Why Magic is Better in Books than on Film

Ah, Magic.  With a capital 'M'.  It is the lifeblood of the fantasy genre, the one true element that differentiates the genre from any other.  If it's got something magical in it — whether spell or beast or book or totem or whatever — then it is fantasy.  Call it what you want — magical realism, urban paranormal, paranormal romance — it's really just another form of fantasy.

In the film industry, until recently (that being the emergence of Peter Jackson), calling your work fantasy (or science fiction, for that matter) was a big no-no.  Actors and directors morphed into verbal Twister champions in order to avoid tagging their multi-million dollar project with the title Fantasy.  Often, they would pull attention to some difference as a matter of focus.  As in: Though our film does have some magic in it, we really focus on the characters and that's what I think our film is about — the journey of the characters. Blah, blah, blah.

Now, there are obvious business reasons for this distinction.  Some writers play the same game to avoid a genre tag (see: Margaret Atwood) because, until recently, fantasy and science fiction didn't sell all that well.  But I'm not bringing all this up to argue business.  I understand the business point.  What I want to draw your B.S. meter's attention on is the argument that somehow by not focusing on the magic that is an obvious quality in the story, the characters will be better, richer, and deeper.  I challenge the entire blogosphere to find me one example of a movie in which the magic is better than in books.  Okay, that's not a fair challenge because you can't win.  Here's why:

Movies are visual.  They tell story primarily through sight.  Sound comes next in line.  After that, they're done.  There is no smell, no taste, no touch in film.  The only way they can show magic is to, well, show it.  They can hint at the internal issues of using magic, but that's really it.  That's why so many movies wheel out the CGI machines and plaster the screen with lots of shiny lights.  So, you forget that it's all just a show.

Books, however, tell story by giving the reader's brain cues with which it can engage all the senses.  That's why in most books, magic is not a big CGI moment of flash and color but often magic is connected to emotion, to personality, to (drum roll please) character.

If people were honest about the art they create (or if they simply understood it), they'd know that to suggest a separation of magic from character as a good thing is utter nonsense.  In any fantasy (and all magic is by definition fantasy), magic and character are tied together.  It's the whole point of magic.  To give a character and an author something unique with which to express ideas, themes, concepts, etc.

For my money, the closest any film as ever gotten to portraying a true sense of magic as it is most often expressed in books is the film Lord of the Rings.  In particular, the scene in which Gandalf and Saruman fight.  The actors thrust their arms at each other, but no CGI blasts of light appear.  Their bodies are flung around, but no lightning bolts, no fancy displays.  The real magic is on the actors' faces as Gandalf is betrayed.  That scene is not about spells or wizards or even Middle Earth.  It's about two characters who once cared for each other and now find themselves on opposite sides of a coming battle.

So, in fantasy, magic and character are integral to each other.  And while I have no objection to eye-candy in films or books, films are limited to that form (and need a talent like Jackson to pull it off well) whereas books have the opportunity to take magic to better, richer, and deeper levels.