You don't know that the understanding is virtually the same. It could be two different kinds of understanding.

A real life example would be a person studying programming vs. having a natural talent for programming. The end result could be the same. But the actual mental process of programming that stems from their understandings is different. The guy who studied most likely understands it in terms of technical analogies or just an in-depth mental manual. I don't know how the guy with natural talent understands it because sadly, I don't have a natural talent for programming.

Magic in the Harry Potter verse is probably tiered by levels of understanding. Understanding magic through instinct makes sense. As does an understanding that comes from studying texts. Combining the two should elevate a wizard's magical ability.

And about Voldemort. He's said to have been an intelligent Hogwarts student. That and his early use of complex magic like Horcruxes indicates a instinctual understanding of magic. It seems unlikely a kid could learn the technical details of creating Horcruxes with the little information available. And just because he does have this understanding doesn't mean it could fail because of other factors like an inflated ego.

 

In my opinion Harry Potter is nothing more than an average wizard who won by luck and artificial plot contrivances. To my mind Rowling was determined *not* to make him unusually gifted or powerful ... she clearly established that he was exceptionly only in broomstick flying and DADA (and in the latter, he only excelled because he could dodge really really well).

Rakkety Tam's post is interesting but smacks of someone trying to make mountains out of Harry's mole hill achievements, stretching his slightest triumphs into wins due to a mystical unseen 'understanding'.

Harry is certainly talented at flying, yes (as are others, including Ginny). But this isn't special skill with *magic*. It's skill with a *magical contrivance*. It's a big leap from 'being able to fly a broom' to 'intuitive connection and understanding of certain types of magic'. In fact, I would like to see proof of that, please. Unless you restrict that 'intuitive connection and understanding of certain types of magic' to 'flying a broom really really well' ... in which case you haven't gone any further from where you started.

Harry is good at using one particular type of magical apparatus in the wizarding world. So if you have a need for someone who can fly really really good then Harry Potter is your man.

But if you need a generally powerful wizard ... you'll have to look elsewhere.

A lot of people point at Harry's doing a Patronus in 3rd year as an example - almost the only example they can find - of his being 'powerful'. Sorry, no. In fifth year all of his peers learn how to do it - and in less time, I think. Harry took *months* in PoA. Still, I'm not trying to say the DA students are more powerful than Harry - they were 1-2 years (only!) older than him when they learnt it. But there's no canon proof suggesting that Harry is any better than them either.

Actually, there is one bit of solid canon proof that Harry's Patronus proficiency is no better than anyone else's. At the battle of Hogwarts in DH the Trio is about to be overcome by dementors when Ernie, Luna and Seamus come to the rescue. Clearly the boy-who-could-not-cast-a-Patronus-to-save-his-life had no above-average capability on that score.

Yes, exactly.

This is one of the best bits of evidence that shows that Harry is *not* a powerful wizard.

Yes, he was able to overcome, wow, a hundred-plus dementors at the end of PoA. Because he *knew he was going to succeed*! For a spell like the Patronus, fuelled by happy thoughts and will power, that was the ultimate advantage.

Compare that scene with the moment in DH that I mentioned above. Harry *didn't* have any such foreknowledge this time. And he *failed*.

There was no 'moment of understanding magic' at the end of PoA. Harry was just given a *piece of knowledge*. "Harry, you're going to succeed, go for it." But at the end he had no more 'understanding' of the spell than he did at the start.

Unless someone with a time turner is going to follow Harry Potter around for the rest of his life (we all know that time travel is the ultimate super power, right? ) he'll never be anything but average in his magical ability.

Actually, that's something of a failure too. He spend an entire day learning just *one* spell for the first task - the summoning spell. Hermione, of course, has it down pat. *One day*, continuous, to learn a single spell. Some powerful wizard there, Harry!

Second task, he learns zero spells. Dobby comes to his rescue with the gillyweed, right?

Can you point me to the canon where that is mentioned, please?

But he does? Else why are the beeds initially moving Harry's way?

Right. Harry has no idea.

This is not true. How can you note that Harry "doesn't know what is going on" - how can you read in the text that Harry "didn't understand why he was doing it" - but then laud the fellow for some secret 'understanding'? When the text shows that Harry himself *didn't* understand what was happening?

I'm afraid you didn't convince me of any special understanding-without-understanding borne out by future events, so your GoF example falls flat.

He's a good instructor.

But the topic under debate is Harry's power as a wizard, I believe.

They were wrong.

Seriously, though, if Hermione or Ron were here we'd be asking them "please support what you're saying about Harry with evidence".

Just like we're asking you to support what you're saying about Harry with evidence.

Pointing at unsubstantiated hearsay/rumour does nothing to support your case. It just means that Ron and Hermione share your belief ... but they never prove that it is correct.

Practically the entire wizarding world - Viktor Krum, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Rita Skeeter and through her the magical public at large - thought that Harry and Hermione were romantically involved. That belief was as baseless as your's, Ron's and Hermione's about Harry succeeding through anything but luck.

No idea what you're saying here. Hermione got an O for potions, Harry got only an E, a lesser score, after using a superior text for the whole year. With the standard text he would have performed as miserably as he always had, I dare say. Certainly no proof of 'above average magical talent here'.

Actually, looking at Harry's OWL results from HBP, ranking a T as a 1 and an O as a 6, Harry's mean score was 4.67, roughly half-way between 'Acceptable' and 'Exceeds Expectations'. No proof of his being an above-average wizard there ...

Okay, I agree, Harry does absolutely nothing of note in HBP, he's entirely passive. He fails to deduce what Draco is doing. He has to be rescued from the Inferi by Dumbledore. Snape wipes the floor with him, leaving Harry flat on the ground. Absolutely no 'above average' evidence in that novel.

Heh. It's sort of funny - in a cringing sort of way - to see how fans can take things that Rowling chucked into her books in desperation, statements with no support from what she'd written before, on their face value. I have no doubt that Harry's *guesswork* about the doe, and that Ron should destroy the Horcrux, were written as half-baked excuses propping up a flawed plot by a lazy author.

Still, in a debate like this, we've got to go on the canon, discuss the facts 'in universe', so forget what I just said in the preceding paragraph. We have to conduct this debate using what Rowling wrote, even if it's terrible writing.

You've got me curious. Can you show me where, in HBP, Dumbledore taught Harry to recognise doe Patronuses as benign or the INCALCULABLE POWER of CERTAIN ACTS? Because I can't see how a few trips down Pensieve Lane taught Harry this.

Also, how does this make Harry a powerful wizard? Unless he's facing a doe Patronus in battle?

Translation - you'd like to believe that the metaphor is something much much deeper, even though you can't show how it is. You just think it is. And hope that we'll agree with you.

He still doesn't know the answer. Why did Harry Potter - the *baby* Harry Potter - survive? Harry doesn't know. Well, know any more than "it was my mum's sacrifice". No special understanding there, sorry.

And while Harry is clearly showing his *lack* of understanding - "I live . . . while he lives? But I thought . . . I thought it was the other way
around! I thought we both had to die? Or is it the same thing?"".

Harry understands almost nothing.

Oh, come on now. Dumbledore *asking Harry Potter a question* suggests that Harry has 'special knowledge' of magic?!? When he doesn't understand his own answer? When he questions Dumbledore's followup explanation? When he begs Dumbledore to "Then explain ... more"? When he demonstrates complete lack of understanding of anything else, like why his wand luckily acted to save his life on auto-pilot? Asking Dumbledore to *guess* at the answer ... because Harry himself has no clue?

Your entire post, Rakkety Tam, is one of vast exaggeration of minutiae to try and make Harry out to be something that he isn't - a powerful wizard. But in this last 'point' you've stretched the rubber band to beyond breaking point and into farce territory.

A 'trick' which can never be repeated and which will never figure in Harry being denoted as an above-average wizard ever again.

(It's so clear that the whole ridiculous unforeseen unsignalled unforeshadowed 'transitive rule of the new wand mastery lore' was just another 'trick' that Rowling pulled out of her bottom as the ultimate in a long line of sorry dei ex machina. Even Harry had no idea about the Elder Wand nonsense until the very end. He was protecting students against Voldemort's curses only seconds before lecturing Voldemort that his curses were powerless! (It's really hard to debate canon which is so poor, isn't it?))

Perspicacity's post leaves me underwhelmed also:

*No-one* lost their wand's allegiance. Because the wand-ownership thing was only dreamed up by a desperate Rowling in the last book. But seriously, this is a null point. If everyone retained their wand ownership in the series then clearly Harry is no better than average on that score.

Including Harry. But he never does so.

Furthermore, he never teaches the DA about it either.

This all proves that Harry's wand - or the deus ex machina stick (the Elder Wand) - might be above-average wands. But not their wielder. He was clueless. "Firing a spell that Harry did not even know" sums it up nicely.

 

You seem familiar, Brad. I feel like I've read your rhetoric elsewhere.

Anyway, what "superior text" are you referring to? The only point at which we can be certain of Harry's peers' Potions scores is after fifth year, when they sat their OWLs. Harry didn't have a "superior" text back then, so I've no idea what you're on about there.

On the subject of grades, can people stop using GPA metrics to understand assessments which are thoroughly wizardly in nature? Hermione got 112% in a Charms test, for crying out loud. The best we can do as readers is take those grades at face value. Therefore, "Acceptable" is just that, as is "Exceeds Expectations". For that reason, it's my headfanon that when a character is referred to as achieving "top grades", that may very well include Os and Es. It certainly does for the Auror Office.

Unless you're going to argue that Aurors are average wizards.

P.S. In regards to your assertions of "poor canon", etc., please accept this complimentary L as a token of my respect for your unmitigated irrelevance on a Harry Potter forum.

 

I don't know that, and I'm not sure that they are. I'm just pointing out that they could be. That's why I also pointed out in the following paragraph that it's just wrong to think that Harry doesn't have good grasp of theoretical magic too. He might not have random bits memorized, but he is above average in most subjects by OWL standards. Also, magic and real life don't mix.

@brad I'm honestly not even sure it is worth replying to you. Some of the stuff in your post is just factually wrong or made up, and literally everything I've posted can be traced back to a quote or a section in the books. I took great care to make sure this was the case so anyone could easily search what I was talking about if they have the books on kindle. In some cases, it is even more clear as to why I get this interpretation when you actually read that section of the book.

 

Well it is just a theory of fiction after all. Nothing concrete about it. Here it is:

I'm basing it mostly off of what makes Dumbledore any more different than a wizard that knows the same spells in theory and practice. If Dumbledore and let's say a wizard named Stan, can both cast the stunning spell and have studied the theory behind the spell in their school text books, why would Dumbledore's be any more powerful?

Magic doesn't have material properties, so it's not because Dumbledore has a bigger pool of mana or whatever; I don't think anyone has ever "ran out" of magic from casting either. So instead of an external dimension of magic to consider, we should look at the innateness of Stan and Dumbledore's magic. Because we've established that magic isn't material, it must be immaterial. And the only immaterial thing that humans really have is the subjective, conscious experience that makes up their minds. Well, not really immaterial because immaterial + material cannot interact, but we're assuming magic exists here so bear with me. It isn't hard to just say the subjective, conscious experience wizards have is tied to their magic.

One of things that contributes to this subjective, conscious experience is the understanding or interpretation one has of the things around them. This is where Dumbledore and Stan would have to differ. Yet they are getting the same knowledge of Stupefy supposedly (we're studying both of their mental states after learning stunning spells). So then there must be some mechanism that makes up the difference: Dumbledore's instinctual ability. His instinct collaborates with his knowledge to create that extra power. Stan is missing that level of instinct or talent or w/e you want to call it.

I think I was too quick to judge Harry's potential as sub-Dumbledore. It seems the most important component in deciding Dumble-level wizards is that extra instinct. Knowledge is easy to procure comparatively.

 

I should probably address one thing that was brought up though. The beads do go towards Harry's wand at one point in GOF, but that actually seems to be Harry's doing. The magic changes immediately after Harry tells it that he knows to keep the connection. Voldemort is shown to be trying to unsuccessfully break the connection, and there is no indication that he is the reason the beads are moving at all. It's almost counter to the one thing he is shown to be doing because then he would be trying to use the connection not break it.

In fact, it is repeatedly remarked upon how he looks surprised and astonished by what is going on, and at one point, it outright states that neither Harry nor Voldemort expected what happened when the bead met the tip of Voldemort's wand.

 

When he said "Superior text", he was probably referring to Snape's old Textbook.

 

Oh! How *exciting*!

When you remember where that was, can you let me know?!?

And if your new revelation is, again, expounded in this public DLP thread, can you tell me - tell us - how it's pertinent to this discussion?

Thanks!

As another has mentioned, the potions textbook of the 'half-blood prince'.

Certainly.

What is your superior alternative metric?

Um, it would be appreciated if your superior alternative metric could work for us all, those of us who aren't in your head. Thanks!

Seriously, I just did an arithmetic average, seemed a reasonable thing to do. But if that doesn't work for you, we can simply note that Harry didn't - unlike Hermione - and Percy? - receive an array of above-average scores across the board.

Based on OWL exam results, it is clear that Hermione Granger is an above-average mage, as her results - *every one* of her results - is above average.

Harry's aren't. And he isn't.

Heh. I've spent the last ten years delving so much into all of the HP plot holes, all of Rowling's failures, it's something of a culture shock to go to places which can't see them, or where they are taboo. Like when I visit the Leaky Cauldron or Mugglenet and read their fawning obsequiousness to their author God Rowling.

I had the impression that DLP somewhat rejoiced in being the odd man out, in bucking the trend, 'just the facts please', etc. But you've caught me unawares; I've realised that I don't really know how balanced or accepting the DLP demographic is when it comes to an opinion of the canon. You've been a member for under two years, ihateseatbelts, so you'll understand if I don't regard you as a true indication of the DLP's overall opinion of the canon. Or acceptance of negative views regarding it.

And you don't respect my opinions about the HP canon on a Harry Potter forum? Well, that's very ... balanced ... and democratic ... and fair ... of you, I must say. Maybe you only respect the ones that align with your own? That's okay, ihateseatbelts, it's an understandable feeling, even if not up to (unbiased) debating standards.

Technically - and bringing things back on topic - it's sometimes difficult to 'prove' issues based on canon text when the canon text itself is flawed, having contradictions within itself. Rakkety Tam points at Harry's sudden 'understanding' of brand-new-never-seen-before-transitive-wand-ownership-lore as proof that Harry Potter has above-average magical power. In that same scene Harry lectures everyone about how Voldemort can't hurt them. Maybe Rakkety Tam would see that as more evidence of magical understanding of magic. But five seconds earlier we saw Harry protecting students from Riddle with his shield charm.

Why protect people who don't need to be protected?

The real world answer - because it's broken, flawed writing. Rowling wanted to 'save' all of the announcements for the melodramatic farce of a climax. Or she didn't notice the contradiction. Or didn't care.

Rakkety Tam might believe that Harry's 'magical understanding of magic' only kicked in the last microsecond.

I just know it would be easier to believe the theory of Harry's having 'magical understanding of magic' if we saw more evidence of this understanding in what Harry *did* - like, say, NOT shielding students who didn't need shielding - than being told that he 'suddenly knows' something that he never knew five seconds earlier.

And it would be easier to believe in the 'protection against the Dark Lord' if we - and Harry - hadn't witnessed said dark lord 'blasting people' with 'the force of a bomb' instants earlier. Like I said. Failed writing.

Anyway, the point is, it's sometimes hard to draw conclusions from a canon when that canon has contradictory proof supporting both sides.

That's okay; people come up with lots of reasons to justify an inability to respond. You can tell us that you're busy washing your hair if you like.

Then, please, show us where I am factually wrong (supplying canon references, thanks) or making things up (supplying canon references, thanks).

That's how this debating thing works, you know.

My post still stands. Many of your 'points' were irrelevant. Harry being able to fly really really good on a broom doesn't make him an above-average magic caster.

Others were flat out incomprehensible. At the end you're trying to tell us that Dumbledore's *simply asking Harry Potter a question* shows that Harry has a deep understanding of magic.

When the text tells us, literally, verbatim, that Harry had *no understanding at all*.

I can appreciate why you don't want to respond, Rakkety Tam. And that's fine. No need to tell us why, even if you're merely replying to say that it's not worth replying.

This is not true. Please tell us where it says this.

Here's the canon text:

The beads' appearance is totally unexpected to Harry. He doesn't know what they are.

Please, Rakkety Tam, show us where Harry decides/tries/attempts to move the beads *toward* him (for some unknown, unthought and unspoken reason).

Right. That much *is* clear.

Neither Harry nor Voldemort have a clue what is happening.

Your attempts to twist everything Harry's way, to make everything that happens because-of-Harry-even-though-Harry-himself-doesn't-know-anything is cute, and it might be your favoured headcanon, and that's nice, but there's nothing to support it.

But anyway, one thing at a time. You say that the beads moving towards Harry "actually seems to be Harry's doing".

Here's the text where that's happening, right after the beads materialise to when they start moving towards Harry, which is only the next sentence on:

Please prove to us, Rakkety Tam, from that verbatim canon text, why your assertion - that Harry was causing the beads to move towards him - is supported by the text. (We need more than showing us that Harry Potter just happened to be there at the time.) Thank you.

 

Rakkety Tam is not talking about Harry pushing the beads towards himself. In fact, it appears that the beads are moving towards Harry because Voldemort was trying his damndest to break the connection.

He doesn't know what is going on, but he understands that he should not break the connection.

So Harry most certainly did push those beads toward Voldemort's wand. Once again, he didn't fully understand what was going on, but he understood enough that he knew a) those beads were bad for his wand and b) that he shouldn't break the connection.

None of this is about Harry's magical power. It's about Harry understanding a level of magic Voldemort failed to understand.

I would also like to point out that an EE grade is above average. Also, please remember what happened during his Astronomy and History exams.

 

That was 6th year... You do realise this right? OWL was in 5th....

Yet you do don't seem to be able to grasp your own failures. Been here for 10 years and don't even know when students take their OWLs...

Would you prevent a bullet going towards someone (if you could choose) even if you knew that they would survive it?

Concerning the patronus. Never knew that everyone managed it, cool. Seems as if I learn something new everyday, could I borrow your copy of the book which seems to have more information to it?

Yet he quickly grasps what needs to be done, that was the original point.


You seem to be unable to actually grasp whats being spoken about, try reading it before you reply, okay?

 

I think this just highlights the fact that Harry's a good teacher rather than diminish his accomplishment. I'm not absolutely sure on this one (I'll have to look it up), but I believe the reason it took the DA members less time to perform the Patronus was because Harry told them what he worked out on his own in his third year: that the Patronus didn't necessarily need a powerful memory so much as emotions.

As for 'canon proof suggesting that Harry is any better than them', you provided it yourself.

1. The Trio had been constantly on the run, held captive, and in the presence of pieces of Voldemorts soul for nearly a year. In light of all this, Harry's performance issues in the presence of a hundred demontors isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign that he's only human.

2. It took two fully grown wizards and a nearly legal witch to do what Harry did by himself in his third year.

3. The members of the DA aren't exactly average considering most witches and wizards can't even manage a shield charm.

Harry's accomplishments post-Hogwarts point to him being at least an above average wizard as well. Not just anyone can become Head Auror.

 

You want to know why I said that? Because you are so factually wrong in points that you make that I don't feel like dealing with you because you don't know what you are talking about. I'll cover a few instances to make my point but I'm not going through that wall of text and finding quotes for every little thing you've messed up. Let's get to a few of the big points you've repeated or that jump out at me.

[/FONT]

You mentioned Harry's use of the "superior textbook." As other people have kindly pointed out to you, that book didn't show up until HBP. The O.W.L. exams where he got an E were in the 5th book. That is a fairly basic fact about the series. I have no clue how you messed that up. It's so basic there is no reason to even quote it. Go look it up yourself.

Next, let's look at what you said about the Patronus charm because you are wrong. @Ankan might what to read this bit. You said:

But it is factually not accurate at all. In fact, there is only one person in his year who manages a successful corporeal Patronus that we know of. That was Hermione. We only see one other student who manages it and that is Cho who is older than them. There appear to be a "few" Patronuses in the D.A. when Dobby comes in to warn them that Umbrige is coming. Quite a few people we know didn't accomplish it as seen in the following quote:

Would you look at that? Three of Harry's peers failing in the last meeting of the D.A. That's crazy because you said all of his peers did it, and they did it in less time. Except we aren't ever actually given a time frame for how long the older students who did manage to get it took. But since I know you love asking for quotes about things even though you get loads of stuff wrong yourself. Here is a quote from after Dobby bursts into the room.

Wow. Only a few people had managed it, and we only know who two of them are at this point. Plus, it is worth pointing out that they managed it under absolutely perfect conditions. Harry himself complains about his inability to simulate a real world scenario here:

It should be abundantly clear that you are just plain wrong by now, but I haven't addressed your claim that Harry doing it at the age he did isn't a sign he is powerful yet. Plus, you've outright stated that Harry is only above average in DADA because he can dodge really well without actually bothering to show any proof it. Here we go then. I think I'll start with a quote from Professor Lupin, one of the only competent DADA professors about the Patronus.

Well, we know that it is is well beyond the Ordinary Wizarding Level that is the test most students take when they are 15. There is another part in there where Lupin mentions that many qualified wizards struggle with this particular spell. But maybe you feel like being a contrarian and you don't want to accept the general agreement that Lupin was one of the only competent DADA teachers they ever had. Maybe, you don't want to take his word for it. I've got you covered then. How about the view of Madam Bones the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement?

Is this enough quotes for you? Did I get my point across? Would you like me to also find the quote where Harry being able to cast a Patronus at his age was such a big deal that word got around to the O.W.L. examiner and he offered him a point of extra credit if he cast it and when he cast it every examiner in the room watched it even those with other students?

Maybe, you would prefer I dig up the quote from third year too where Hermione comments on it being a really advanced piece of magic. Or would you prefer quotes from the scene in the Hog's Head where Susan Bones brings up the fact that her aunt said he could cast it and his peers are all really impressed as are the older students? There are much better things I could be doing with my time than looking all of these quotes up to point out the fact that you are just factually incorrect.

I'm actively debating if it is worth my time to do this for your statement that Harry is only above average at DADA because he can totally dodge really well. I've already touched on it a bit with talking about the Patronus. It just feels a bit like I'm being a dick about it at this point, and that I'm generally spending more time on this than it is worth instead of giving an author feedback, working on my own story, or doing some programming.

 

I don't think it's surprising at all that Harry Potter fans on Harry Potter sites like Harry Potter.

What makes me smile is when I come across folk who assume that Harry Potter fans who like Harry Potter must therefore admire the Harry Potter *books*, think the *books* are the bees knees.

I like Harry Potter. I like the Harry Potter fandom. I *love* the fanfics. I think the discussions - where one is allowed to have the discussions - are brilliant.

I also think the sixth Harry Potter canon book is a bad book and the last can be objectively proven to be a literary disaster.

You understand, I hope. Being a Harry Potter fan doesn't automatically mandate worship of the Harry Potter canon books. There's more to Harry Potter than just the seven novels.

And that's what I was addressing, Sesc. Situations where I'm faced with folk - on Harry Potter web sites - who can't understand how people can be on those Harry Potter web sites but not like the books. The *books*, Sesc. Not 'Harry Potter' in all of its scope stretching across all of those web sites and the fandom.

I suspect, Sesc, that I'm, at the core, just like Rakkety Tam. Not in debating skills but in what we would like to get out of Harry Potter. I would have loved it if the canon Harry was a real hero, truly magically gifted, and so forth. I love fanfics where he is exactly that (such as Jbern's 'The Lie I've Lived' ).

But that wasn't the Harry Potter that his author, J. Rowling, wanted to write. She was determined to keep him firmly in the mud, to make her series the triumph of an 'everyman' 'hero'. Her 'happily-ever-after' has him living a *normal* everyday life - that was her Harry's ultimate desire/prize. To be a normal, average wizard.

And while I - and Rakkety Tam - would love to be able to support the delusion that he was anything different ... the words that she wrote doesn't support that.

Which, in itself, is *not* a 'canon flaw', Sesc, by the way. Just because I personally didn't like Rowling's goal doesn't make what she wrote 'bad'. She wanted to write Harry as an average joe, and that's not a crime, not a flaw, not 'bad writing'.

It's the contradictions, the plot holes, the continuity failures which constitute the bad writing. And which sometimes makes it hard to draw conclusions. When the canon supports both mutually antagonistic sides of an argument what else can you do but shake your head over the bad writing?

I'd like to answer, but I wouldn't want to risk a moderator coming along and instructing me that it wasn't relevant - to a topic about Harry (not Hermione) being an average wizard - so can you please tell me how it is "relevant to this particular discussion"? Because I can't see it. Thanks!

Here's what Rakkety Tam said:

I think Rakkety Tam disagrees with you.

What was that bit about 'lack of reading comprehension'?

Yes. Of course. *That* is clear from the text.

But not Rakkety Tam's assertion/feeling that it 'seems' that Harry pushes them *towards* himself first.

True. Maybe Harry would have received better results. Maybe he would not have.

Also note that *everyone* experienced the same disruption in the Astronomy exam; Harry still got an Average, Hermione an Outstanding.

Heh. Correction accepted, thank you.

Elide what I said about the OWL scores in my rebuttal of that particular point of Rakkety Tam's. Rakkety said that, in Harry's sixth year, Harry's ability in potions rose and that he should be as good as Hermione even though his OWL results showed he wasn't and ... well, I couldn't work out what Rakkety was trying to say then, and I can't now. All I know is that Harry *did* have above-average abilities in brewing potions in his sixth year (not in understanding the underlying magical principles; just the mechanics of brewing them) and that every HP fan in the world except Rakkety knows that this was because he was using superior instructions to what his classmates were using - i.e. Snape's old potions textbook.

If I had magical-understanding-of-magic that let me *know* that the protection was unnecessary - and if I was desperately trying to fight my way to my arch nemesis - quite possibly.

But if I *didn't* have that magical-understanding-of-magic - and instead I only had a saving-people-thing - then I'd certainly want to shield those people.

Like Harry shields those people.

Heh. Okay, I exaggerated. I'll have to retract that 'all'.

Book 5 has these people in the DA doing a Patronus - Cho. Seamus (briefly). Hermione.

We know lots of adults (in the Order) can do it. Tonks, Remus, Dumbledore, Snape, Arthur, Kingsley, McGonagall.

In DH we can add a few more of Harry's peers - Ron. Luna. Ernie. Seamus (for sure this time). Plus assorted other folks. Aberforth. Umbridge.

If 'casting a Patronus' is a metric of above-average ability then it seems a lot of people in Harry's circle are above-average too. Which would make Harry much less above-average than what Rakkety Tam would like, I think.

Yes -

No magical-understanding-of-magic exhibited here. Beads moving towards Harry - WAND SHUDDERING ANGRILY. WAND GETTING HOT. WAND VIBRATING.

So, Harry's smart enough to recognise these signs. He's probably smart enough to remove his hand from a pot of boiling water also. But then again, most people are. Nothing above-average there.

 

Alright since the two of you seem to want to debate exactly what I mean here I will explain it myself in hopefully a clearer way. In the passage, Voldemort is actively trying to break the connection. This is the only canon thing that he is attempting to do in this moment. There is no statement about him trying to control the beads or Harry feeling resistance caused by Voldemort's mind or any of that rubbish mentioned in fanon that I could find.

Now, Harry is trying to keep the connection in place, and he actively tells the music that he knows he needs to keep the connection. The moment he acknowledges this is the moment the connection changes. There is nothing to indicate Voldemort is doing anything different than before but Harry did. Him keeping the connection in place and perhaps even actively saying he was doing so caused the change and the beads which then started coming towards him.

When I said that Harry was responsible, I didn't mean he was actively trying to get them to come towards him. I just meant that his actions seem to be the cause of it, and once he realized what was happening he started trying to actively control them before eventually focusing all of his efforts on one particular bead.

 

Referring to the adults and Cho as a metric for Harry's skill ignores the fact that magical ability generally increases with age. Hermione's the only example you could really use, but we all know Hermione is above average.

The point is, Harry was able to cast an advanced piece of magic at a much younger age than his peers when they did the same in DH.

That analogy makes little to no sense. This isn't simple sensory information a normal human can react to. It's magic. Him "removing his hand from the boiling water" and actually defending against Voldemort's instinctual understanding (he didn't know anything either) is indicative of a level of magical understanding way above average for his youth. Since, you know, Voldemort is old compared to him.

 

Okay, some people brought this up obliquely, but so many people have been saying, 'Harry's not very good academically, but you should see him in practical magic!' I want to challenge this.

Harry Potter is, in fact, well above average in all aspects magic. Full stop. Let's look at the only single place where he's conclusively set against his peers, his O.W.L.s:

Astronomy: A
Care of Magical Creatures: E
Charms: E
Defense Against the Dark Arts: O
Divination: P
Herbology: E
History of Magic: D
Potions: E
Transfiguration: E

Let's start off by remembering that HoM and Divination are totally and completely useless, especially as markers of magical prowess. So let's exclude them entirely. That leaves us with the rest. Looking at Astronomy, we must remember that that night was when Hagrid and McGonagall were attacked, and that happened when Harry was 1/2 or 2/3 into the exam. He still got an A. So even if Astronomy wasn't a totally useless class re: magical ability (and it probably was), it's likely that Harry would have gotten an E on all of his non-pathetic academic classes.

And here we hit the first snag. I fear that many people on the forum are American, like me, and look at an E and go -- 'oh, well that's a B. That's not so hard.' This is not canon, and there are four very good reasons to think that those who get Exceeds Expectations do, in fact, exceed expectations.

1) We have seen no reason why it doesn't. That reason might seem lame at first, but I think it's a rather strong argument. The name says that people who get this grade exceed expectations (i.e. are above average), and unless we hear otherwise, we should believe it. This is buttressed by the fact that both Aurors and Healers demand only Es. They would demand more if Es were merely average or even relatively easy to get. Unless you think the doctors and detectives of this world (e.g. Moody, Shacklebolt, and Amelia Bones) are somehow under-qualified.

2) As I said, I think a lot of it has to do with so many of us being American. My Aunt (who is about the same age as Rowling), though, is a Brit, and it seems fairly obvious to me that these tests take after the O and A levels in Britain. Perhaps it's not a surprise Rowling, the woman who was so insistent than the movies be acted by Brits and shot in Britain, might have based her tests after British ones. The British O and A levels are grueling, which is exactly how the O.W.L.s and the N.E.W.T.s are described. They're comprehensive, extensive, and designed to challenge even the best students. Under the Pre-1975 curriculum, the tests that Rowling would have taken, a 1 and a 2 were both the modern equivalent of an A, which meant that to get an O (going back to HP parlance) was to get an extraordinary grade, and to get an E was simply to get a damn good one. Forgive my brag for a moment, by my Aunt took and received four A levels and got four 1s, a feat described by her brother and her partner as inhuman. If, therefore, the tests and grades at Hogwarts are similar to those that Rowling took, to receive an E or an O shows exceptional academic skill.

3) Hermione gets an E. If getting an E was the sign of an average witch or wizard, then there is no possible way, ever, in the world, that Hermione would get an E. Ever. This is a woman who got an O on Astronomy even though the test was interrupted by Umbridge. This is the woman who, when eleven, memorized all of her books (Did she actually, or is that just Fanon? Either way, she'd read them all and more besides, and every spell she had tried, without any instruction, had worked.) This is a woman who everyone knows is, and a woman who is known as, brilliant. If she got an E in any of her classes (especially one as important, in their Fifth Year, right after Voldemort came back, even after months of training with Harry, as Defense), then it is not easy to get an E.

Add to that the fact that it's true he's better at practical magic, whereas Hermione is better theoretically, and you quite easily see that Harry is at least as good as she in practicing magic. I'm confidant enough to say that he's better. Either way, obviously not average.

4) The last and perhaps the least, when Hermione is trying to get Harry to teach the DA, she says, "You can do all sorts of stuff that full-grown wizards can't, Viktor always said... [you] knew how to do stuff even he didn't, and he was in the final year at Durmstrang." Viktor Krum was the actual, true chosen Champion for Durmstrang. He was chosen by the Goblet of Fire as the single best in Durmstrang, the magical institute that produced Grindelwald. Harry, though, could do things that seventeen year old Viktor Krum couldn't do when he was fourteen.

On the related note about Hermione being able to throw off the Imperius Curse: we have undisputed proof that neither Travers, a wizard able to murder the Order of the Phoenix member Marlene McKinnion and her whole family, nor Viktor Krum could throw it off. Harry Potter could. At Fourteen.

If even half of this is true, and yet Harry still got Es on most of his tests, then an E really does mean that he Exceeds Expectations, and Harry Potter is no where near an average wizard.

 

There seems to be a very literal definition of average here. Yes, Harry's results are above arithmetic mean, no question about that. But if you used that measure to say if someone was average or not, you'd find that no one is exactly average. And a definition of average that fits no one seems pretty useless to me.

A more interesting question would be, is Harry exceptional? Are Harry's results within standard deviation of the average (that is, is he "better" than roughly 84% of his peers)? To that question I would have to say no, they are not, except in DADA (of course there is no hard data to support this view, but still).

Now, I strongly dislike the idea that "wizardry" is a one dimensional value, where you can objectively compare one person to another and then say that one of them is better than the other. That's like comparing a 100 m sprinter to a football player and trying to argue that one of them is better human being than the other. So in Harry's case Harry rises above average not because of his grades or his skills, but because Harry does stuff that a "normal" person wouldn't even think about.

ps. Hermione might not be as good as Harry in applying magic to defense, but I certainly wouldn't devalue her practical skills either: the DA coins are arguably as impressive as Harry's Patronus (and she makes them with less time spent on practice...), and the bag of holding she creates in DH is pretty awesome as well.

 

You didn't read anything else I wrote, then, did you? I posted at length why his grades show that he is the 'very definition of gifted.' I posted my arguments and then I backed them up with canon reasons. You just came along and said, 'nah, I think that's average cause I say so.' Please elaborate.

Is he one standard deviation above the mean of wizards? Neither of us know, obviously, but in the world where the Twins got three O.W.L.s and where people of obvious intelligence failed to get an O.W.L. in some of their classes (e.g. Agusta Longbottom, though obviosuly formidable, was unable to get a Charms O.W.L.), I think it's quite likely if not almost obvious that he is, in fact, a standard deviation above his peers. At least. (And this assumes that Hogwarts isn't actually as exclusive as everyone says it is.)

True, I think. The D.A. coins are arguably as impressive as Harry's patronus, which just proves my point, not yours. She was two years older than him. And she is Hermione Granger. And, even were those not true, Harry was still able to cast a patronus at thirteen.

Having written that again... how does his barely-pubescent patronus (especailly buttressed by his grades) not answer this debate flat? In a world where magical ability grows as one ages and where most adult wizards can't cast a shield charm, this is an obvious mark of remarkable ability, as everyone who learns about the patronus says.