I found this article http://www.decentfilms.com/articles/magic some time ago, and I find it very interesting. It is old; written before the LOTR movies were released, but I think it is worth dicussion anyway.

What are your thoughts?

I hope it's ok to post a very open-ended topic like this, but I thought that the article was worth sharing.

Looks like a fascinating article. I'll have to read it later.

Well, after reading through the entire article (it took two sittings), I'm happily surprised and very much enjoyed and agreed with much of Greydanus' article. I think a lot of the conclusions that Greydanus reached at the end of his article were spot on, and I found the seven hedges to magic that he referenced quite interesting.

Since Greydanus was primarily concerned with the reader, not the writer, here are the conclusions I reached at the end of this article for myself as a writer, not a reader.

First, I really liked this quote:

Given that, when creating worlds, and writing stories, when rewriting the order of creation in fiction, the danger comes in the effect that your book has on the reader. Writing magic in a book by itself might be fine (although I fall on the Tolkien side of things that fantasy & magical elements should be kept in worlds totally separate from our worlds), but what matters is how your book effects the reader, and, relating to the subject at hand, if it makes them want to try out magic in the real world.

This is where Greydanus' theory of the seven hedges comes into play. Insomuch as the hedges are not rules of "portray magic like this," but different ways to keep the magic in the book from being attractive to the readers, I thought that they all made sense as good suggestions. I would add an eighth hedge, though, that, though moreso with Tolkien, they are different with the distinguishing between what I'll call epic magic, rather than what I'll call dark magic or trivial magic.
For some defining of terms, "epic magic" is the type of magic which is found in works such as Lord of the Rings, The Inheritance Cycle, or Star Wars, where the magic has a very other-ness sense and is primarily used for "epic" purposes. To further define what I mean, this is in opposition to "trivial magic," where the magic is used for light purposes and is so ingrained in the community that it is the source of pranks, small needs, or other small things. Although I haven't read the series, from what the articles said, Harry Potter has trivial magic in it, as well as the Septimus Heap series, which I've read. (Dark magic is the type of magic in this world with seances, ouija boards, etc.)
Having defined terms then, I think that trivial magic is more endearing than epic magic because epic magic has a sense of other-ness to it that I think trivial magic minimalizes, as well as making it seem more attractive to the reader.

So there are my thoughts. Practically, in my universe, I have hedges 1 and 2 and somewhat hedge 4. I think that Greydanus had some good points with hedge 7 as well. I think the take-away is not that all the hedges must be used or else, but that we need to realize that when writing with magic, we don't want our writing to make our readers more interested in real magic, and thus we want to find ways (hedges) to detract them from going down that path.

Awesome response! Thanks!
I agree with you on the quote - that is also my absolute favourite, and something I am trying to keep in mind when I write.
When I first found the article I was just so impressed at the idea of the seven hedges; such an accurate description of what Tolkien and Lewis have put in place. In recent years I have become uncomfortable with books/tvshows etc that put magic in a very accessible position - far too easy for readers or viewers to imitate, or at least explore on the internet, often leading to darker influences. But then I had others asking me why I was happy to watch LOTR or Narnia, and I found I didn't have a concise answer, until I read this
I hope this helps others too, and I'm still very interested to hear everyone's responses!

Hey, I love this! Nice 8th Hedge. I'd make that one official! And I read most of the HP series and yes, I would say it was 'trivial' magic. I think you're bang on with this.

Interesting article. Hedge one has been my primary reason for why magic in fantasy isn't a problem for years. XD

It's a good argument for why not all magic in stories is the same, and a good reminder for us as writers to think about our magic and how we use it.

And I feel like there's more I want to say, but I can't figure it out, so I may be back later with more.

It was indeed a fascinating article.

I didn't read all of it, in fact I skipped to where he talks about the hedges themselves, and I must agree that they are interesting observations. I might go back and read the whole thing some time, but I'm not betting on it.

In regards to comments he made about the fifth hedge, Gandalf's true semi-angelic nature was never really revealed in the original LOTR trilogy, it was only hinted at. But regardless of that, Tolkien still made it pretty clear that Gandalf was not of the race of Men. All that to say, you don't have to tell the reader that your characters with magic are not human if you can show it clearly enough.