Something I hadn't considered...

[avevale_intelligencer]

Alan Moore, in an interview to which cherylmmorgan links, says, among other things:

"To me, all creativity is magic,” he says. “Ideas start out in the empty void of your head – and they end up as a material thing, like a book you can hold in your hand. That is the magical process. It’s an alchemical thing. Yes, we do get the gold out of it but that’s not the most important thing. It’s the work itself. That’s the reward. That’s better than money.”

So far so good, and I tend to believe that myself. What he does not add, but as a practising occultist will certainly know (let's face it, people who watched Charmed know it), is that there is a rule about magic: you aren't allowed to make money from it*. I genuinely hadn't made that connection...but I'd be very surprised if he hasn't.

Hmmmm.

*As with everything in this area, there are many different interpretations of this. Some occultists figure it's okay to charge for materials, but not for the actual spellcasting. Some discriminate between things like divination, which is mostly looking at what's there and interpreting it, and actual magic. Some think it's all right to ask for donations but not to set a fee. And some simply don't give a toss, possibly because they know they are not actually doing magic. EDIT: and, as I should have pointed out, there are innumerable different types of magic and their attitudes to doing it for cash are all different. I was speaking from my own, largely indirect, knowledge, which because it comes from books is automatically suspect (see Pratchett passim).

Comments

[cleverthylacine]

You say that's a rule of magic like it's a natural law, and in fact it is not; that's a rule of some traditions. You go to Hong Kong or even to Chinatown and there will be loads of people who are perfectly willing to cast you a spell for money. Heck, open up the back of any tabloid.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with doing things for money that you wouldn't have an ethical problem with doing in the first place; the reason the lines get so messed up with people who cast curses and the like for cold hard cash is, first of all, hello, curses, and second of all, if you're being paid you are only hearing one side of the story so you may or may not be doing enough research before you take a case.

I've been paid for magic; I gave readings and tried to solve problems for money for years, particularly when I was in graduate school and the terms of my assistantship were such that I couldn't have outside paid employment but I didn't make enough money to pay for all the necessities. It didn't ruin MY life. I was a phone psychic, too.

This is one of those things that the whitelighters, usually privileged people who do what they do as a hobby or a spiritual practise, would like people to believe. I can well believe it made it into a TV show like Charmed. But um. A short stroll down any number of Chinatown or New Orleans neighbourhoods should be sufficient to disabuse you of the notion.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. Some traditions, the ones I know best, regard it as a rule, with interpretations as I said. I don't see an ethical problem with charging for it myself, but since I'm not a magician (except in the sense of being creative, if you look at it that way) the question hasn't arisen.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

But Moore get paid for the work he does, so he presumably does not agree about not getting paid for magic.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

It might play into the reasons why he doesn't accept money for the film adaptations...but I don't know. He certainly has other reasons.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

He does accept money for the film adaptations. He sold the rights to adapt both V for Vendetta and Watchmen. I cannot confirm whether he sold the rights to From Hell but I doubt he would just give them away.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'm talking about this:

"Nobody quite believes Moore when he says he doesn't care about the movies made of his work. For most writers of any shade, a big-budget Hollywood adaptation of their work is a form of validation, not to mention a pension fund, but Moore puts his money where his mouth is – or rather isn't. He has had his name removed from anything to do with the Watchmen movie. He's also demanded that his share of any profits from it go to Dave Gibbons, the original artist of the comic book (who has co-operated with the movie production)."

(from the preamble to the interview in question, so presumably as accurate as a newspaper ever is)

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Hm. My understanding is that one doesn't take undue advantage -- but making a living isn't out of bounds.

But what do I know. I live in nye kulturnye Amerika. :-)

[tattercoats.livejournal.com]

I'm with you there. It's right to recieve money if one is doing the magic in a context where there is money to be paid. OTOH, it may well be wrong to withhold said magic where good could be done, and where the money is not, purely for that reason. Ie, give a little, it's good for you, but as Redaxe says, it's ok to make a living.

Bear in mind that in a looser, less populous, more community minded, er, community, then there would not perhaps be such hard lines between money and its lack, a job and unemployment, payment and non-payment.

I have included my harp in paid gigs on a few occasions, I realise, but when playing for handfastings and rituals, it's tended to be as a gift - albeit one in exchange for which I have often been given a bed for the night, a meal, in one case a brooch with a harp on it. Gift for gift... not quite the same thing as payment. Pay me £x or no deal... well, I might have such a conversation with a promoter who's in the business of paying acts to perform, but I'd be less likely to have it with a non-profit concern.

Again, that doesn't mean I'll play for any charity for nothing. Groups with which I have had associations or affiliations, however, have certainly had the right to ask for a little magic without money changing hands.

You will have realised that for me, music *is* magic. My tuppenyworth.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Yours is about the position of most pagans I know on the subject. It seems to mirror their attitudes in other aspects as well, especially anything done as a hobby, that it's OK to make money from it when appropriate but on the other hand it is often done as a gift as well. (And I agree with it; as a person who makes a living from his hobby but also does it to distribute for free.)

On the other side, I also know some people who are very proud of their 'amateur' status and disparaging about anyone who takes money for doing the same thing, without any of the 'magical' ideas. Dancers, for instance, some of whom won't even do a solo performance at all in case it damages their 'amateur' status. And for that matter some of the more idealist "free software" advocates.

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

On a slight tangent: This probbaly explains why few D&D magic-users prosper wonderfully unless they're NPCs -- they are, in one way or another, charging for doing their magic, and karma sees that they do not *profit* from it.

Quaere whether the same "law" applies in the celestial sphere :: can a power or urgaic force seek payment for services rendered ? How does this affect the traditional, signed-in-blood, Demonic Covenant ??