I have long disliked the rather simplistic and traditional fantasy view of magic: the idea that magic is a substance that can be quantified, and that some people have more of this than others, making them more powerful.

Indeed, with this view wizards are little more than jumped up Muggles instead of fully magical beings. I much prefer to think of magic as something that doesn't run out and cannot be quantified...after all, if with the traditional view of magic, a wizard exausts his powers, how does that make him any different from a Muggle?

The reason why I bring this up now is that I have just read a rather good (in my opinion) essay on the subject on the Lexicon, and wished to share it.

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-magical-power.html

No doubt many people will disagree with me.

 

I agree with the article although it may be because the concept of innate magical strength or 'cores' seriously pisses me off due to the laziness involved. I think that's why it's used so much - why come up with new and interesting spells when all you have to do is just overpower spells already used for some sort of super amazing effect.

I think the phrasing may be odd but the point is valid, people are good at magic because they work at it.

(edited for nicer wording)

 

The article is good, but it is proven false by HBP in my opinion. In the Cave, Dumbledore says to Harry that Voldemort would only care about the magical strength that crosses the lake, and that Harry's power wouldn't even register when compared to Dumbledore's magical power. Or atleast something along those lines...

 

The article doesn't deny that some wizards are better, more powerful wizards, than others.

What it says is that everyone has equal strength of magic, and that if a person is more powerful than someone else, then this is because they are better at using this equal strength than others.

So the boat may not have measured raw strength, which could be equal, but Power, which is different to strength.

My personal view is that people are born with different strengths of magic, but that this strength is not defined by volume of magic, which can run out. Rather, everyone has the same volume of magic, which is infinite, but some people's magic is stronger, of a better quality, than others.

 

From what I recall it mentions that the power of a student is negligable compared to Dumbledore's which suggests that if there is such a thing as natural magical power it is increased simply by using it - like a muscle.

 

I think we need to establish the difference between power and strength.

Strength is what most people think of as raw magical power: what you are born with, you magical talent.

Power, which is what the boat measures, is the ability to "control, influence", "what one has the authority to do", and "the ability to do something" (Oxford English Dictionary). Therefore, the amount of power a person has is dependant not only on their raw Strength, but also their training, experience ect.

So with these definitions, we can see that Harry and Dumbledore can both be born with the same magical strength, but Dumbledore can also be far more powerful than Harry due to his ability to use that strength better, which is why Harry's power hardly shows up against Dumbledore's.


Indeed, this idea solves one of the problems of the cave scene. Using the traditional view of magical power, Harry should show up against Dumbledore on the boat, as he is supposed to be Voldemort's equal.

However, if we use the new idea of magical power, this problem is easily explained, as I did above.

 

I still don't understand that.

He is supposed to be his equal. I just don't get that book at all.

 

The reason you don't understand HPB is simply becasue JKR was drunk, high, and struck blind when she wrote that shitfest.

I think that before the Half-Baked Plot, the Strength/Power debate was clearly defined. When Harry studied, he was powerful, but when he fucked around with Ron/Ginny/Hermione he was as weak as shit.

 

I like to look at magic and compare it to music.
Muggles are tone deaf, squibs sing well in church pews, .....
Dumbledore is like yo yo ma.

A combination of good genes and training. Well that is my vote.

 

Muggles are more than tone deaf - they're also mute.

 

This was a somewhat new for me..I thought magic and wizards/witch could be compared to "the force" from Star Wars (I propbely dont know exactly what the force is)

Ok now I read what I wrote, it looks a little what you were discussing (maybe?)

Guess I compared HP to much to Star Wars. Propbely because they are silimar with caracters like Emporer=voldemort, Yoda=Dumbledore Anakin=Harry(I hope only he better not have a kid with Ginny then its alright)

 

When looking at the power of a wizard i always thought that every magical child would be the same until they mature magically and then the magical channels in there body would be properly formed and those with the best formed/largest channels would be the most powerful. Again this fits with both why his power wouldnt show up to dumbledores and with the theory that magic in itself is unlimited.

 

Now that I'm back from school I got access to the HBP.

From what I read you believe that power is how they use their magical "strength".

From The Half-Blood Prince. Page 509 chapter 23.

Your view of "power" can be easily replaced by skill. Notice that Dumbledore seperates power and skill.

Chapter 26 page 564

Notice that Dumbledore says amount of magical power. He also didn't say skill which is basically the same thing as your view of power. Also tell me how one would measure how much "power" as you seem to call it. The evidence clearly points to wizards having different amount of magic in them.

 

People don't always say what they mean: they use euphanisms, coloquialisms and slang. So instead of going into a lengthy explaination of what he means by power, DD could just say power and leave it at that, especially considering the situation.

But yes, you are probably right in that different people are born with different levels of power, I was merely entertaining the idea that this article presents.

If you look at one of my posts above, I do say that the article isn't completly my own view:

This fits with canon and appeals to me more than the Volume Theory.

 

I'll go ahead and put my two cents in. Or three or however many cents happen to fall out of my mouth... or hands, I don't know why I carry around so many cents so don't ask.

Anyways, I think I've touched upon this subject a few times and I think that I've been fairly consistent in the description of my opinion. My views actually happen to fit in nicely with a few others, so that may make some people happy and probably piss a lot more off. Ah well, you can't please everyone.

Anyways... again... I've thought of magic itself as a separate entity. Magical 'strength' is a person's ability to tap in to the magical entity or power. Or in other words, it is the strength of their connection to the symbolic 'pool' of magical power. Wizards, like other magical creatures, have a natural connection to magic unlike Muggles and other nonmagical... things.

Sadly this doesn't fit in well with the 'quality' of magic, which I think is also a viable explanation. Though I suppose that you could think of a wizard as a... water filter, filtering raw magic into a refined substance. Um yeah, whatever.

 

In JKR's world, Magic is nothing so special as you would all hope for. It is simply another part of daily life for Wizards and Witches. Classifying strength and power is useless, she seems to use them interchangeably. Magic, in the Harry Potter world (canon - mind you, not fanon), can be equivalent to a physical ability. [FOR EXAMPLE] Everyone (almost) can run. Some people run slow, some people run fast, and some people just walk. You or I could never beat an olympic runner in a sprint - we don't have the training, if we did, then we have a better chance at winning, especially if we have a predisposition towards sprinting, and work hard enough at it. THEY can beat us because they've worked for it and run everyday of their lives.

Magic is as simple as that. We saw in HBP, when Harry put effort into reading his potions text, that he could competently brew potions (even with the little notes it was Harry's doing - Snape never is or was God, he worked hard like the rest of them and honed his potion making abilities) He took the time to learn and cast the spells in the book.

Dumbledore is so powerful (we can assume) because he is predisposed to have a greater ability in magic (Professor Marchbanks said she saw him 'do things with a wand she'd never seen before', a true testament to the work Dumbledore put into taking his OWLs). Neville on the other hand, is a poor wizard because he has no self confidence - he doesn't put in the effort because he doesn't believe he can succeed so therefore he doesn't.

In the JKR universe, Magic is utterly mundane, using it to its full extent is like training to become an athlete, or a Mathematician, or an Artist, or a Musician, or a Chef. Forget all your great aspirations of grandeur, magical channels, and magical strength vs magical power, and all of that rubbish; Harry's greatest strength is love - love for himself, for his family, for his friends. Love that will drive him to success and to become a 'powerful wizard'.

And I think that's all I have to say...

 

My Theory/Beliefs:

I don't think a spell/ward can measure 'skill' or 'control'. That just brings up too many plot holes, "Well why didn't he..."s and other inconsistencies.

I also don't think wizards should be able to cast a powerful spell repeatedly over and over again and not get tired. That too opens way too many possibilities. It just makes more sense that wizards would get tired after using alot of their magic and imposes a reasonable limit.

I like a view of magic and wizards that is limited. It just doesn't fly with me that wizards have limitless pools of magic they can throw around. That just superpowers them way too much.

Next, I think wizards are born with a certain amount of magical potential that they can refine their control over. In my interpretation, a wizard's magic can be depleted, needing time before regeneration, with wizards with more predetermined magical ability having a greater pool of magic they can draw on and a faster rate of regeneration.

A wizard who has refined their control of magic wastes much less of the 'pool' and can pump out stronger feats of magic with less taxing on their store than an untrained wizard.

In a way, refinement is like efficiency. A more skilled wizard with more control over his magic would know how to make the most of what they have. This way, you can have a skilled wizard with a lower predetermined potential overpowering a wizard with greater potential in sheer magical output.

Potential can be compared to people like Lance Armstrong, who just is naturally good at cardio due to his massive heart and lungs. Control would be refining your cycling technique. A better example is a swimmer. A swimmer can vastly increase his performance by improving his technique, and wasting less energy. A wizard can similarly improve his technique and control over his magic and waste less magic on each spell.

Lastly, I believe that wizards can develop their magic. While someone can be born with bigger lungs and hearts (magical potential), know the best technique (control and refinement), he won't do well if his body isn't in shape. (Developing magic)

A wizard would, for instance, practice large amounts of magic and develop it. He would take full advantage of his predetermined magical potential. Or, you can have a wizard with a higher potential not using his magic often. He would not be able to take full advantage of this higher potential and be limited to a lower level.

Compare this to excercising a muscle. It gets stronger and has more endurance the more you practice it. Unlike muscles, however, you can only improve your magic within the set limits your potential defines.

More about potential:

A more person with larger potential would have larger 'reserves' and regenerate his reserves far more quickly than one of weaker potential. I'm of the belief that wizards generate their own magic, and not 'pull it out of the air' as many people believe. Places like Hogwarts give Harry a "tingling" feeling (PS/SS). Additionally, Dumbledore's powerful curse in the DOM is described as raising the hair on Harry's neck. Both prove that magic isn't ambient or always around - rather, it can be moved and concentrated in places. That's why Hogwarts gives the tingling feeling to Harry and Harry can 'feel' the power of Dumbledore's spell.

Potential can be observed in squibs: It's not that they don't have any magic - Filch for instance found hope in Quikspell, a magical education for 'weaker' students in which more control and refinement was needed to take advantage of the little potential they had. Whether it works or not is debatable, but Filch can see Hogwarts, something muggles don't. Therefore, magic isn't something that is 'All or Nothing'. Some people have greater potentials than others. Very weak ones, such as Filch, can just barely utilize their magic in the sight and use of magical items/places.

Explaining the Cave Scene:

Harry is a lazy guy, so he hasn't developed his power to its full potential. Therefore, he would have less magic in his reserves compared to Dumbledore, who has been developing his magic probably to its limits. Around the powerful Dumbledore, the speck of magic Harry probably has compared to him doesn't show up. Think of turning on the backlight of your watch in the presence of the sun.

Increasing Potential:

When Dumbledore described Voldemort as going through several 'Dark' transformations, I think it was immortality he was trying to achieve and the increasing of his set potential. It doesn't seem reasonable that a wizard of Dumbledore's caliber can be born in magical Britain, but nowhere else in the world. (Of course, this is assuming that we would be told of other Dark Lords in other countries)

Supporting and furthering the above argument: If Voldemort had to go through all those rituals to increase his 'potential' and match Dumbledore (As it would be ridiculous to assume he's the only guy around born with such massive potential. There are other countries...), then that means he used to have a lower amount of potential that he wanted to increase in the first place.

:::

That was longer than I intended...nevertheless, I would like to conclude this by saying that Ron Weasley should never be able to match Albus Dumbledore in power.

Thank You.

 

Glad you mentioned the swimmer thingy Amerison.

To simplify what Amerison said:

Being tall with long arms, big feet and a natural coordination means that I have an excellent body for swimming. Harry has a large "pool" of magic which means he has the potential to be a powerful wizard.

The fact that I swim four hours a day makes me a good swimmer. Harry "exercises" his magic in his classes at Hogwarts, which makes him good at magic.

I also run five miles a day and practice several different styles of the martial arts. This improves my speed, endurance, and my coordination overall - I have just that much more than if I only did swimming. Harry in OotP started a defense club, which ment he went over and above to "exercise" his magic. A generalization, yes. But we also see a marked improvment in his skills.

Hopefully this clarified things.

 

I see like as this...

Inate magical ability which people are born with could be likened to how some people are naturally better and some things, be it sports/school/etc... I'm completel rubbish when it comes to poems or anything of that nature, but give me a math problem and I can do it in my head in 5 seconds. Give me a baseball bat and I'll crush the ball and send it flying over the fence, however I'm hopeless at tennis .

Some people are better than others to begin with.

Now obviously if I were to train myself I could become a pro tennis player or a english scholar. This I will liken to when people "exercise" their magic, IE: Learning new stuff, becoming more proficient at it.

I believe that irregardless of what you're born with you can acheive just about anything you want with enough work. Now realistically someone like Dumbledore who has a greater disposition towards magic will probably reach levels that Neville will never in his life due to that extra skill he started with.

Voldemort could be someone with a greater inate magical "core" so to speak and has the drive to keep learning more. This is usually the basis of numerous Independent!Harry stories, obviously with Harry and not Voldemort.

I don't really find Hermoine all that powerful naturally, but more of the fact that she studies so much that she knows more and therefore has more knowledge to use, but not as much power. She still might be able to reach somewhere around Dumbledores/Voldemorts/Harry's levels.

I also think that wizards don't have an umlimited amount of power to draw from. I think this magical "core" can be brought down to a critical level, much like fatigue does to those who physically active alot and can drain the user. Thus people can't shoot 1000 Avada Kedavra's in 2 minutes and not feel drained in the slightest. Rather that they would need some time to regenerate their magic, rest their magical muscles so to speak. Obviously the greater the magic used the longer it will take to recover.