Haven't heard about that, but if it is true, what a joke! If all it takes is skill and concentration along with imagination, there would be a whole bunch of wizards on the level of AD and Tom Riddle. Mad Eye Moody's character is a prime example. The guy is a legendary Auror, who is paranoid as hell and probably trained as much if not more so than Dumbledore, yet there is no question that he'd be able to go up against Voldemort.

As for Neville, while it is true his confidence affected his magical abilities, obviously being called nearly a squib is an insult, not Malfoy putting an actual value on his abilities. And yet being insulted like that, at no time does Malfoy or anyone else question why he is in Hogwarts.

PS: If I recall, in the Half Blood Prince when Dumbledore and Harry go to retrieve the locket Horcrux, the boat will only accept one wizard and doesn't consider an underage Harry a threat. Now if you accept that all wizards have equal magical 'strength', how would one explain Harry not being detected as a full wizard? The only conclusion one can come to is that wizards do have differing 'strengths' and the age of 17 is around the time they reach their full potential.

 

Yes, I agree, that's the only possible conclusion.

<_<

>_>

What a joke! If all it takes is intelligence and knowledge, along with imagination, there would be a whole bunch of scientists on the level of Einstein and Newton.

Since there isn't, we're forced to posit that every person has an innate value which determines their ability to science the shit out of everything.

Right?

Or, you know, not.

Non-magical differences in character are perfectly adequate for accounting for the difference in peoples' abilities. We know this because in the real world, non-magical differences in character are all that there are, and yet we're faced with a stunning diversity of skills, ideas, beliefs, outlooks and levels of genius.

Well, for a start, what makes you think that a spell to measure some hidden metaphysical value is more possible than a spell to measure a person's capabilities?

Secondly, the entire thing is perfectly explainable by simply saying that Harry is still a child and therefore the spell won't recognise him (magic does seem to recognise the age of 17, such as the Trace). No ideas of magical power required.

Edit: For JKR on bivalence of magic, see

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19

and

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

 

I'm sure there are and have been scientists greater than Einstein and Newton. It just so happens that they came up with the ideas that made them famous first. The fact is for everything, there IS an innate value based on inborn talent. Some just have more skill and power than others. Why should it be any different with magic?

We've been told through the entire series that Dumbledore and Voldemort are far beyond normal wizards, with no one else even close. In my view and I will maintain it, it is their magical strength that truly separate them from the pack. One could argue they are both geniuses and so that helped them get where they are. Yet other geniuses are not considered threats. Take for instance Nicholas Flamel. He's obviously a great mind and with 600 plus years of knowledge he should be the most powerful wizard in the world. Yet he's only known for his mental rather than magical prowess.

 

Arguable, but ultimately irrelevant. That Newton and Einstein are the best of their field isn't really the point, the point is that people at their level are not common.

Kinda the same point here. That another scientist, somewhere along the line, might have come up with GTR is irrelevant. The point is that that scientist would also be an example of exceptional talent. Non-magical talent.

Are you serious? Sure, I'll buy the idea that genetics is highly influential. But entirely predetermined? That's a bit much. Ever observe identical twins? Notice how they often have quite different characters and abilities.

That's shifting the debate entirely. I'm not saying that some wizards don't out-perform others. I'm saying that the cause of their ability to out-perform others is entirely natural, just like the cause of Einstein's ability to kick my arse at physics.

Flammel is only reported to be a genius in one area.

Further, we never meet him. For all we know, he could have been an extremely powerful wizard.

Finally, if Dumbledore was a prodigy but Flamel wasn't then it's not clear how much, if at all, 600 years would allow Flamel to counteract this difference in intelligence. Note that Dumbledore was publishing articles in academic journals in his early teens. That's pretty fucking spectacular.

 

That's all I needed to see. :-/

Taure, you are arguing with a tool who's already stated he's made up his mind and won't be swayed. Oh, and a tool who's also x number of years behind on even *having* this argument. I imagine he still falls back on the "magical core" idea as well.

Rhett, as much as I get tired of Taure's "everything comes down to logic" shit, in this case he is entirely right; everything we see in canon points towards magic being about intent and skill, practice and concentration, and away from inherent strength or varying power levels.

D'dore is a prodigy because of his mind more than anything, as is the case with Riddle and his drive to succeed and prove himself superior. <- oversimplified yes, but I'm in a hurry.

There's also the fact that JKR has a boatload of plotholes because she sucks at thinking certain things through and the story is more about morality and overcoming odds than magic. The magic is secondary for her.

 

If he was magically powerful, Voldemort would have feared him. And I don't think he would allow two such powerful wizards to be around to oppose him. For that matter I don't think Voldemort would have even launched the full frontal attack on the wizarding world that he did before baby Harry disabled him.

Harry is actually the prime example of magical strength. Compare him to Hermione, someone who is basically a talking book, yet when it comes to powerful magic, Harry outperforms her. Although I would agree that Harry is not using his intellect to his full potential.

As for your point on twins, I accept your view. Of course upbringing and outside influences contribute to what a person achieves. The question is would twins both have the same achievements if both had the same interests? As they are genetically identical, there is a case for identical talent. It's only their choices that would take them in different paths. I'm sure if Bolt or Federer had identical twins, they'd have the same potential. But for the rest of us, we can't match their inborn genetic talent.


As for you Portus, if I'm a tool with my views then by that definition almost everyone on DLP are tools.

 

Who're you calling a tool, rookie?

 

Don't take it as an insult. Take it as a fact. After all he defines a tool as someone who sticks by their views and fights their corner. So therefore we are all tools.

 

Someone who sticks by their view that their opinion is correct even when faced by the author herself saying otherwise is a tool. Deal with it.

Taure, just dig up the Word of God quote already. And holy shit lose the obnoxious-as-fuck signature before I blow my savings on a plane trip to England just to fuck you in the ear until you lose the ability to use the English alphabet.

Edit: Straight from TV Tropes:

 

Yes, but he hasn't provided any proof. I expressed an opinion. If someone expresses a fact without proof, what does that make them?

PS: Just to be sure I wasn't referring to Taure's posts, just to the guy who claimed it was fact.

 

Less anal about citations than Wikipedia? It's kinda considered good form to accept it and move on when multiple people back up the same fact, even if exact line and verse isn't immediately at hand, unless you've got good reason to doubt it's veracity. Otherwise any given disagreement becomes the god-awful essay-form biblefights with links to textbooks on Amazon that a certain denizen of the Politics subforum specializes in.

 

Backpedal faster. Yes, we're all tools here; the difference is that you're a dumbass.

@Tehan: I lol'ed, seriously.

@Taure: Love the sig. Don't change until I can make a similar one. ;-)

 

I haven't changed my view, so that's hardly backpedalling. Look in the mirror. Now THERE'S a dumbass staring right back. But seriously, only fools resort to insults when they have nothing better to say.

I see now why you dislike certain people on this forum. lol

EDIT: I did find a quote, note power not skill. Not much I know, but I was just browsing when I found it. Although to some degree I do agree with you Taure, I still think magical strength matters, although it's not the only thing.

dsm: Are Harry's powers going to get even greater?
JK Rowling replies -> Yes, he's really progressing as a wizard now (which is lucky, because I know what's in store for him).

 

Let's imagine that she's talking about political power. Does that mean he has a political core, and his genes make him politically stronger? I don't think so.

 

That is so random. Who's talking about cores, magical or otherwise? lol

 

Important part bolded. The only person who mentioned power was the interviewer/reporter/whatever. JKR just makes the ambiguous statement that Harry is "progressing as a wizard," which could mean anything. I'm reasonably certain that she's said unambiguously at some point that magic is based on intent and practice rather than an inherent power level.

The reason why Dumbledore and Voldemort are so good is that they are both highly intelligent, very inventive, and quick thinkers. Dumbledore also has the advantage of age and experience, and it's assumed that Voldemort has busted his ass to study the best spells and whatever needed to accomplish his goals (he also doesn't lack for experience). Harry lacks in the age, experience, and studying departments, but makes up for it with extreme luck, quick thinking, a bit of inventiveness, and stubbornness.

Edit: I just realized how off-topic this has gotten. It's gone from discussion of the Royals as possible players in the HP world to a discussion of the existence of magical power levels. Lol.

To bring it back on topic, it's already been done to some extent in Gentleman Usher of the Scarlet Rod, in that there is a position within the knighthood hierarchy specifically for a wizard (if I remember the story correctly; it's been a while since I read it), but I've never seen a fic that specifically casts members of the royal family as wizards/witches. At a glance, it seems like it would be pretty boring, and I can't really come up with a good way to make it interesting.

 

To be honest, I couldn't be bothered to read the whole drivel in here, so I just skimmed it.

 

Yes we did get way off topic. I guess we'll all agree to disagree. While I was actually going through all her quotes, she states that the wizarding world has no royalty. There was an interesting fic where Harry's brother was the BWL, and everyone had to undergo some sort of ritual, where Harry is made the King of the Wizarding World. His parents, who are alive, want him to abdicate in favour of his brother becoming the King. If done by a better author, it could have been a great fic.

Probably the best fic out there that deals with Royalty and such is Prince of the Dark Kingdom.

 

I'm just guessing here, much like yourself, but I would imagine it probably would have something to do with the fact that the people who invented the spells not expecting anyone to ever invent a way to see heat. Or, for that matter, to put giant picture-takers up in the sky that are precise enough to measure the distance between two tourists in central square. If magically concealed places like Grimmauld Place and Diagon Alley are commonplace, then it's entirely possible that some desk jockey crunching numbers from satellite images would realize that chunks of land are actually physically missing for no discernible reason.

I'm not saying that technology is superior (it's really more a matter of Muggles innovating like hell while the wizards did basically nothing, comparatively speaking), but it does seem rather inevitable that eventually, some technology is going to do something that completely destroys the masquerade. And seeing how the wizards don't really know or give a damn about what the Muggles are up to, they won't even be able to run damage control. By the time they realize they're in trouble, it will be far, far too late.

Um. What? That's like saying that if all it takes is speed, skill, and strength, then everyone would be a samurai.

Grindelwald was nearly as powerful as Dumbledore, and Voldemort didn't fear him. It may be more of an eccentricity of Voldemort's than actual common sense.

This argument seems familiar. For all the fun we have writing Harry Potter as being a teenage dynamo who overpowers his spells, scares Voldemort, and makes Dumbledore proud, there is no canonical evidence that raw magical power factors into anything. Any time someone does something extraordinary, people marvel at the spell used, not the power of the user. Furthermore, every time someone comments on Harry's abilities, they talk about his talent, not his magical strength.

A good example of this is Sirius allegedly blowing up the street. They didn't marvel at his strength as a wizard to be able to make a Reductor or Exploding Curse do that, they wondered what "unknown Dark spell" Voldemort had taught him that could do that.

Dumbledore isn't badass because he has more raw power than everyone else. He's badass because he knows more about magic than pretty much anyone else on the planet, has thoroughly mastered what he knows, and is a real, honest-to-God genius and prodigy.