The wizard is one of the most recognisable figures in fantasy, and one of the best understood. He arrives with a staff, a pointy hat, a reputation, and answers. He moves the plot. He mentors the hero. He dies at the right moment or returns when the narrative requires it. Tolkien set the template of course with Gandalf, who enters the Shire as a firework-maker and leaves Middle-earth as an angelic emissary. The template has barely changed since. The wizard knows more than the reader, guides more than he fights, and exists to make the impossible feel permitted.
Rowling understood this and split the figure in two. Dumbledore carries the mentor's authority, the long beard, the cryptic guidance, the willingness to let a child walk into danger because the plan says he must. Harry carries the audience. He is the wizard-as-everyman, the reader's projection, ordinary enough to relate to and magical enough to be the difference. Between them, the Potterverse gave an entire generation its default image of what a wizard is and what a wizard does. That image is now so dominant that every wizard written since exists in some kind of relationship to it.
Le Guin took a different path. Ged in the Earthsea novels is a wizard defined by naming. To know the true name of a thing is to hold power over it, and the arc of Ged's life is the slow discovery that power held is not the same as power used. Where Gandalf advises and Dumbledore controls, Ged learns silence. The wizard becomes interesting not when he acts but when he chooses not to.
Abercrombie went further, and you will not be surprised to hear that I admire him greatly for that. Bayaz in The First Law is a wizard stripped of every romantic quality the tradition offers. He is a manipulator, a politician, and a centuries-old schemer who uses people the way other wizards use spells. His power is real, but it serves nothing beyond his own continuity. Abercrombie took the mentor figure and asked what happens when the wisdom is a performance and the guidance is self-interest. The answer is one of the most uncomfortable portraits of magical authority in modern fantasy.
Shakespeare asked the question earliest and answered it last. Prospero in The Tempest is a wizard who has used his power to control an island, enslave a spirit, and orchestrate the fates of everyone around him. Then he gives it up, and that renunciation is the whole point. Prospero's final speech is a powerful request for release, and there is a reading of it that says the wizard figure only becomes honest when he stops being a wizard altogether.
These are the five figures I think about most when I consider how to write a wizard. Gandalf the guide. Dumbledore the patriarch. Ged the namer. Bayaz the fraud. Prospero the abdicator. Each one is a protagonist or a driving force. The story belongs to them or bends around them. They are the reason things happen.
My wizards are not that.
The wizard as mystic
Belnoric Rootcaster in The Tale of Faelen's Watch never casts a spell on the page. He arrives at a military outpost with papers, followers, and careful deference. He conducts observances that mean nothing to the soldiers watching. His people drift into the garrison's routine. Warmth replaces vigilance. Comfort replaces duty. The tower does not fall. No walls are breached and no alarms sound. A captain rides away, and the men who remain discover, without quite noticing, that they have already surrendered everything they were set to guard.
Belnoric is what I think of as a mystic in wizard terms. He does not demonstrate power through force or spectacle. The mystique does the work. Nobody sees the magic because the magic is in the hidden and the unseen. The story tells readers little of what Belnoric can do. It tells them what happens to men who mistake comfort for safety and permission for authority. Belnoric is the lens. Rellan and the Watch are the subject.
The wizard as collector
Nimus Crill in An Eye for Detail is a hydromancer, a teacher, and above all a cataloguer. He tracks a bog beast named Ghesh through the Black Bogs of Mock, fights it with disciplined water magic, and extracts its eye. Then he drinks the black liquid the eye produces and loses the sight in his own left eye by day. In return, he gains vision in darkness and the ability to open warded locks. He documents every stage of this thoroughly. His belief is that recording knowledge is the same as understanding it.
Then he files the eye away in his cabinet and labels it. He calls it "not very useful."
Nimus is the wizard as academic. He is brilliant, meticulous, and entirely certain that his framework is sufficient. The tragedy is that he possesses something extraordinary and cannot recognise it because it does not fit the categories he has already established. His ledger survives him. His understanding does not. The story was not only about the Eye of Ghesh. It was also about the cost of intellectual certainty clashing with something that refuses to be classified.
The wizard as authority
Trofius in Elrinaris is the most outwardly powerful wizard I have written. He can move between magical disciplines the way other men change coats. He trains Cyrene, a young Verdicrence apprentice, and when she names a wand shell and it burns her, he blames her for the failure. He calls it arrogance, impatience, a lack of discipline. He does not consider that the wand refused her because it was never what he thought it was.
When Cyrene walks away, Trofius discovers that the wand responds to him with eager obedience. It is not a Verdicrence shell at all. It is Elrinaris, a legendary Pirrus weapon disguised across centuries. The wand that burned his student answers him because fire answers command, and command is what Trofius has always understood.
Dumbledore could be a comparison here. Both men train young people. Both men believe their authority is earned. Both men shape their students' paths according to plans the students are not permitted to see. The difference is that Rowling ultimately validates Dumbledore. His plan works. The sacrifice he demands is justified by the outcome. I do not bestow any such grace on Trofius. Cyrene's departure is the moment his design is shown to have been wrong. I am asking whether a teacher who cannot recognise what refuses him has ever truly been teaching at all.
The wizard as truth-speaker
My Merlin in Merlin and the Unburied King is set three days after the battle of Arfderydd in 573 AD. He has fled the battlefield. Not from death. From the song. His entire career has been spent dressing slaughter in beauty, giving kings names that make killing sound noble and boys willing to inherit it. When Gwenddolau falls in the mud, afraid and bewildered, Merlin sees the man without the names his craft has layered onto a king. He cannot bring himself to compose the last lie.
Prospero is my nearest influence here. Both men possess real power. Both men arrive at a point where the exercise of that power becomes intolerable. Prospero renounces magic and asks for freedom. My Merlin does something more painful. He speaks the truth. He gives the dead king his real name. "Gwenddolau the afraid." The land receives the king, and Merlin walks into the trees and becomes something we never see or experience.
Prospero's renunciation is a choice made from strength. My Merlin's honesty is a collapse. He does not choose to stop being a bard. He discovers that he cannot continue. Merlin's magical power is useful, but not central. I am asking what happens when a man whose craft is language discovers that language has been his instrument of harm.
Where this leaves me
I admire wizard protagonists. I admire what Tolkien built, what Le Guin deepened, what Abercrombie subverted, what Rowling made universal. The figure has given fantasy some of its strongest characters, and there may well be room for a wizard protagonist in my own future work. But so far, my instinct has been to use the wizard differently. I don't need him at the centre of the story. I need him to be revealing what the humans around him actually are.
Belnoric reveals how cheaply vigilance is sold. Nimus reveals how knowledge is wasted. Trofius reveals what happens when authority mistakes obedience for understanding. My Merlin reveals the cost of a lifetime spent making ugly truths palatable.
I do not think the wizard needs to be the hero for the wizard to matter. Often the most interesting thing a wizard can do is stand at the edge of someone else's story and change everything by being there. The humans can do the rest.
If you'd like to follow Jonathan B. Edvane, you can do so here.
Discussion