What's the difference?

[Eric C]

Alright, totally unrelated to LotR and rangering here. But it's a question that I need an answer to. Around my parts when I was growing up wizards and sorcerers and fantasy in general were pure evil and you didn't mess with it. Now, I learn that two of THE fantasy writers of our time held many of the same beliefs as myself.

So it's kind of hard trying to write a work of fantasy without really knowing the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. It's easy to say , "Well, they both use magic, so don't worry about it." That may be okay for a layman, but what about one who knows what he/she is reading? They would not appreciate a work where the "wizard" and "sorcerer" are interchangeable. So, what's the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer?

[Willrett]

It depends on the book i think for some. In general I would say a wizard is a more trained perhaps by other wizards and a sorcerer is more of a self taught.

Good topic i would like to see other opinions.


In the book I am slowing trying to do, I have different guilds and each level in the guild is a different name.
Magician
Sorcerer
Mage
Wizard

[Peter Remling]

As Will said , it kind of depends on who's writing the tale. In one of my favorite fantasy tales the difference is explained as a socerer will go to great lengths to gain power up to and including living sacrifices, where there are lines a wizard will not cross.

I always liked that definition!

[Ernildir]

I would guess that the difference might lie in where the power is derived from, and/or what it is used for. For example, Morgoth dissipating his power into his distortions or the Witch King receiving power from Sauron, all of which was used for destruction, versus Gandalf the servant of the Secret Fire, who uses the power gifted to him by Iluvatar to kindle the hearts of the Free Peoples.

[Elleth]

Within the "old school" architecture - and here borrowing heavily from Tolkien and the Istari -


Wizard - not something just any mortal can do. Rather, an inherently spirit-touched person who *is* what they are - essentially a lower-order angel, to use more modern words for the same concepts. Gandalf, etc.

Sorcery - Mortals meddling beyond their ken, attempting to usurp power they can't fully understand and have no right to shape. Al-Pharazon, etc.

The distinction there is very much touched by Old-World class-mindedness I think. You're a wizard, or you're not. If you're a wizard, it is what you *are*, it is inherent to your being, and it comes with - frankly - a mission and role to fulfill from Eru.


In more modern works (Mercedes Lackey comes to mind, as does frankly the original "Star Wars") - it's more a question of an inherent dao/chi/Force/magick/whatever undergirding the world.... and by manipulating that power, worldly effects will necessarily manifiest. The distinction then comes from - what is the source of your power? (IE - "blood magic" vs "ley-line/natural power" vs. "internal energy") - as well as the feelings and motivations providing the emotional energy to it ("Give in to your anger....")

Interestingly, early-mid 20th c. spiritualist works contemporary to Tolkien - tend towards the latter interpretation, but basically say as I recall - "whatever you do, it can and will be outweighed by reliance upon God. Don't mess with Him."


Sorry for the theological ramble, but if we're talking Tolkien's magic system, it's not something that can really be avoided, dependent as it is on his own religious worldview.

[Ernildir]

Further, I don't think there's one universally agreed upon definition of each. Different people will define wizards and sorcerers as different things. Many people would categorize both wizards and sorcerers as evil, or perhaps allow for good and evil to exist under both names.

[Jon]

I would say a sorcerer is not necessarily more evil but tends use more black magic, he is self taught and lives alone. I think a bit like a Celtic druid.
A wizard is someone who would put their powers for good, if the time arose, probably was an apprentice to another wizard for half his life, and is greatly known in the land, people from small villages always asking for his help etc...

[Erucheb]

Well, nowadays the difference depends on the writer. Linguistically, however, there is a real difference. "Sorcerer" is from the Latin sors, which refers to "fate" or "doom", or even a foretelling. A "sorcerer", then, is at root either a prophet or a Power; one who can either see a doom (in its original sense -- i.e., how Tolkien used it) or one who can cast it. The idea can be either manipulation or understanding, but it is inherently active.

"Wizard", however, is related to the word "wise". A wizard (as in Tolkien) is simply "one of the Wise". He has a greater knowledge of reality, but his power is in his understanding, not his actions; i.e., in opposition to a sorcerer, a wizard is primarily a passive force.

We can compare these uses to the view Tolkien gives us of good and bad "magic". The Enemies, Sauron and Morgoth, attempt to actively bend reality to their will. Morgoth in particular does this, even casting what Tolkien termed a "wierd" -- a doom -- on the house of Húrin. In contrast, the Valar and Maiar are characterized by their love of something "other than themselves" and the desire to know it. It is often said of the most powerful of the Ainur that they "remembered more of the Music" (emphasis mine). As we can see, the good forces in Tolkien match the meaning of "wizard" far more, and the evil beings are more like sorcerers.

However, two important things must be noted. While sorcery -- casting dooms and bending things to one's will -- is (almost) always evil, wizardry is not always good. Saruman, even fallen, is both a sorcerer and a wizard, because it is his yearning for knowledge of ring-lore that has corrupted him, and he uses his understanding (wizardry) of Men and Orcs to breed (sorcery) the Uruk-hai.

Also, note that sorcery and wizardry are always inherent. It is not a question of "inborn vs. learned"; both are natural. In fact, the distinction between them (as seen above) is not even one of quality: it is the nature of how that inborn power is used, whether actively for oneself or passively for others. Now, the Nazgul might seem to contradict this, being both Men and "Sorcerors", but consider the following propositions. In Middle-earth, there are clearly two realms; the "elven" and the "mortal". Elves live in both, we are told -- but does anyone else? The Ainur must be on another level entirely, since they existed before Ea. But what of Men, Hobbits, and Dwarves? Because the "elven" realm is so obviously spiritual, Men, Hobbits, and Dwarves must exist in it -- though they may not live in it (i.e., be conscious of it).

So what is the "wraith-world", then? My contention is that the "wraiths" are nothing more than the "shades" that men cast into the "elven" realm. The sin (and tragedy) of the Nazgul is that while their bodies passed from the mortal realm, their shades were bound to Arda by the sorcery of Sauron. So the "sorcery" of the Nazgul is also inborn; it is the affect of one being's "shade" on another (albeit a shade increased by Maia sorcery). This "sorcery" is, of course, distinct in nature from the "sorcery" of Sauron and other evil Ainur, but as noted above the term really refers to intent, not nature, so there is no problem.

As a final note, Eru alone in this view is the Perfection of both wizardry and sorcery (possibly the only time sorcery can be truly good) in His Propounding and Directing of the Music (His Knowledge) and in His Creative Providence over Ea (His Doom).



Sorry about that long philosophical bit. I hope it made sense.
(If all you got out of it was Wizard = passive knowledge, Sorcerer = active knowledge, that's fine. )

[Eric C]

Interesting. So it can range anywhere from one being strictly evil and the other being strictly good to a matter of training to different levels of the same thing to neither being strictly evil or good. Good answers. As for my own creations, it just really depends on how I define it within reason.