Except that victory is no way guaranteed by the wand, as evidenced by it's long and bloody history.

@ Seratin: Magic seems relatively progressive. When 17 and 16 year-olds are making their own spells and potions, and doing things no one has ever seen or done before (Voldemort and Dumbledore), then I think it's safe to assume that they are better than or at least equal to the wizards who came before them, using outdated and seemingly obsolete magic. People like those two are clearly on another level, and both Voldemort and Dumbledore have been cited as having known more about and having pushed the limits of magic farther than ever before, and Dumbledore says Voldemort is better. In the HP universe, books are kept current, which shows that they are building on old systems, making magic better, and thusly, wizards better.

 

Knowing magic doesn't matter a lot because you can kill someone with two words and it's unblockable. So really, you don't need to know much arcane magic, you just need to be ruthless enough to use some widely known but unpopular curses all the time. Bellatrix knew a lot of dark magic and look how much good it did her.

That's why most fanon magic duels suck ass.

I think Superman would pwn them all.

 

Anyone with a wand and a brain can counter the killing curse with transfiguration or conjuration, or even simple speed or agility. Knowing more magic means being able to do more incredible things with magic, which is what I mean when I say that Voldemort is probably the greatest Dark Wizard to ever live, having to be taken out by a cosmic sucker punch.

 

Wow, I completely agree. If I have to narrow my reasons for hating canon Harry down to one thing, it's the lack of preparation he did. Even the DA was formed because of Umbridge and not the scary, dark wizard dead set on killing him. Harry could've been so much more had he actually applied himself. I can see him being as great a wizard as Dumbledore had Harry gained the necessary skills and confidence. However, Harry's entirely satisfied with being an average wizard which definitely stems from his childhood.

I always got the impression that before Halloween of '81, Voldemort was winning the First War. Plus, everyone always spoke of him as being one of the worst Dark Lords in history.

I think it's safe to say Harry's victory was made possible by the fact it was JKR who wrote the books. I think the whole bit with Harry disarming Draco -who just happened to be the master of the Elder Wand - was a bit too convient. Realistically, Harry never stood a chance.

Dumbledore was the leader of the light wizards/witches, and everyone looked to him for guidance. As the prophecy wasn't always around, it stands to reason at one time Voldemort and Dumbledore seriously duelled. The fact they were both alive would mean their magic capabilities were close - if not even. Though, that's pure conjecture so...

 

Here is someone who could most likely hand Voldy's ass to him on a silver platter with garnish: Morgana Le Fay. If JKR's wizard's know Merlin existed then it is quite reasonable to believe that Merlin's archenemy existed as well. And to be Merlin's archenemy one would probably have to be pretty damn knowledgeable in the ways of magic. And the classical Merlin could probably kill/incapacitate V in about 2-3 seconds.

 

Says who?

filler

 

Aaannnnnnd, the opposite of the could be true as well. The tools for manipulating magic could have been in its primitive stages around the time of Merlin and Morgana Le Fay.

 

The fact is we will never know because the only "dark lord" we know anything significant about is Voldy and possibly Grindelwald.

 

The major problem with characterization in the Harry Potter world lies with the imbalance between reputation and actual images we are shown.

Lord Voldemort is portrayed to be so dreadful, so that people are even afraid to speak his true name, switching to retarded descriptions: He-that-could-not-be-named-for-fear-of-stealing-our-daughters-virginity.

And yet the canon evidence we see does not support the reputation. Voldemort sits on a throne, concocts a plan that mostly involves torturing his followers and making up elaborate plans that rarely if ever truly promote his cause (especially in the latter books).

Having that image painted in the mind, Harry could not be anything better. For true enjoyment, the hero and the villain need to be somewhat matched, with the hero seemingly much weaker, but succeeding in the end due to developing his qualities, rite of passage, marrying the not so virgin queen of Quarter-Veela Land etc.

Granted when you have Lord Voldemort gathering his servants and throwing Cruciatus Curses around as if they were Christmas bonuses it ruins the personality of both him and the hero.

My biggest gripe with personalities is that Voldemort was not granted enough of one. There was a measle attempt with his oh so sad childhood and parallels between his life and Harry but it was quickly burried under layers of insane laughter and other comic book nonsense.

Gripping out of recent readings, I would have preferred to see similarities to Jaime Lannister from A Song of Fire and Ice by George R. Martin. Depth, humanity, motivations, the ingredients that make up a character.

As for Harry Potter, the potential was there but was thrown away with the intervention of the Weasleys. I fully blame that inbred bunch for most if not all of his flaws.

 

That's why the killing curse never killed anyone on canon. Oh, wait...

The only person we ever saw using transfiguration to block the killing curse was DUmbledore, who was a transfiguration master. That said, you can use that to block all other curses as well, so they're still redundant.

 

GOGOGO

Harry just needs to man up and use the internet. Then publish the results. Or something.

 

On the other hand, you're an idiot.

The people who are citing them as the best ever grew up with them in their minds as the best ever. If I only ever have vanilla ice cream, can I say it's the best ice cream in the world?

And where the fuck do you get the idea that magic is progressive? Apart from a few small examples, magic in canon seems to be very conservative.

 

Well, perhaps we think so because every other adult wizard has created new spells/potions/items. Even Weasley twins were constantly making up new stuff. Also, there are magazines like Transfiguration Weekly which would indicate rather fast progress.

Magic is constantly evolving. You don't have to look further than brooms to see that old magic is usually obsolete magic.

 

Let's not forget about discoveries that have been lost with time. Example being in history of mankind where the Roman Empire fell and the Dark Ages came along. Math, art, science, and philosophical thoughts were lost.

Now enter a world where someone could make a spell that created a samurai sword that fought like a true samurai. He invented it on a trip to Japan in the 1100's. It was something small and trivial, and a thousand years later someone could create another spell with the same effect. See lost magic.

Now onto the differences in greatness.

The Weasley twins created a hat that had a shield charm on it. That was new. What if someone created a wristwatch with a shield charm on it. That would be new, too. Yet, Dumbledore and his associate created twelve uses for Dragon's blood. That was supposedly new, but I'm sure people in the past had invented similar things.

Yet, do you see the difference? A small spell that is created on an object is magic on a non-magic object. An IDIOT could do that! But taking the magical properties of a magical beast and bringing something magical out of them would take more finesse. Thus, that is an prime example of the difference between Dumbledore being a great wizard and the Weasley's twins.

 

I'm an idiot for offering another perspective on the situation? You're retarded little analogies mean nothing, at least I've offered canon examples. Those examples show that magic isn't conservative. I like how you say "apart from a few small examples." You must truly be retarded, as every example is worth the same, and other than your total bullshit, you have nothing to back up your side of the argument. GTFO until you have something better than cheap insults.

You think people like Madame Marchbanks, who are older than Dumbledore, and say he's done things they've never seen, have "only ever had vanilla." You think that people who write history books, who know the history of the wizarding world, just say that Dumbledore and Voldemort are the greatest for fun? Admit it, you're only basis in saying anything about the subject is pure contrariness. However little evidence I have, you have even less. At least there are actual examples and explanations for my theory, you're all hot air. No one in canon has said anything like what you are saying, because they're all too busy saying what I'm saying, so shut the fuck up and stop acting like you're the shit on the internet.

All I've been doing is minding my own business and stating my own opinion based on what I've seen in canon, so fuck off.

 

I'm not going to read every post in this topic - it seems to have devolved into something unrelated to the original post.

But the reason people have no problem portraying Harry in a lot of ways is simply because Canon!Harry has no strong personality. He started out in the first couple books simply being a window through which we can see the Wizarding World for the first time. He's transparent and hollow and we really don't know much about how he feels, just how he acts. In fact, I think the only things we ever really learn about how Harry's feelings are that he dislikes the Dursleys, likes Sirius, and eventually he gets angry sometimes at stuff.

I don't want to go too far with that, though - certain things can be gleaned about him from his actions. He certainly has that "saving people thing", so you have to make a damn good case for why he's suddenly ok with killing anyone who gets in his way, for example. We get more leeway than we do with secondary characters, not as much as we do with tertiary ones.