No, it was not. Dudley already looked like a pig, the only thing missing was the tail.

 

I think that you are both sort of right. If my hazy memory of it is right, Hagrid tries to transfigure Dudley into a pig completely and flubs it. Then he says as an explanation for the flub, something along the lines of "well with him already looking like a pig'.

 

It doesn't matter if his attempt failed or not. The fact is that, whatever his results, the transfiguration stuck. It reminds me of the conversation between the Prime Minister and Scrimgeour. Basically, the only thing that can reverse the effect of magic is magic. It seems to me that Dumbledore's transfigurations during the Department of Mystery's fights would be no harder to reverse than Malfoy the bouncing ferret, as long as you had a wand.

If you didn't, well... whatever is transfigured is shit out of luck.

 

But is transfiguration canceled by finite incantatem or similar general spell, or is the "real" form lost for good, and "canceling" is basically only doing the transfiguration in reverse, needing at least equal skill? It would seem that transfiguration needs to be very limited in use, or there would be no point in selling and using second hand clothing (Weasleys).

Of course the whole canon society is not something you'd expect for a group of wizards to have, but still.

 

It wouldn't be very useful if every time you made yourself clothes, some jerkwad could finite them off of your body. It would be pretty embarrassing to suddenly be wearing twigs and berries, literally.

 

Alternatively, how accurate are finite incantatem spells? Transifgured clothes would be terrible if they reverted everytime you wanted to undo some other spell you did.

 

I'm moderately sure that Untransfiguration is somewhat more complicated than the Finite Incantatum, or even any single spell. They don't cover it until 5th year, after all.

 

Agreed! As to the question of Molly Weasley defeating Bellatrix, the only thing I can think to explain that is the case of people gaining extra strength and such during life or death situations. Wasn't she defending her daughter?

Another issue I have is that most people think the magical world, especially the British one is backward. I can't see how that is possible. For instance obliviators have to have a damned good understanding of modern muggle life and technology to be able to do their jobs. The Department of Mysteries hints at research far beyond what is commonly advertised in the books. There must be quite a few wizards involved with groundbreaking research around, it seems we've just met the duds for the most part.

 

I won't address the Molly Weasley issue, since in my mind logic prevails - Molly Weasley died nearly instantly, Bellatrix was taken down by McGonagall and Flitwick together and resides back in Azkaban, drooling while fantasizing about killing Molly.

However, I will discuss Obliviators - why, canonically, do you think they have to understand Muggles? Now, granted I think there are some within the Ministry that do - there is the Muggle-Worthy Excuse Committee and the Invisibility Task Force (Both under the umbrella of the Department of Magical Accidents and Catastrophes) that deal with hiding the wizards from muggles and/or excusing crazy shit that happens. But Obliviators just Apparate in, cast Obliviate, and Disapparate out. We saw it in Deathly Hallows, it really is that easy. There's no Men In Black neuralyzer analogue where after you Obliviate someone you come up with a suggestion as to what they do with themselves - or change their dreary life. The best potential analogue would be to tie it with a Confundus Charm or something, but we never see that in canon, so who knows if it would work.

And yes, we have no idea what the Dept of Mysteries studies, because Harry writes it off as "weird stuff" and that's the limited point of view we have to work with.

 

CCTV for one! Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but there are so many ways for magicals to be exposed that the only other explanation could be there's more to the job than just obliviate. For instance, recreating a new memory, one would have to have an understanding of world events or even local events to be convincing.

 

I know, that's why I asked. If getting yourself new clothes was as easy as transfiguration, there would be no way Ron would have to wear the embarrassing second second hand robes in the Yule Ball. Molly would definitely have learned to transfigure clothes for her children if there were no downsides in wearing transfigured clothing. I mean, what else than learning new useful magic would she be doing when her children are in Hogwarts and Arthur is tinkering in his shed or working overtime in the ministry? Fighting in underground death match dueling circuit, sharpening her curses for Bellatrix?

 

Notice-Me-Not Charms. Muggle-Repelling Charms. You're assuming cameras bypass magic - I'm assuming magic works on the people viewing the recordings just like it does the people viewing the events (if they're magical, they see wizards, if not, they don't). There's no canonical explanation for this, so your guess - the whole thing is a huge mess and the Wizarding World is exposed every day or so since Britain has a LOT of CCTV - is as good as mine - it isn't.

Also, there is no "recreating a new memory". The only thing we see remotely like this is Voldemort doing Legilimency through Harry's scarcrux to "show" him Sirius at the Dept of Mysteries. We never hear anything like a comparable spell.

 

That was because he tried to obliviate himself and failed. The memory wasn't erased so he could put in a pensieve, unlike Lockhart, whose obliviation was well cast but backfired.

 

I don't think it does, unless you are saying the area of affect of these spells are far greater than canon shows. Take a spy satellite. Are you implying magic can affect it's pictures, especially in non magical areas? I can accept that highly magical areas are shielded in some way even against such, but a muggle area? Have you forgotten Hermione's parents? Didn't she make them think they had been living in Australia for quite a while and had no daughter? That was not just memory removal, but faking of memories. And ChedderTrek points out another example.

But all this disregards the point. In short, do you think the magical world is as backward and simplistic as portrayed in the books?

 

I don't think the spells have an area of effect at all. If I cast a "Notice-Me-Not Charm" (fanon name, but we know the effect exists), the charm doesn't have boundaries. It's not that if I stepped back far enough I could notice the place. The charm basically does this: "X place cannot be noticed by Muggles". That doesn't include a radius of effect.

 

I always pictured Hogwarts like a high school-university fusion type of education, where in seven years you can achieve a decent grasp on magic. Think how first years arrive (depending on their family origins). They are basic human beings who knows how to write and read, and had minimum cultural and sociological instruction.

1st to 5th years cover the basic instruction in magic. You need a decent academic level to become an ordinary witch/wizard. I believe, though I don’t have facts, once you pass your OWLs you can leave. I’m basing this on the “they can expel you but can’t snap your wand” premise. You’re not off age yet, but society recognizes you as a member. You’re in the “I finished high school” phase. One of the reasons, why I believe, there are electives starting 3rd year. How prepared are you to affront real life situations? From 1 to 10, a 5 (keep in mind I’m generalizing).

6th to 7th years are where you try to achieve a better control over magic. You know how to respond on a standard level and in the following months they prepare you like in college. Once you graduate, you are a fully qualified wizard/witch therefore you can try your luck in a higher social hierarchy. In a 1 to 10 scale, you achieve an 8.
You can continue your education on a postgraduate level. But it’s entirely optional, I.e. Curse breaker, Masteries, Auror training.

Your grasp on magic has evolved from your 1st year without doubt.

Acknowledging this

I agree. Magic, like many constants in life, needs practice and experience.

So, continuing this line of thought (and answering the OP); the Order of the Phoenix, as we met on the 5th book, is consisted of in its majority by veteran fighters. In an ideal situation, where the D.A has recent 7th year graduates from Hogwarts, a combat between the two groups (keeping Dumbledore and Harry out) would always be a victory for Order. The D.A knows how to defend itself, the Order knows how to fight a guerrilla war. The same can be said with a D.A vs. Death Eaters fight. In fact, it was proved in canon.

Secondly, from time to time you have the so called prodigies: Dumbledore, Grindelwald, Voldemort, Snape, to name the few I can remember. Not only very intelligent and capable but also with better understanding of magic.

 

I wonder how Snape would've turned out, given a few more decades.

 

Well he'd be just below Dumbeldore, Voldemort and Grindelwald.

He did lose to James quite frequently as well didnt he?

I dunno i'd put him on Harry's level, if Harry ever reaches his potential.

I'm surprised they didn't make Harry the full time teacher at Hogwarts.

On Molly vs Bellatrix, I always wanted Harry to take her down. Revenge for Sirius and the Longbottoms etc;

 

I think wizards of Dumbledore/Voldemort/Grindelwald's level are manifesting awesomeness by the time they're 17, or earlier. I doubt Snape would have ever caught up to their level.

At the same time, he does appear to be a cut above the average auror. I've come up with various classification systems for grading wizards skill before. Here's the one I used for my character sheets in Alexandra Potter:

Legend
Level - soundbite. Canon exemplar(s)

1 - prodigy. Mastery in all fields, pushing the limits. Dumbledore, Voldemort, Grindelwald.
2 - creator. Mastery in one or two fields, high competence in others. Snape, McGonagall, Lily, Sirius, James, Slughorn.
3 - ordinary maximum. High competence in all fields. Hermione, Lupin, Bellatrix, Shaklebolt, Moody.
4 - O student. Os across the board, but lacking special talent. Average auror, healer. Percy Weasley.
5 - competent. Os in one or two areas of expertise, otherwise average. Arthur Weasley, Harry Potter.
6 - mediocre. Slightly above average skill in some areas, average skill in most, below average in some. Ron Weasley.
7 - weak. Best they can hope for is average. Many fails. Pavarti.
8 - incompetent. Below average in a few areas, failing in most. Lavender.
9 - failure. Can barely cast magic. Early Neville.
10 - squiblike. Are you sure you're a wizard? Crabbe and Goyle.

Not everyone fits perfectly. Fred and George show some signs of 2, but also 4.

Most Ministry workers would fall into categories 6 and 7.

I picture this as a shifted bell curve, with the vast majority falling into 5-7.

3 is the maximum I imagine you can get just by putting in a lot of hard work and being intelligent. Beyond that, you need something of a creative spirit to progress.