine. But in the child's play world, flying and seeing through walls is possible--indeed, because his world is pretend, made up. It's not the real world, so he's not "guilty" of indulging in "sorcerous" (?) thinking.

It isn't "magical" thinking. It's fantastical...but then, not everyone understands that. :icon_mrgreen:

[Annie]

It isn't "magical" thinking. It's fantastical...but then, not everyone understands that.

You are correct. It is fantastical. It is also "magical," in the sense that enablement for these things must (in our world) come from sources outside the human realm...sources which have power to bend the rules of nature...supernatural powers. That's what "magic" is, right? Enablement from supernatural power to accomplish SUPERhuman things. Or maybe you have a different definition of magic. Scripture condemns sorcery, the use of demonic power to know and do things that humans are not naturally able to do. (The word "magic" does not appear in Scripture; however, the wise men of Egypt and Babylon are called "magicians," presumably because they were thought to tap into supernatural power to interpret dreams, change rods to snakes, etc.)

People cannot fly or see through walls on their own. What if you, with your own eyes, witnessed someone (unaided by technology) sitting in a chair and telling you accurately and in descriptive detail about various objects you just placed behind a solid wall (no "tricks," mirrors, etc.)? What if you saw someone levitating? You'd wonder about sorcery, wouldn't you?

Now, is a child who is pretending to perform feats that can only be performed in our world through the use of sorcery/magic guilty of indulging in "sorcerous thinking"? In the same vein, is a person who writes a story about a boy who can fly, or about a girl who can see through walls, guilty of writing a sorcerous work? Again, these are feats that can only be accomplished (in our world) through supernatural/sorcerous powers.

The answer is: no, these children and authors are not guilty of sorcerous thinking or writing, because, in the worlds that they have imagined--have completely made up--these feats are possible without tapping into any demonic power. People can fly and/or see through walls because, well, because they just can! Fairies are magical creatures (able to turn princes into toads, etc.) because they just are, according to the rules of the world they live in. Elves have more power over nature than hobbits do because that's the way Tolkein "made" them. God is not the creator of fantasy worlds, so of course fantasy worlds do not operate according to the same natural laws as the world He created. However, that doesn't mean that "anything goes" in fantasy worlds. Because they are products of human imagination, works of fantasy can indeed be judged along a moral spectrum.

That's my point. Edited April 8, 2011 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

If it's okay, I'd like to ramble a little here and think out loud.

I guess what it comes down to is if magic in all stories is bad, then all stories with magic need to be thrown out. This is where I have difficulty, not because I get all heartbroken if my little girls can't watch Cinderella or Pinocchio, but because it I don't see anything wrong with it. Saying they're wrong is just dumb (to me), and just seems like being principled for the sake of being principled with no real substance to it. I'm not trying to offend anyone; I'm just being honest here.

On the flip side, there are things out there that are very clearly evil in nature and we'd all agree that it was. I never saw it, but I remember a movie coming out when I was a teen called "The Craft." It had magic in it, real demonic magic based in our own world. There was nothing "fantasy" about it. I think we'd all agree that movie was wicked.

If Pinocchio, Cinderella, and even Pilgrim's Progress have magic in them, then not all magic in a story is bad. I don't see anything in the Bible that says that magic in stories is bad, only that practicing, taking part or associating with sorcery is bad. I don't think the harmless stories I just mentioned come anywhere near that sort of thing we see in The Craft.

However, there are fantasy stories that do reek of wickedness to me. Harry Potter does. I saw the LOTR movies when they came out, and enjoyed them, but I certainly don't endorse them anymore. There's a lot of wickedness in those movies, especially with the sorcerer creating new life, Urik-hai, out of mud and fire.

Recently we saw a fantasy movie, "The Guardians," and it didn't have any sort of magic at all in it. It was all about these owls that fought each other, some were good, some bad, and blah-blah-blah. Our kids loved it, and there wasn't anything in it that was questionable that I could think of.

Anyways, this is why I'm on the fence on this and I do take things on a case by case basis. I don't like operating that way, but that's how I do in the area of magic in movies and stories. My rule of thumb is: the closer the magic is to reality, the further we stay away from it.

[Annie]

If it's okay, I'd like to ramble a little here and think out loud.

I guess what it comes down to is if magic in all stories is bad, then all stories with magic need to be thrown out. This is where I have difficulty, not because I get all heartbroken if my little girls can't watch Cinderella or Pinocchio, but because it I don't see anything wrong with it. Saying they're wrong is just dumb (to me), and just seems like being principled for the sake of being principled with no real substance to it. I'm not trying to offend anyone; I'm just being honest here.

On the flip side, there are things out there that are very clearly evil in nature and we'd all agree that it was. I never saw it, but I remember a movie coming out when I was a teen called "The Craft." It had magic in it, real demonic magic based in our own world. There was nothing "fantasy" about it. I think we'd all agree that movie was wicked.

If Pinocchio, Cinderella, and even Pilgrim's Progress have magic in them, then not all magic in a story is bad. I don't see anything in the Bible that says that magic in stories is bad, only that practicing, taking part or associating with sorcery is bad. I don't think the harmless stories I just mentioned come anywhere near that sort of thing we see in The Craft.

However, there are fantasy stories that do reek of wickedness to me. Harry Potter does. I saw the LOTR movies when they came out, and enjoyed them, but I certainly don't endorse them anymore. There's a lot of wickedness in those movies, especially with the sorcerer creating new life, Urik-hai, out of mud and fire.

Recently we saw a fantasy movie, "The Guardians," and it didn't have any sort of magic at all in it. It was all about these owls that fought each other, some were good, some bad, and blah-blah-blah. Our kids loved it, and there wasn't anything in it that was questionable that I could think of.

Anyways, this is why I'm on the fence on this and I do take things on a case by case basis. I don't like operating that way, but that's how I do in the area of magic in movies and stories. My rule of thumb is: the closer the magic is to reality, the further we stay away from it.

Good post, Rick...You've got some great thoughts here. We might not agree in every matter of application, but it looks like we're on the same page for the most part.

[Brother Rick]

Now, is a child who is pretending to perform feats that can only be performed in our world through the use of sorcery/magic guilty of indulging in "sorcerous thinking"? In the same vein, is a person who writes a story about a boy who can fly, or about a girl who can see through walls, guilty of writing a sorcerous work? Again, these are feats that can only be accomplished (in our world) through supernatural/sorcerous powers.

That's my point.

As a little guy who wasn't able to watch or read anything that had to do with magic, I still imagined all those things. But the source of my "imaginative super powers" (this is a little embarrassing) wasn't magic, it was being dropped into a vat of toxic waste, or a science experiment having gone wrong, or being equipped with a metal suit of armor.... the source was different than what you were describing. The source was scientific or technological, it had nothing to do with magic because magic was "wicked" and not in the stories I was exposed to.

Like all parents, my parents had some inconsistencies that I razz my mom about to this day. Like ALL magic and sitcoms were wicked, but we watched every single James Bond movie ever made...... :smilie_loco:4

[Annie]

As a little guy who wasn't able to watch or read anything that had to do with magic, I still imagined all those things. But the source of my "imaginative super powers" (this is a little embarrassing) wasn't magic, it was being dropped into a vat of toxic waste, or a science experiment having gone wrong, or being equipped with a metal suit of armor.... the source was different than what you were describing. The source was scientific or technological, it had nothing to do with magic because magic was "wicked" and not in the stories I was exposed to.

Like all parents, my parents had some inconsistencies that I razz my mom about to this day. Like ALL magic and sitcoms were wicked, but we watched every single James Bond movie ever made......

Oh, I know...I'm sure my dh and I are inconsistent, too...It's part of being human, they say. Toxic waste? Ewwww! What did that feel like? (You know I'm just kidding you.) I think my point is still solid, though. I'm talking about a kid who isn't imagining anything about toxic waste or suits of armor...just a kid having fun pretending that he can fly or see through walls...just because he can. Would a kid like that be guilty of sorcerous thinking? (Did I make up that word??) What about an author who writes about stuff like that...and fairies, etc.?

[Salyan]

Okay, so I was off on my definition. Too broad. What would you call stories that are 'fantastical' but not sci-fi -- like historically-themed alternate realities or stories involving dragons (or other fimaginary creatures) but no magic? Or some of Enid Blyton's?

This discussion is actually being very helpful to me -- I know what I think of some of the 'big name' series, but lately I've been trying to iron out my 'rules of thumb' for individual applications - like superheroes for example. (Ones that aren't aliens - that's a whole 'nother can of worms) Thank you!

[Annie]

Okay, so I was off on my definition. Too broad. What would you call stories that are 'fantastical' but not sci-fi -- like historically-themed alternate realities or stories involving dragons (or other fimaginary creatures) but no magic? Or some of Enid Blyton's?

This discussion is actually being very helpful to me -- I know what I think of some of the 'big name' series, but lately I've been trying to iron out my 'rules of thumb' for individual applications - like superheroes for example. (Ones that aren't aliens - that's a whole 'nother can of worms) Thank you!

"Fantastical but not sci-fi"...Maybe "fanciful" is what you're looking for? Or "whimsical"? I'm looking at a list of Enid Blyton's books (I'd never heard of her), and seeing Real Fairies: Poems, The Enid Blyton Book of Fairies, Songs of Gladness, The Enid Blyton Book of Brownies, Tales of Ancient Greece, The Red Pixie Book, A Book of Magic, The Talking Teapot, Adventures of the Wishing Chair, The Green Goblin Book, etc. Looks like some charming reading! Maybe I should look into these further.

I also love George MacDonald's books...At the Back of the North Wind, The Princess and the Goblin, The Princess and Curdie. Very Victorian, and definitely fanciful, but not strictly fantasy, in that they do not employ "magic"...not real magic, anyway. :) Edited April 8, 2011 by Annie

[Salyan]

I guess what I'm asking is what you mean by saying that these stories "contradict" the "rules of God's world."

As far as contradicting the rules of God's world -- bear with me here. I'm still figuring out what I mean by that too.

I guess, essentially, stuff that isn't possible (or never has been possible) based on God's created order. Princesses are possible, but aliens are not. Knights killing dragons (if you dinosaurs) are possible, but alternate realities are not.

I know I'm totally hashing the sci-fi/fantasy genres together here, but those two have always seemed very close in my mind. So they're coming out that way.

I have been wondering just how much we as Christians should indulge our imaginations. Maybe because I have problems with my imagination getting away from me! But if we're supposed to think on 'whatsoever things are true'... then doesn't that nullify any fiction? I'm not being dogmatic here, just wondering. Believe me, I know it sounds extreme!

[Salyan]

"Fantastical but not sci-fi"...Maybe "fanciful" is what you're looking for? Or "whimsical"? I'm looking at a list of Enid Blyton's books (I'd never heard of her), and seeing Real Fairies: Poems, The Enid Blyton Book of Fairies, Songs of Gladness, The Enid Blyton Book of Brownies, Tales of Ancient Greece, The Red Pixie Book, A Book of Magic, The Talking Teapot, Adventures of the Wishing Chair, The Green Goblin Book, etc. Looks like some charming reading! Maybe I should look into these further.

I also love George MacDonald's books...At the Back of the North Wind, The Princess and the Goblin, The Princess and Curdie. Very Victorian, and definitely fanciful, but not strictly fantasy, in that they do not employ "magic"...not real magic, anyway.

Oh, yah, you'd like Enid Blyton. (Wait a minute, did I just recommend a book I wouldn't read? Uh oh... )