Or the guy in the picture is just sharper than the likes of Fudge, Umbridge, Molly and Arthur Weasley. He might also be another smart muggleborn seeing as he's reading A Brief History of Time by Hawking.

 

If controlled magic were common before school, it probably wouldn't be known as accidental magic.

I don't think controlling accidental magic in and of itself is a big deal (once you're using a wand it's redundant) but I think it is a sign of talent.

As for Potions etc, while these disciplines are use of magic without a wand, they're clearly "wandless magic" of quite a different kind to accidental magic.

 

Here I go sounding like an idiot again, but who is that?

The image of the wizard reading the book.

 

A completely non-canon character who does not count.

 

Interesting that Dumbledore said in canon:

I previously thought that "using power that way not tolerated at Hogwarts" referred to hurting children by Riddle, but maybe Dumbledore refers to method itself? Perhaps such "wandless magic by wishing really hard" skill is completely rejected by experienced wizards as it is unreliable, dangerous, will hinder future refined skills thought at Hogwarts, or maybe something else? We never see adult wizards perform magic that way, after all.

 

"Controlled accidental magic" might be a sign of talent, but I don't think it should be seen as proof positive (or even strong evidence) that Lily is particularly brilliant. I think it would be better to view such precocious displays of magical ability as promising, but withhold judgment until the magical wunderkind has matured and been given more time to showcase her own original achievements. It's quite possible that nothing will come of the early promise; we know as much from our world: genius is more rare than a child prodigy's talent.

From the world of music, among the famous composers, I know of no greater child prodigy than Felix Mendelssohn. Ludwig van Beethoven, in comparison, was much less impressive as a child; his father tried and failed to make him into a child prodigy like Mozart. However, regardless of the relative merit of Mendelssohn's and Beethoven's juvenile efforts, few would say that Mendelssohn's greatest works compare to those of Beethoven. And Mendelssohn was a very successful child prodigy! I bet that for each Mendelssohn, there are at least a hundred child prodigies who don't achieve anything of much importance; let's not even talk about singular talents like Mozart's.

I tend to view controlled accidental magic in the same way. It's no mark of sublime talent, only something that might develop into something interesting down the line, or not. Tom Riddle unquestionably was a powerful wizard, even if we disregard completely his feats of childhood magic. By the same standard, the most we can say about Lily Evans's talent is that she was well-liked by her teachers and was said to be a skilled witch by her friends, when they were talking to her son, and there was that vague thing about thrice defying Voldemort.

 

But we're not evaluating Lily on her controlled accidental magic alone.

We know also that she became Head Girl, which they probably only give to straight O students. We know that she is particularly talented at Charms (the wand chooses the wizard), and very good at Potions, so that's at least half of the "practical magic" classes that we know she likely excelled in beyond what would normally get you an O. We also know that Snape considered her a magical peer.

This all puts her controlled accidental magic in the context of a hard-worker who has achieved to, at the very least, the highest level that standard tests can measure. So we know that she's talented from the above -- likely at least as talented as Hermione -- we just don't know how talented.

That's where the controlled accidental magic comes in and suggests that the answer is "extremely talented", because beyond all else the ability to control magic pre-Hogwarts indicates a certain level of independence of thought and creativity, which is a feature common to all of the most powerful wizards in the series.

 

We don't know that - they choose Perfects for example not only for pure grades (Ron Weasley, Draco Malfoy), plus there is political situation with Voldemort on the killing spree - muggleborn Head Girl could be Dumbledore's statement.

Snape had a crush on her - he is unreliable in this assessment.

 

How does this make James unworthy?

He's a pureblood wizard (hence some familiarity with magic since birth), was also Head Boy, was talented at Transfiguration, mastered the Animagus transformation by 15, helped invent a magical map and while we don't know how difficult his pranks were to achieve it's sufficient to say that he was playing around with his wand instead of just learning. Something shared with the Weasley Twins as a mark of tinkerer perhaps.

And let's not forget he had an equal hand in that thrice defied thing. He was a skilled duelist.

I just don't see how James wasn't worthy of Lily.

 

How does this make James unworthy?

He's a pureblood wizard (hence some familiarity with magic since birth), was also Head Boy, was talented at Transfiguration, mastered the Animagus transformation by 15, helped invent a magical map and while we don't know how difficult his pranks were to achieve it's sufficient to say that he was playing around with his wand instead of just learning. Something shared with the Weasley Twins as a mark of tinkerer perhaps.

And let's not forget he had an equal hand in that thrice defied thing. He was a skilled duelist.

I just don't see how James wasn't worthy of Lily.

 

I always wondered how those three times of defying Voldemort actually went down, seeing as their end was rather... anticlimactic, in retrospect.

 

I'd lean toward the former rather than the latter, because Dumbledore himself uses wandless magic.

Granted, he could have been signaling the elves to change the banners, or maybe they're connected to The Clapper and one clap means Gryffindor...whatever, but I choose to believe that he did it himself. I'm sure there are a few more examples of him doing something similar in later books.

 

Hence the use of "probably". But:

1. Every Head of School that we know of has been academically excellent: Bill Weasley, Percy Weasley, James Potter, Tom Riddle.

2. Hogwarts takes many cues from traditional British boarding schools, where having strong academics is a requirement of being a Head of School.

Prefects =/= Head of School.

Does it look like you're talking to Warlocke?

 

Agreed on the straight O part and the potions. As I said, liked by her teachers. I think it might be a stretch, however, to conclude that she's necessarily talented at Charms just because the wand that chose her is good for charms. Consider generally talentless wizards like Crabbe and Goyle; are their ilk only chosen by worthless, good for nothing wands?

Umm... source?

Would this be the 10-11 year old Snape, as seen in his memories? Did he express such sentiments later? If not, I don't think the judgment of an infatuated child means much.

Yes, likely as talented as Hermione. But above and beyond that is mere supposition.

I don't think we know enough about pre-Hogwarts magic to say what, if anything, it's indicative of. Our sample size is rather small, after all. And whatever quirk of Lily's made her capable of controlling her magic, we don't know if it could be productively channelled into something worthwhile later on. For all we know, accidental magic feeds on the flights of fancy that are so characteristic of childlike "creativity."

 

If she's a straight O student then we know this is not the case. If she's getting an O in Transfiguration and has a special talent for Charms, then it's likely that she's achieving at "above O" level in Charms.

Can't be bothered to get the source, especially as the point is invalidated by Snape's bias anyway.

I don't think so. We know that Harry's accidental magic was considered pretty routine by the Ministry of Magic. We know that other students have similar accidental outbursts which have stopped by the time they enter third year. I don't buy the premise that we're stuck on the fence unless canon goes through each character and explicitly says that they weren't able to control their magic. The existence of the accidental magic reversal squad, the mere fact that it's called accidental magic by everyone, the fact that Dumbledore said that Tom Riddle had an usual level of control over his powers at that age, the fact that kid Snape was impressed by Lily's control of magic... this is all strong evidence that controlling accidental magic is unusual.

I disagree. I think the "whatever quirk" (aka "talent") that enabled it is a quirk that means she has an instinctual familiarity with/understanding of magic, and the ability to invent. Call it "childish creativity" if you like, but if it was childish creativity then that simply means that childishness is a very useful trait to wizards.

 

Wand being good at charms =/= wand wielder being good at charms. It might be that the wand sensed some potential for Charms in the young Lily, but it's an open question whether that potential was ever realized.

Furthermore, if you're taking the characteristics of Lily's wand as evidence of her abilities, I think you might run into some troubles when you consider other characters' wands. What are we to make of Ron Weasley getting a willow wand (like Lily), a wood "consistently [selecting] those of greatest potential" according to Pottermore?

Irrelevant, as I didn't dispute that controlling accidental magic was rare. I only said we don't know what controlling accidental magic is indicative of.

Another possibility, to once again employ a musical analogy, perhaps the young Lily has the magical equivalent of perfect pitch. A useful ability for a musician (witch), but quite separate from the skill that's necessary to become a good composer (a powerful witch).

 

That he has great potential which he didn't fully realise?

 

That's exactly what it means, in fact. It means that that the wand wielder is particularly good at charms, relative to their general skill.

I thought you already agreed that she was a straight-O student. So the "general skill" part of "good at charms relative to her general skill" is a pretty high baseline.

I'm not sure that this is a good analogy, because both figuring out how to control magic without a wand and being a powerful witch are practical skills, whereas you've contrasted a practical and a theoretical skill.

I would be more tempted to say it's more like:

Music = Magic
Sense of rhythm = Controlling accidental magic
Playing jazz piano = Being a powerful witch


Edit:

Regarding Ron, whatever your personal opinion of the guy shaped by fanon, in canon he is a truly extraordinary individual. There are not many teenage boys who would have the courage to stand up to a terrorist organisation almost single-handedly.

 

Perhaps, though we haven't seen much evidence of any great potential.

Nevertheless, it does fit with my non-deterministic conception of wand selection. A wand might be good for charms, and it might choose a wizard who possesses some characteristic that's conducive to charmwork, that doesn't mean that the wizard necessarily will become good at charms.

This discussion seems to revolve around Lily's potential--which might be great, or it might not be--but my point is simply that potential does not translate into power/skill/what-have-you. And the evidence seems to only point in the way of potential; as far as actual skill as an adult witch is concerned, we have nothing to indicate that Lily was any better at magic than Hermione was.

 

You're undermining your own argument:

If potential doesn't translate into power/skill/whatever, than how can you claim Ron doesn't have great potential because he never shows any great power/skill/whatever?