I disagree, but I'm not going to get into yet another debate on magical power when there's at least 3 other threads out there about it.

Basically, my position is that there is no such thing as "basic magical prowess" and that the only component of a wizard's magical power is his ability.

 

So you believe there are no magically powerful but dumb wizards?

There's no such thing as basic magical prowess? Wizards are born with their magic, and you do not believe just how much of this magic they possess is determined randomly/genetically?

Sorry, but I fail to see why the innate ability to perform magic should be determined not by how much he was born with/would have when he grows up, but by intelligence.

A magically weak but sufficiently determined or intelligent wizard can master a difficult spell through hardwork or on basis of his intelligence, but it wouldn't erase the fact that a magically powerful wizard, who may not be as smart, could do the same thing in a fraction of the time taken, and have his spell produce a greater effect/be more powerful if it's one meant for combat.

 

I did say I wasn't going to argue it. If you want to see the reasoning, go look up the other threads. But basically, this is not an idea, it's canon fact. JKR has clearly stated that there are no varying degrees of magical power: no wizards are more magical than any other, it's simply all about what you do with your power i.e. your skill.

 

If that was true it would be implying that Crabbe/Goyle can be as powerful as Dumbledore or Voldemort? This is clearly laughable.

I think the crux is- What do you, or JKR mean by "what you do with your power"? Because it seems both Riddle and Dumbledore were born with their brilliance. Even canon gives the idea that they were both remarkable at magic throughout Hogwarts. Compare that to Hermione "Mary-Sue" Granger, who is widely regarded as smart etc thanks largely to her overly swottish ways, but has NEVER been regarded as even close to their level- the two most brilliant students to grace Hogwarts history. So yes, if everybody is born with the same magic, what do you mean by knowing what to do with this magic?

I'm not trying to argue my point, I'm just curious to find out more about this, opposing viewpoint that sounds a little ridiculous to me.

 

There is no if.

No.

Think for a moment about what the definition of power is. Basically, the ability to effect the world.

Dumbledore and Voldemort will always be more powerful than Crabbe and Goyle - that is, they will always be more able to bend the world to their will. But this is not because they have some sort of abstract, randomly generated, value of magical power. It is because they are more intelligent, more creative, more charismatic, have had a better education, have a greater political influence etc.

Well, lets put it in mathematical terms.

Most people perceive power to be like this:

Power = Skill at magic x Raw magical strength

They say raw magical strength is a set value recieved at birth, and then you have to work at skill.

What I - and JKR - am saying is that the Raw magical strength value is the same for all wizards. Which effectively means that

Power = skill

As for what skill is, in terms of magic...its a combination of intelligence, knowledge, technique, instincts, creativity, practice, mental focus, emotional control (or lack of) and improvisation.

So by "what you do with your power" I mean your skill.

That's because they are more intelligent etc.

Hermione may have been smart, but it never said that she was as smart as Dumbledore or Voldemort. She has never been compared to them because she isn't as good as them. She also lacks in other areas that Dumbledore has, such as creativity etc.


You're thinking of magic like a fight. People have strength, and they have their skill at fighting, from martial arts or whatever. Combine their strength and their skill and you have their power.

I'm saying magic is more like playing a musical instrument. How well you play an instrument depends entirely on how good you are at playing it: you don't have some sort of inborn value that determines the limits of your piano playing abilities. How well you play an instrument depends on your musical skill (see above definition of skill. So it is with magic.

Damn, I wasn't going to argue this lol.

 

Except the idea of everyone being born on equal standing with respect to their magic, and how powerful they become largely depends on the factors you've given above, is contradicted by actual powers or abilities such as Metamorphmagi abilities or Parseltongue. If everyone is born equal in magic, why is it that some are born with the ability to speak an exclusive magical language, or is able to change his/her features at will? So much for being equal. An intelligent Auror can use his brains/creativity to fashion a clever disguise for himself, but he can never do it as effortlessly or effectively as a Metamorphmagus. In short, canon already proves some wizards will right at birth have a distinct advantage over others at certain things. Why should this not apply to magic too?

Is it not largely hinted that part of why Tom Riddle was such a brilliant wizard is because he is the Heir of Slytherin? While this may not be certainly true, all we know is that he is perhaps the only known canon character linked to a number of distinguished ancestors (Salazar Slytherin, Peverell brothers), and he is, even when Dumbledore is alive, possibly the most powerful wizard alive. Put two and two together and it is not difficult to see why people believe not everyone is born with an equal amount of magic.

Sure, Riddle's intelligence might have helped in perpetuating his plans (Opening the chamber whilest framing Hagrid for it), his charisma would have undoubtedly helped in rounding up a band of loyal followers. But when it comes to mastering spells and performing magic, does intelligence really make that big a difference? If we are to go by House stereotypes, shouldn't Ravenclaws make the most powerful wizards? But do they? Was Dumbledore a Ravenclaw? And even if we don't, I'd like to point out that as far as canon goes, success of a spell, or spell mastery, is usually determined by correct enunciation/wand movement, assuming it is not strictly non-verbal. Good Harry here, whom I shall assume in my opinion to be at least above-average magically, can grab his wand, wave it wildly, shout out the incantation in a haste, and voila, as long as it's a DADA or Dark Art's spell (Sectumsempra comes to mind), he succeeds! Do you seriously think everyone can do the same? Did his intelligence play a part here? Would any other student under the same state of duress as he is be able to snap off the spell like that? I'm sorry, but I don't think so.

 

Because JKR, who wrote the rules of the world, says so.

Um...no. In fact, a massive no. I'd go so far as to say that the main theme of the book is the opposite of this; that it's your choices and not your birth that makes you who you are.

Um...yes. He said the incantation, made the wand movement (luckily for Harry Sectumsempra is a spell that requires no specific movement: it simply cuts where you move your wand) and the spell worked.

Intelligence is a big factor, but not the only one:

Your belief is not required to make a fact true.

 

Ah yes, the same JKR that contradicts herself throughout the series with having children successfully stand up to the same Death Eaters that murder at will and are able to subjugate entire groups of people easily. You read Garret PI's post too, so you should know what I mean.

And of course it is such a coincidence that all the spells Harry could pull off lately required no specific wand movements. Cruciatus? The spell he used in DH in the aerial battle?

Don't get me started on the choices rubbish. Had Voldemort had ever to choose? It seems his path is set by JKR right when he was born- a linear one to become a one-dimensional villain. And how even right till the Epilogue she still persists in giving the image that the Gryffindors are usually right and the Slytherins with few exceptions are big baddies. So much for one's choices making who they are.

Your narrow-mindedness is honestly evident in your replies. But enlighten me on one aspect- Where did JKR ever state that all wizards are born with the same level of magic? I do hope it's not one of those...interviews.

 

It's on her website, in the FAQ section.

 

Oh, but it isn't. The FAQ section is opened by clicking the paperclips, yeah? If so, then I've searched through all the questions and saw nothing on this subject.

 

What you're implying is basically the same thing. Being magically powerful doesn't really mean shit if you don't have the intelligence required to learn the spells because magic is not just about power. Having the power to back up your spells is always a good thing, but to be able to cast the spells themselves, with the necessary flicks, twists, emotions and ability you need the intelligence to think of all these things at once and more, because magic seems to need a force of will to push it along; this explains Harry's prowess with the spells that require more emotion and natural talent, such as the Patronus Charm, and Hermione's prowess at everything else.

As for Hagrid, I don't see him as unintelligent per say, just uneducated and a bit too talkative for his own good. There are perfectly intelligent people in the world that can't shut up to save their lives, just like there are complete morons that will not say a peep in hours. It's down to appearances as well: imagine Hagrid in a tailored suit (which is the only type you could really get him) with a trimmed beard and stylised hair. He may be eight feet tall, but anyone in an armani suit looks good without even trying. As well as that, I believe his apparent poverty compared to others, such as Dumbledore, who can afford to buy/charm his robes to different styles without thought as to funds, while he lives in a two-room hut on the grounds of Hogwarts... If he lived in a modest two storey house in Godric's Hollow he wouldn't appear nearly as dirty.

I put it down to him not finishing Hogwarts and thus not being able to get a normal wizarding job.

Aekiel

 

Lucullus, I believe Taure is referencing this quote:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=91

Also, on the Squibs section, it further supports this by stating that Squibs are essentially Muggles with magical family and connections to the wizarding world. (It says specifically that Squibs can never do magic and Figg never even saw the Dementors, just as if she was a normal muggle, but identified them do to her knowledge of the magical world and the sensations they created in the alleyway).

Personally, I could go either way with it.

 

Err, Taure, I think you might be taking the quote out of context.

What JKR is saying is that anyone who has magical ability can go to Hogwarts. That quote doesn't say one thing or another about power levels. However, there is canon evidence that wizards have a level of power.

The "powerfully magical" implies that Crouch has a higher level of power. The "power-hungry" implies that political power or ambition have nothing to do with magical power.

There are more, like in HBP when Dumbledore says that Riddle's powers are well developed, but I only have GoF with me. Might edit later with more.

 

I'm not denying people have different levels of power - I'm saying that the process by which this power is reached is due to the combination of the above factors I combine to call skill, rather than genetics or a random value. Everyone starts with the base value of 1, and your skill is the multiple that you times this by to get your power.

It could be argued that the phrase "there is no question of not being ‘magical enough’" is part of the statement about getting into Hogwarts, but "you are either magical or you are not" is a clear, distinct statement in and of itself and independtant from the context.

 

Like Mr. Merriman said, it seems to be more targeted at Squibs. Someone who has absolutely no magical power like Muggles and Squibs won't get into Hogwarts, but someone with an abysmally low level of magic might, just for having magic. It looks to me like she was talking about Hogwarts' admission policies rather then magical powers.

 

From what we've seen of magic in Harry Potter it does suggest that there isn't such a thing as 'magical power', only the skill of the caster and the other factors that go in to a successful spell.

Take the Patronus Charm: one of the most seen spells in canon, it requires concentration on an extremely happy memory and the correct wand movements to be made with the incantation for the spell to work. The only factor that effects the spell in any way (bar whether it will work or not) is the strength of the emotion behind it. As well as that, everyone in the DA can cast the spell (as far as I can remember), to varying degrees, from Ron and Hermione to Neville and Luna. This suggests that one of the most powerful spells known to Wizarding kind can be performed by practically anyone, if they have the necessary powerful memory to fuel it.

Continuing from the DA train of thought, the first lesson held by Harry in the Room of Requirements shows that the majority of students were abysmally poor at even the first year spells, not even being able to cast a successful alohomora or expelliarmus. This changed after only a few weeks and most of the students were then able to cast many spells from said expelliarmus up to the Reductor curse or the Patronus Charm. This also shows that skill is more important than power, as seen by the amount of passes in the OWL exams, especially the number of Outstandings.

Another perfect example of power not being a factor is the Priori Incantatem effect in GoF, where it is Harry's strength of will that forces the beads back towards Voldemort, not any magical power, just his own stubbornness.

These facts, backed up by JKR's assertions, tell me that power is not something that effects magic beyond the power of memories and emotions to fuel specific spells.

Aekiel

 

Um no, I'm not implying the same thing. What Taure is saying is that if someone has Dumbledore's intelligence, creativity, knowledge and whatever other shit he mentioned, he would be able to be as "powerful" as Dumbledore. What I'm saying is that this same wizard would never reach Dumbledore's level because Dumbledore is born more powerful. To reach his level, this guy would have to be much smarter, more knowledgeable, display more creativity, be more diligent; basically surpass Dumbledore in the factors Taure mentioned, to make up for the difference in the power they were born with.

And Taure, if the quote Aekiel mentioned is the one you're referring to, I hope you stop spouting all this "JKR says so herself" bullshit. The phrase "You are either magical or you are not" does not mean "Everybody is born eith equal amounts of magic". You may be right, sure, but you certainly aren't definitely right because "JKR said so" as you've claimed. JKR never said so.

You are clearly wrong. If you flash back to the final scene with Voldemort in DH, you'll find that in his fury, Voldemort managed to blast not one, not two, but three of some of the most accomplished wizards/witches still surviving a good distance back, and also make them writhe in pain. Is this not magical power in action? I fail to see where "skill" comes into place. "It's his fury that powered his spell", I hear you say. But for one, I'm not too sure it is even a spell, and for another, the factor of his fury cannot be that significant. Do you mean to say nobody else has experienced such fury as Voldemort? If so you are deluded. If not, then why do we not see other wizards/witches being able to push a number of combatants back so forcefully and painfully in their fury.

It was and meant to be a display of Voldemort's power, clear and simple as that. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree on your view that there is no such thing as magical power. Even Taure at the very least believes in it, though we may have differing opinions on the level one is born with.

 

That's because his skill surpasses theirs so much that he is able to command magic far better than they are i.e. he is a better wizard than the three of them combined, therefore he beats them.

No, this is a spell that they weren't able to defend against, either because they did not know it (Voldemort may even have created it himself) or Voldemort cast the spell well enough to get past any defences they had.

There more skill you have, the better you are at casting spells. The better you are at casting spells, the more powerful your spells are. The more powerful your spells, the harder they are to defend against.

Molly vs. Bellatrix.

No I don't. I was simply using the starting value of 1 to illustrate my point mathematically. I believe in magical power, but not in raw magical strength.

 

You are just proving my point against Aekiel, who does not believe in magical power, raw or otherwise. Or in his own words:

That was what I was saying, in response to Aekiel- that Voldemort was simply more powerful. Or to put it in crude terms, he had more magical power than all three of them combined.

Aekiel said that barring a few other factors like emotions etc, only the skill of the caster matters. Now, I'm not sure if his definition of "skill" is the same as yours, because it is apparent he doesn't believe in magical power, raw or not. I'm assuming it's not- hence I said what I've said to show that Voldemort managed what he did largely because he was more powerful than them, and partly also due to his fuelled emotions.

You've just proved my point. Congratulations. *claps hands*

Just to clear up any confusion in our respective beliefs.

I believe in magical power. I believe that each wizard/witch is born with differing levels of power. In short, some are more powerful than others. After, life isn't equal, why should magic be any different? I feel the fact that there exists unique powers that one may be born with, like Metamorphmagi, which would give them an inherent advantage in certain areas over others proves this point. However, how powerful a wizard will end up becoming depends on a multitude of factors, like those Taure mentioned. In short, I do agree with part of what he expounds.

Taure does not believe in raw magical power. He believes all wizards/qwitches are born equal in magic. He does however, believe in magical power, which he postulates is constituted by a variety of factors as he've mentioned, which he collectively calls "skill".

Aekiel does not believe in magical power at all. He believes that the success of a wizard in the casting of spells depends on his skill, which he has yet to define. He believes that the "magical power" of a wizard/witch plays no part in determining the success of a spellcast, apart from the power of emotions/memories.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You're misunderstanding me, I believe that there is magic in each and every witch/wizard but that there is no quantifiable amount of it. Do not think of it as a glass of water that can be consumed or poured in different amounts, think of it as a number, like the number 1. There are no values of the single number one. There are values either side of it (be they 0.99999 or 1.00001, etc.) but there is only one value applicable to the number 1. This is what I believe of magic. It is there, it cannot be consumed or poured in differing amounts by itself. There have to be contributing factors that effect the outcome of the spell, such as emotions, accuracy of the wand movements, force of will behind the spell, etc.; this is what I call skill.

I think you missed the point here, there was no raw magic behind Voldemort's spell that set it apart from those around him, it was the efficiency with which he cast it and the 'strength' of the emotion behind it. Just as you can feel angry at someone, Voldemort felt absolute fury at those around him, and it passed into his spell it make it more potent than it otherwise would have been.

You're also misunderstanding what it is to be a metamorphmagi. There is no scale on which you can be a metamorph, you are either born to it or you are not. There are no metamorphmagi that can only change part of their body, there is either full control or none at all. Just as there are no partial parseltongue speakers, you either understand the language or you can't. Before anyone mentions Ron's use of it during DH, that was nothing more than copying the sounds Harry made while opening the door to the Chamber. Compare it to copying a sentence in French without knowing the meaning of the words.

Just to define my meaning of the word skill, I believe pretty much the same as this. There is no difference in power to change the spell, there are only these factors that effect the outcome of the spell.

So tl;dr - No difference in raw quantity of magic (since I don't believe magic can be quantified), only emotions/talent/technique/etc. effect the outcome of the spell.

Aekiel