I must have argued bits and pieces of this theory all over the site, but I've never once presented it as one whole, complete argument. As a result, many people have a misunderstanding of this increasingly-popular idea of magical theory: a misunderstanding I now hope to clear up.

From now on, when people disagree with me over magical theory in any other thread, I shall simply refer them to this thread, so as to avoid hundreds of replica magical-theory threads appearing all over the place, hijacking other conversations.

So, here we go...

A Theory of Magic
By Taure​

The prevailing opinion on magical power in the Harry Potter fandom appears to be one much influenced much by video games (in which players have Magic Points, or Mana) and traditional fantasy novels.

This view of magical theory, though it comes in varying forms, basically says that wizards and witches are born with some sort of "magical core" or "raw magical power". A wizards' capabilities are therefore, by this theory, the result of a combination of their skill and this raw magical power.

However, this opinion is not really one that the books support, and is only popular due to the fact that it is the system used in practically every fantasy novel since time began.

My aim is to show that the idea of raw magical power is nonsensical.

The argument can be summarised quite easily:

A powerful wizard is one that casts powerful spells.

Powerful spells are the result of casting the spells well.

Casting a spell well results from a wizard's skill.

Thus, a powerful wizard is one with a high level of skill.

The idea of "raw magical power" doesn't come into it.

This is not to say that all wizards a born equal, for not all wizards are born with equal amounts of those things that contribute to skill (e.g. intelligence). Upbringing would effect it a lot also.

To be clear in my definitions, I define skill as all of those things that affect spellcasting. To name some (but probably not all) of these things:

Intelligence, knowledge, technique, instinct, creativity, practice (familiarity with the magic), mental focus, emotions, improvisation, will power (determination) and confidence.

A suitable analogy would be that of playing the piano. A good piano player is one that plays well. Playing well results from skill. Thus, a good piano player is one that has a high level of skill. People aren't born with an "inner piano-playing ability" or "raw piano-playing ability". It's just their skill.

This theory is compatible with those that draw an analogy between a wizard's magic and a muscle.

As your practice more, you become better at magic. As you become better at magic, you cast more powerful spells. As you cast more powerful spells, you are by definition becoming a more powerful wizard. Thus, a wizard who "exercises" his magic is a more powerful wizard, just like physical exercise builds up your muscles.

The theory does allow for a small amount of magical exhaustion. After a long period of casting spells, a person would get exhausted - not because he has "expended" his magic or "worn his magic out" or any such idea, but because he is losing his skill level falls as he keeps using magic. For example, mental focus is a large part of skill, but after focusing for a long time this will slip, effecting the person's magic, and weakening their spells. However, magical exhaustion as many people propose it, of a wizard's "magic reserves" running low or any such idea, would not be true.

The theory also provides great versatility and canon-applicability.

In the Harry Potter series, we see Neville turn from a near-Squib to a powerful wizard. If he had a raw magical power preset at birth, this would not be possible. But with this theory allows for this. Neville becoming a powerful wizard can be put down to his skill level increasing: his confidence and will power (determination) increased, and thus he became a more powerful wizard.

If we now turn to Deathly Hallows, we can see the theory in action again. Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix Lestrange. Under normal circumstances, I think we'd all agree than Molly wouldn't be able to beat Bellatrix, who is one of Voldemort's most powerful Death Eaters (perhaps even the second most powerful Death Eater, after Snape). However, Molly beats her, and this is due to the boost in power her emotions give her.

The opposite is true also. In Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, we see Tonks lose her Metamorphmagus powers due to her being depressed. Her emotions dropped her skill level, to the point at which she could no longer transform.

So by this theory a usually powerful wizard can have moments of weakness, and a usually weak wizard can sometimes be powerful, as we have observed in canon.

Another interesting part of HBP that this theory applies to is in The Cave, where Dumbledore tells Harry that Harry's power would not register against his own. This has often been used by people to say that raw magical power exists in the Harry Potter world.

However, surely if the idea of raw magical power were true, then Harry Potter, the chosen one, would have at least a substantial amount of this raw magical power? Should his powers not register next to Dumbledore's?

The answer to this is clear. Raw magical power does not exist, and Dumbledore is speaking of power in the same way I am. In this sense, Harry's power certainly wouldn't show up against Dumbledore's, since Dumbledore is by far the superior wizard.

A final example is based around Harry's conjuring of an extremely powerful Patronus at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban. Some would use this scene to say that Harry must have enormous "raw magical power" to perform such an unusual feat. However, this situation is explained by this theory also.

The Patronus is a spell based on emotion. Harry's emotions, we have been told, are very powerful - his most powerful asset. The "Power of Love"(TM) was the Power that the Dark Lord Knew Not. So Harry is naturally good at the Patronus, as it is a spell that suits his strengths.

In addition, we have the Time Turner to consider. Harry had seen himself cast the spell - he knew with absolute certainty that the spell would succeed, and knew with absolute certainty that it would be as powerful as it turned out to be. So he had a level of confidence that no wizard has probably ever felt before - complete certainty. He knew he would succeed. So he is naturally good at the Patronus, due to his Power of Love, and he had a boost of confidence, due to the Time Turner.

Both of these - emotions and confidence - are major factors affecting skill. So Harry, a usually average wizard, was able to cast this very powerful spell, due to his skill level rising, for this particular spell in this particular circumstance. The effect his confidence had on the spell can be seen in OotP, where Harry once again casts the spell, under normal conditions (no time travel). The spell is much less spectacular. In effect, his confidence that the spell would succeed made it so that the spell did succeed.

This theory is further backed by the idea that not once has any idea of "raw magical power", or a person running out of their magic, or becoming exhausted due to using "too much" of their magic, been mentioned in canon.

 

You've disproved the idea that "raw magical power" is a renewable pool of power, waiting to be drawn upon. Some are born with larger pool capacity than others, and emptying that pool results in magical exhaustion.


But what about the alternate theory that "raw magical power" is a matter of affinity rather than quantity?

I'm going to use Star Wars as an example for this. Just as some have a higher affinity for the Force (which by itself is a fixed quantity), isn't it valid that some may just have a higher affinity for magic (which may or may not be quantifiable as it is in Star Wars)?

The idea of magical affinity, as opposed to magical power seems to hold up to many of your arguments.

This piano analogy can also be applied to the magical affinity theory. Certainly, not all pianists are created equal. There is most definitely a measure of innate talent for the task; this talent must be determined genetically (i.e. by birth). As elusive as the idea of “talent” is to define, I’m going to equate it to affinity.

One could also argue that Harry has a great affinity for magic. Much as in Star Wars, in which an untrained Jedi would never reach his/her potential, the same concept can be applied here. Harry’s ability to produce that patronus was likely a result of training (earlier with Lupin) as well as other factors such as emotion, confidence, etc. However, the fact that he has a high affinity for magic can be used to explain why the patronus was so immensely powerful. Had someone equally emotional, say Lavender Brown, been in his place prepared with training and confidence, perhaps the patronus would not have been as strong or effective.



Anyways, I got sidetracked. My point is that it’s impossible to argue exclusively that all magical people are created with equal amounts of magic, and that “power’ is dependent solely only skill. The great disparity between average and extraordinary wizards, the very presence of squibs, and the nature of canon magic seem to indicate that the theory of magical affinity is viable.


Therefore, high-magical-affinity wizards are the only ones that have the potential to be great. But affinity does not guarantee greatness (Greatness would also be affected by other factors like intelligence, ambition, etc.). On the other hand, low-magical-affinity would mean that not even the potential is present (in such a case, no amount of other skill will produce greatness. Perhaps great prowess in politics, or academics, but not wizarding greatness).

 

What you call affinity is factored into skill. If you remember my definition of skill:

If you had what you call a greater magical affinity than another person, isn't this simply just another way of saying you have better magical instincts and the ability to improvise? Which would then lead to better technique and creativity. All four of which are in my above list of those things that are part of skill.

Once again using the piano analogy, a person who who is "naturally musical" (if such a thing exists) is just a simpler way of saying that they have good musical instincts, improvisation and creativity etc.

So in effect, magical affinity is part of skill, though there are other aspects to Skill. I wouldn't say magical affinity was a fixed value though, since things like improvisation can be taught, and instinct can be made up for by practice and hard work. For instance, there are many naturally talented musicians out there who are worse musicians than less talented people, since the less talented people have put in more work to make up for the lack of instinct. Nor would I say that affinity is related to birth - it's more likely to be affected by upbringing.

But if the reason why Harry's Patronus at the end of POA was so amazing was something to do with Harry himself, then surely all his other Patroni at later dates would be equally amazing? Yet they aren't. So Harry's uber-Patronus has to be attributed to an external factor.

I think Harry's Patronus at the end of POA has to be called unique due to the time traveling taking place (affecting his confidence).

I'm not arguing that people are created with the same amount of magic. I'm arguing that "amount of magic" doesn't exist. Rather, think of magic as an on/off switch: you either have it or you do not. How good you are at using your magical ability then depends on your skill. And remember,

This disparity of magical talent can be easily accounted for in terms of disparity of skill. Squibs are those who simply do not possess the magic gene, like Muggles. Their switch is "off".

 

The PoA patronus aside (due to time travel, it was a fluke), I don't think you're completely understanding my definition of "magical affinity".

In Star Wars, it was physically quantifiable. They had a machine to measure Midi-chlorians (the stuff that determines affinity to the Force), which are defined as "microscopic life-forms that reside within the cells of almost all living things and communicate with the Force".

By magical affinity, I was referring to something tangible and measurable, not a theoretical 'instinct'.

 

Hmm...it's an interesting idea, but not supported by canon.

It may be compatible with canon, but there is nothing in canon that actively supports it.

In contrast, we have seen in canon many times how skill effects spellwork, and we haven't ever been led to believe that there is any other factor that effects it.

P.S. Weren't midi-chlorians a Prequel Trilogy retcon?

P.P.S. I keep editing my posts loads as new ideas come to me. Sorry about that.

 

Here are examples from DH - we see that it is skill mentioned in reference to magical superiority and not some "magical power".

 

Yes, but canon doesn't detail a system. Which is why we have to make one up.

Eh. As long as nothing actively refutes it, I can work with it.

Yes, but skill is such a broad term. It takes skill to do anything that isn't biologically instinctual. I feel like skill doesn't explain things like where magic comes from, why wizards/wizards can use it, or how they can use it. It merely details that competency is the result of skill, which is a pretty broad and universal statement. But perhaps that's what Rowling intended for HP magic to be.

Lol. I have no idea. I'm not a huge Star Wars person. I'll go see all the movies... someday.

 

So where does the "Dark Arts" fit into all of this? I don't think the bullshit used by many authors stands ("Magic is magic is magic!"). The way it's described by Snape in HBP makes it seem to be something separate. What makes Dark Wizards separate?

 

This theory only describes why some wizards are more powerful than others. For Dark Magic, you'd need a different type of theory entirely: one about the nature of magic itself.

 

Wait a minute!
I had the idea that Dumbledore had had an unusually long lifespan even for a wizard, and that his longevity was a side effect of his extreme power.

 

Ignoring the complete lack of relevance of that idea...

Dumbledore actually died at a relatively young age. 115, or around 150, depending on which count you use. Either way, there are many older than him. For example, Madam Marshbanks must be at least 20 years older and still isn't dead during OotP. In addition, she is nowhere near as powerful as Dumbledore, yet older, which rather discredits the more power = longer life theory.

 

I completely agree with your theory, Taure, and will even put it in my signature.

About the midichlorians: they have taken up enough space in what is, after all, a discussion about Harry Potter magic, but PM me if you want a very, very vehement and logical refutation of the midichlorian hoax. That is all.

 

I don't see how that is a suitable analogy; you seem to be ignoring the 'magical exhaustion' issue with it... Many times we are told that a person has exerted a large amount of magical energy and thus becomes 'tired' (I may be being mistaken wholly for fanon here, but I think one example is at the end of PS in the Hospital Wing...)

Not a bad way of explaining it, but if my PS stone example is correct (I really cba checking at the moment) then we know Harry wasn't concentrating... He was shitting his pants, not even trying to use his brain and showed the emotion inhabition of a fangirl... This also shows that the 'magical protection' running through him acted on his own magic, in his blood (negated when Voldemort used it in the rebirth).

Also, how does the fact that some spells are 'emotion' driven fit into this? Such as the Patronus... you named 'emotion' as something which makes a good wizard, but Dumbledore especially (and Snape) keep their emotions masked (Dumbledore barely shows any emotion at all while duelling, where Harry basically depends on nothing but) and they both kick ass...

Let me add here that in canon we are given the image that Ron Weasley is a better/more skilful wizard then Draco Malfoy, who is displayed as reletively intelligent... In fact, Ron bests many older/wiser/much, much more intelligent Death Eaters, and the best thing he has going for him is his mediocre chess ability... How can this be explained barring immense luck/ more magical prowess via a bigger core.

Where do Purebloods base their thesis on, if all they had to do was ensure that Mudbloods train their skills properly? Where does all the 'I am more powerful then thou' attitude come from if there wasn't something inbreeding was supposed to contibute to (they are probably wrong, but the fact that they are willing to resort to incest must mean something; IE their belief in a magical core, and by keeping a child all-magical he has a better at having a bigger/better core).

Hagrid comment "how can you not be, with yer parents being who they are" or something along those lines seems to support this (isn't he saying how Harry will be a great wizard or somethin?)

Lastly; "And he shall mark him as his equel", the exchange of abilites after the spell-which-backfired-and-made-a-Horcrux and the way that Voldemort could still cast spells while in a very small/reptile like body points to a 'core'.

If it was down to practice/concentration/skill then how come he was able to duel so well in his new body; having not cast magic in it for over a decade (by your evidence he should have needed time to acustomise to his movements in order to put maximum concentraion into casting a spell/ spent time practicing/ had enough control over his emotion etc after just being reborn...)

The 'equal' part is often taken as meaning in magical proportions, because lets face it; canon Harry doesn't show as much intelligence, mental control, concentration, knowledge, creativity, technique etc as Voldemort- he would be, in no way, his equal....

 

Stallion, did you seriously just present -

- as a point? Because honestly, that's pretty much racism. It's no different than the silly idea that some races are inherently superior to others. There doesn't need to be an actual basis for it to be believed, people just have to be ignorant.

 

*sigh*

I somehow think you guys are missing the point of fanfiction a bit. Taure's (admittedly well-thought-out and solid) essay is just as valid as, say, magic comes from a device under Hogwarts that devours the souls of random young children through the Sorting Hat.

JKR didn't hammer down nearly enough details and contradicted herself more than a couple times, so there's never going to be one Grand Unified Theory of Magic that covers everything.

Taure, if you're writing an epic-length saga where you need every snip of magic pinned down and able to be scrutinised, then congratulations, because you've got it here. So does anyone else who asks you for permission to nab it. But if J Random Writer's fic needs the soul-sucker device to have a plot, then all that goes out the window, and random Hufflepuff thickies are going to be a tad lighter in the upstairs regions after their first day in the castle.

Oh, and Molly killed Bella due to author fiat, not emoshun. Fuck you JKR.

 

Honestly, the main reason I think that Molly managed to kill Bella is the same way Bella killed Sirius. She was playing around, that is to say, she underestimated Molly (with good reason), didn't take her seriously, and suffered the consequences. This has nothing to do with how good or bad Bellatrix Lestrange is, it just shows that if you fuck around in a life or death battle, you're going to die, even if the opponent's nigh-on incompetent.

Either that, or you could run with the adrenaline idea, making the determined housewife far more powerful than she had ever been before.

 

This theory is all about there being no such thing as inborn magic levels. But your ideas don't take into account a lot of things.

Dumbledore is the first major flaw. By your theory, there is nothing different between him and Hermione Granger, but by Seventh Year he was doing things with his wand that Marchbanks had never seen before. We see Hermione still in school and still practicing and studying to the extent of human possibility all the way up until the end of her sixth year. Was she even near to doing things with her wand that Marchbanks might not have ever seen before? We don't know for certain, but canon points towards her not being near that level.

What was the difference between them? Hermione has all of the things you list in abundance. You might say that she isn't creative, but wasn't she the one who marked the doors in the DOM with her X's of fire? Didn't she think of the DA and using Skeeter for Harry's interview. Didn't she figure out the basilisk problem? She is creative, imaginative, and intuitive. So what was the difference between her and Dumbledore? I say it is the fact that Dumbledore is more magically powerful.

Your next problem is your thoery on 'magical exhaustion.' That is, without a doubt, the weakest part of your theory. You are saying that Dumbledore could cast any spell that doesn't need great mental focus- meaning any spells but the Patronus Charm, The Summoning Charm, and the Unforgivables- nearly indefinitely. That is a far-fetched idea if there ever was one. That idea is practically the same as the magical core idea. Instead of 'magic points' we have 'mental points' and when you have strained you brain to much you can't use magic...

BTW, no one ever said Harry was a powerful wizard besides Hagrid, and you can't take much of what he says into account. He was a rather mediocre wizard with a lot of emotions. Therefore he was able to cast a strong patronus but the rest of his magic was rather weak. THAT theory gives credence to what Dumbledore said to Harry in the cave. Your theory doesn't explain anything. How is magic going to detect which one has practiced more. Is there a 'smartness' meter? He was obviously talking about magical power. And Canon Harry's power is love, not magic, as we see.

 

Agreed totally about the power thing.

However, as people have stated above JKR contradicts herself way to much in the books and just isn't consistent with what she wants to say to base anything 100%....I think Magical core however makes the most sense.

 

Yes, you are mistaking canon for fanon. There is no magical exhaustion in canon.

See above. No magical exhaustion in canon.

People like Dumbledore and Snape have control over their emotions, this is true. But this does not mean they don't have emotions at all, it just means that they are the master of their emotions, not the other way around. Which ultimately makes them more focused. And still able to feel the emotions they need when necessary.

Ron has many things that Draco Malfoy does not. Skill isn't just about knowledge and intelligence.

Purebloods are wrong; they have no basis for their thesis.

You're taking the "Voldemort's Equal" line in a way it is not intended in canon. Never once does canon tell us, or even imply, that Harry is anywhere near Voldemort's magical equal. The equal is a more "philosophical" statement about Harry is the only one who will oppose Voldemort due to the choices he makes.

Incorrect. Read the theory again. I'll give you a hint:

I'd say that the difference between them is that while Hermione is intelligent, Dumbledore is even more intelligent. While Hermione is knowledgeable, Dumbledore is even more knowledgeable. While Hermione has good instincts, Dumbledore has even better instincts. And so on.

All of these factors together make Dumbledore more magically powerful.

You finding it far-fetched is no counter-argument. It's just an opinion. And unfortunately for you, an opinion that is unfounded, as not once in canon has a person been magically exhausted. Think of the two most magically intense scenes in the HP series: Harry casting the uber-Patronus and the Dumbledore-Voldemort duel in OotP. After neither of them is anyone magically exhausted.

This isn't quite true. The "mental exhaustion" aspect is not like the magical exhaustion idea in the slightest. Firstly, we can observe mental exhaustion in real life. Ever stay up to the early hours of the morning writing an essay? Secondly, mental exhaustion is nowhere near as severe as the proposed magical exhaustion. When you stay up late writing that essay, you are still perfectly capable of writing it, it's just you're a bit more sloppy and the quality of the work will drop slightly.

How would magic know which wizard was more powerful if you used your magical core idea? I see no difference in logical possibility between a spell able to detect skill and a spell able to detect some sort of extra-dimensional source of power.

In addition, if you adhere to the idea that magical power is a quantifiable energy that a wizard has access to, then Dumbledore would have to have an infinite amount of magic for even a wizard of the smallest power not to register next to him. Simple maths. Even if you put, for example, Dumbledore's power at a value of 1,000,000,000,000 and Harry's power at a value of 1, the one still changes the power to 1,000,000,000,001.

For one wizard's power not to register against the other's, one of the wizard's power has to be infinite, since infinity+1 is a meaningless concept.

And I don't think anyone's in the magical core camp is claiming that Dumbledore's power is infinite.

I never once claimed that Harry was a strong wizard.

That is what my theory says:

Again, you're just repeating my words:

I think you need to read my theory more closely.

In addition, on this last point, I think you should note that Dumbledore claimed that love was the greatest magic of all. So Harry's power of love was also a power of magic.

...which is why this is in canon discussion, rather than fanfic discussion.

 

Your theory really doesn't change anything Taure.

No matter which way you look at it, at least some of these: "intelligence, knowledge, technique, instinct, creativity, practice (familiarity with the magic), mental focus, emotions, improvisation, will power (determination) and confidence" will be affected by genetics.

So even if your theory is correct(there is no such thing as a magical core or varying levels of 'raw power') magic still is a combination of inherent potential(genetics) and "skill".

It's just like with any other skill - take two people and let them practice for the same amount of time and one of them will be better. What we can accomplish and how fast we learn it is to some extent determined by our genes and I don't see why magic should be any different. So really, if you're so opposed to the idea of 'raw power' just think of it as a poetic expression to describe whether you got a good set of genes to do magic or not.