Now, I am aware that the general trend of several board members is to worship Lily Evans, and while I have nothing against the girl, a theory sprang into my mind lately.

We know that canon Harry is a useless wizard, who has demonstrated some measure of brilliance, but in general was a mediocre wizard, with little talent. We hate that in Harry, and we try to change it through our stories.

James Potter, however was a brilliant wizard, talented in Transfiguration (useless as I consider that subject, it appears to he quite difficult) and who has faced Lord Voldemort three times and walked away. Lily Potter nee Evans, was apparently proficient in Charms and Potions, and is generally heralded as the human shield for the saviour.

My theory is that the intrusion of the part Muggle blood has diluted James' pureblood and thus reduced Harry's potential. We know for a fact that James stood and fought Voldemort like a proper Wizard should, but due to the difference in power and perhaps due to James' unwillingness to use the Dark Arts (no actual reference for this, but it can be assumed) was defeated.

Lily, on the other hand, pleaded with the Dark Lord and earned, as a courtesy a Killing Curse to the head. Her sacrifice might have activated some sort of sacrificial magic, but we can't gage her power, since she refused to fight the Dark Lord. Nonetheless, if she had I presume she would have lost as well.

Lily being a Mudblood had several other adverse effects upon Harry's development. Due to her less than savoury relatives, Harry's physical growth was impeded and his emotional status was transformed by his growing up with the Muggles, nasty filth they are.

Now, although I am quite the Pureblood fan, I don't actually vouch for this theory 100%. It is merely an idea that has sprung up in my mind, one that could be used to portray the proper wizards and witches' superiority to the mixed kind.

I do want to hear your opinion and counter arguments on the matter however...

EDIT: More so, I have added a nice little fancy poll to the thread as well, to see who you sympathize with. Let me quickly explain the options:

Pureblood Supremacist: the continuation of the Wizarding traditions through political, and if necessary military ways. Can ally with a Dark Lord if they feel it will advance their goals. Example: A properly done Lucius Malfoy.

Dark Lord Supremacist: fanatical follower of a charismatic Dark Lord for pureblood ideals. However, since we know Dark Lords are ultimately following their own agenda, the end result might not always coincide with those of a Pureblood Supremacist. Example: A properly done Bellatrix Lestrange.

Light Side Champion: fanatical follower of a charismatic Light Lord for equalitarian ideals. However, it can get out of line due to the Light Lord's ways of doing things not always making sense, and the greater good concept. Example: a follower of Dumbledore, who believes the sun doesn't rise or set without his intervention.

Equalitarian Half Blood: moderates that believe society should treat all its members equally, but can side with either Pureblood Supremacist or Light Side Champion according to daily events. Example: probably the mainstream Huplepuff graduate.

Mudblood Radical: Mudbloods who believe in a bloody retribution and the destruction of the Magical World's tradition to accommodate their inferior beliefs. Example: a properly done Hermione Granger.

All right, so I was a bit biased towards the last option, but what did you expect?

 

The fact that she was invited to the Slug Club, and was one of Slughorn's favorite, certainly implies that Lily was more than just "proficient" in Charms and Potions. She is, as you state, a muggleborn, which shows that her brilliance was so more impressive that she garnered an invitation.

I don't think there's superiority in purity of blood. The obvious example: Voldemort, who was a half-blood and terrorized the entirety of wizarding Britain.

I think you can also use Hermione and Lily to show that purity of blood isn't a prerequisite for success as both characters are respected by their peers and play a great role in the books.

And then, you've got the great counterexamples of Crabbe and Goyle who, even in canon, are portrayed as substandard wizards.



Any differences in competency between purebloods and muggleborns probably result from level of exposure to wizarding culture.

 

I highly doubt that Lily's blood adversely affected Harry, or diuluted his blood from his father. There has never been any real proof that being pureblood or a mudblood makes one stronger or weaker. Many guess that magic is passed by some kind of genetic that is randomly gained by muggle children, but there's nothing to say this gene is weakened by an inffusion of a outside genetic source from a muggle born.

Hermione is highly intelligent mudblood, though lacking some of the brute power Harry has, would out class purebloods like Draco Malfoy or Crabbe and Goyle any day.

Also the Dursley's weren't Lily's fault. That's like going around and blaming somone for their sibling's actions. We can only control ourselves, no one else. And the Dursley's are on Dumbeldore's head for placing Harry there. It's not like Lily knew sacrificing herself for her son would create blood magic that would have to be used through her sister to protect him.

I admit I worship Lily, the Harry/Lily fangirl I am, but that doesn't change my opinion over this.

 

Blood has nothing to do with magical ability. Look at Hermione for instance, then think of Crabbe, Goyle, or even Neville Longbottom.

And James Potter did not survive Voldemort three times on his own. I'm under the impression he did it with Lily.

Also, how are we to know James is more powerful than Lily? Just because he seemed to breeze past his OWLs? For all we know Lily did that too. While he is proficient at Transfiguration, Lily is good at Charms. They could both be equally powerful.

James' fight with Voldemort should in no way be used to gauge whether he is more capable magically than Lily. Again, for all we know, Voldemort may have slain him in a couple of spells without much effort on his part.

No, Harry is not the magically ordinary wizard we know in canon because of his bloodline. It's because of his laziness and his unwillingness to learn. Even great wizards like Dumbledore and Voldemort applied themselves to their studies and carried on the learning process thereafter. You can't expect someone who studies only when it is really necessary or when it is nearing the exams and does not have the drive to learn new spells or magic to turn out powerful, no matter how much potential/raw power he has.

Edit: I forgot about Voldemort. According to your logic, Tom Riddle Sr's blood should have "diluted" his potential, but did that happen? Nope. He still went on to be the most powerful wizard we know of, with the sole exception of Dumbledore.

 

/me rolls his eyes

 

If muggle blood diluted power, then where did Tom Riddle jr get his power from? I mean really the books say his mother was near Squib and the others from that side of his family aren't much better.

 

Yume Deli: While I agree with you that blood does not affect a wizard's power, I'd like to point out that I think Merope isn't actually a Squib. It's more the constant degradation of her abilities by Gaunt's mocking and derision that made her what she seems.

Just look at the way he keeps hammering into her how she was worthless at magic and unable to even perform a simple spell. Well, if she herself begins to believe this over time, of course she would not be able to cast even a Reparo.

 

Lord Voldemort's powers stem from the Slytherin line. We have to consider Merope Gaunt from the perspective she grew up from. Constantly put down by her brother and father, her talent did not get to manifest itself.

It is good to mix in new blood every now and then, in order to prevent bad traits from appearing. However, Lord Voldemort's powers must come from the Slytherin line. I don't see the Riddle blood contributing much.

As to the rest. Giving examples of powerful Mudbloods and weak Purebloods is not quite the way to go. Counters can be found at all times. Bellatrix Lestrange, pureblood, was one of the most powerful witches in existence, and no postbellic propaganda that Molly killed her can convince me otherwise.

EDIT: sorry if it appears I merely stated Lucullus' points again, but he must have posted while I was typing up.

 

There was no fight - see from DH:

 

And why not? Counterinstances expose weaknesses in a theory. They are perfectly valid in this debate.

How is citing Lestrange's power a counter to anything? No one claimed that purebloods were inferior. You're the only one claiming any sory of inferiority.

Besides, there is no textual evidence that Lestrange was "one of the most powerful witches in existence". It's merely a claim that you're making, and it's a tenuous one at that, given the fact that Bellatrix was killed by Molly.


And please don't criticize our use of counterexamples when you're committing much more egregious wrongs (i.e. IGNORING canon).

 

Ah, my memory must have failed me. Well, it's DH after all, who'd want to remember that?

Still, that supports my point. We don't know how he would have performed against the Dark Lord. Being able to escape him is not really a measure of one's power. Harry defied him countless times and he's pretty much your run-of-the-mill wizard when it comes to magical ability.

And besides Bella, what other examples do we have save of Dumbledore? None. Lucius isn't written to be particularly strong, and neither are Avery, Rookwood, Dolohov (isn't proven, at least) Yaxley and other Death Eaters we know of. In fact, the only powerful Death Eater besides Bella is probably Snape, and he too is a half-blood.

 

I apologise, I don't recall the scene from DH. Lyndon, I wasn't criticising your use of counterexamples. Well, maybe I was, but I fell for it myself.

Sadly, the debate is slanted against me due to canon. You see, Slytherins, and all non blood traitor purebloods are evil and must be inferior to the all mighty good in JKR's world.

I am still a little sceptical of using Hermione Granger as an example of a powerful mudblood. Despite the fact that she is awesomeness incarnate, being a JKR insert, alongside with Ginny Weasley, her ability to memorize passages does not make her a powerful witch. She admits it to Harry, in what has become an irrelevant passage, that Harry was much greater than her, and that her only advantage was studying. However, since DH, Hermione has become the ultimate witch and the solution to any problem.

The cultural advantage though cannot be negated. If Harry would have grown in a magical environment, I believe he would have a better chance at being a stronger wizard.

 

Not really. If being raised by Muggles instilled in him that burning drive and curiosity to learn as much as he could of this strange new thing called Magic, like what happened with Hermione and probably Tom Riddle, he would be a much more powerful wizard than he is.

 

What happened with Hermione and Tom Riddle differs. Hermione has a desire to learn things for the mere sake of knowing them and pleasing her teachers, a habit probably instilled in her by her parents. Lord Voldemort wishes to learn things so that he can use them to gain power and make those who have wronged him suffer.

I presume it all falls into roles. Hermione would be the perfect advisor, perhaps as an aide de camp to a general, with titbits of information and obscure knowledge to be had any time. Harry and Lord Voldemort should have both become leaders, proficient in combat, as well as leading and inspiring men. Ron Weasley can go sweep the floor in his brothers' store.

EDIT: this goes a bit beyond the thread, but I must ask this. Lucullus, you seem to be of the opinion that learning magic is the path to success. I wanted to ask you, what do you think counts more: pure magical potential or the ardent study of the theory.

If endless study of the theory matters more, then Ravenclaw House should have dominated the scene. Instead, the laurels go to the two houses based more on magical aptitude: Slytherin and Gryffindor.

 

How are they based on magical aptitude? How is any house, in fact? You're assuming this, but you give no argument for why this is the case, and it certainly doesn't seem obvious to me, when it is stated that personality traits are the basing factor.

 

You're right, I was making a presumption, one that might have some roots in fannon, but it is my belief that Slytherin and Gryffindor are based on magical aptitude.

First, we can all agree that Slytherin and Gryffindor get the spotlight, while Ravenclaw and Hupplepuff achievements are less known. For Hupplepuff, the example of Cedric Diggory being the first to bring glory to his House in a long generation during the Triwizard tournament comes to mind. Ravenclaw graduates seem to be more inclined to work in research postings and get less of the spotlight.

An analysis over how I see things:

Ravenclaw prizes the desire to constantly learn and discover new things, coupled with an innate curiosity that leads them to a life of quiet study or research. Magical aptitude does not count in this case, since not all fields of magic require powerful spell work behind them.

Slytherin prizes the cunning, those who are ambitious and wish to get on top. Magical aptitude is required for the Dark Arts, which seems to be associated with this House, as well as for advancing in society.

Gryffindor is the exact opposite of Slytherin, and their attendees prerequisite for courage makes it necessary to have at least some magical potential that can be put behind their spells.

Hupplepuff, although they prize loyalty, my impression is that they are a filler house, there to take whoever else did not make it into the other three. Some of you may disagree, but that is just my opinion.

Mordac, that actually applies to the whole analysis. It is my opinion, I don't consider it to be undiscovered canon.

EDIT: on the other hand, if this poll was an election for a Wizarding Parliament, I dare say that the Pureblood-Dark Arts coalition would hold the majority seats.

 

It's not so much the raw potential as the mindset the members of each house share. Gryffindor is the house of the brave and noble, therefore they are more likely to completely master a few powerful spells that will aid them in 99% of situations. Plus they are more likely to give their all in a battle, not pulling their punches or doing anything fancy to show off.

Slytherins are, in canon, all dark arts users who will do anything to win... I prefer to think of them using every spell in a creative manner so that it will give them the critical advantage to cast the finishing spell. Disadvantage would be unwillingness to commit everything to the battle, for fear of not being able to withdraw if things don't go their way.

Hufflepuffs will work as a team to take down an enemy and thus will have the greater advantage than all (if they have the superior numbers) and would probably win in a battle. One on one I wouldn't imagine them winning though, unless they were protégés or some type of genius (Cedric Diggory would fall into this category, I believe).

Ravenclaws are the type to use a broad range of spells that are suited for every situation and obscure ones that the enemy will probably not recognise. A definite advantage, but chances are the mastery of the Gryffindors and the cunning of the Slytherins will give them the advantage: that's why they aren't constantly on top on a one-to-one basis.

That answer your question?

Aekiel

 

I always wonder why people think that Ravenclaws study a lot and try to do their best. Just because they're smart doesn't mean they strive to do well in school. I know plenty of intelligent people that get below average grades simply because they don't care to study or try.

Hufflepuff, on the other hand, is supposed to have a lot of hard workers. They seem to be the ones that would study hard and do all of their work, and thus would probably have the best grades even if they don't have an innate understanding of the subject.

 

There seems to be a misconception here Rehio. Ravenclaw is not for the smart people, it is for the people who are inclined to study more, and deepen their understanding past a normal point. I see the Hupplepuffs as having to work more due to their inadequacy.

Let me present it all in a nice scenario form:

A Slytherin, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and a Hupplepuff are made to do a challenge. Something simple such as getting past a rabid dog.

A Slytherin would:

a) Avada Kedavra the dog. Slytherin cares about the result, not the means to get there;
b) lure the dog so it mauls its opponents and then walks past it while Fluffy is having Roast Puff.

A Gryffindor would:

a) charge at the dog with no plan whatsoever, with a club or other blunt object, knocking the dog out. If they choose a wand, they would stun the dog. End result-they are tired, possibly injured and have wasted precious energy.
b) nothing else really, since it would not fit in their character.

A Ravenclaw would:

a) since the Ravenclaw has already prepared arduously for the task, since it was mentioned it would come in chapter 22 of the seventh year textbook, which he has made sure to read in the first year, knows that said dog is partial to Swiss chocolate. Knowing the time would come, he has been carrying Swiss chocolate all semester, gives it to the dog and walks away while he is munching on it.
b) The more arcane Ravenclaw (more likely to be DoM material) has researched the matter as variant a) and uses the fabled, lost knowledge of the Testudo Charm, encasing it in an unbreakable bubble, in which the dog passes out from lack of air. The Ravenclaw walks away, having used a fair deal of magical power.

A Hupplepuff would:

a) gather all his friends and try to get past the dog toghether. A problem if you are stuck there by yourself.
b) tries a weaker variation of what the other students have done. A higher chance for the Hupplepuff to not succeed.

Frankly, except maybe Hupplepuff, each house has its own advantage, and as Harry Potter is sitting on his throne, he should have advisers from each house to benefit from the synergy.

 

I wouldn't say Hufflepuff are the odd house out, they're probably the most powerful because they're willing to help each other and seek out advice for the problems ahead.

Think of it this way, given the situation you've given us, who is more likely to succeed?

A Slytherin, who is by nature more likely to go ahead by himself for the chance of more glory (because of his ambitiousness).

A Gryffindor, who is likely to try and power his way through, though I suspect he would find a powerful weapon before trying to do so.

A Ravenclaw, whom may have the foreknowledge to get past the task easily, is relying on the fact that their knowledge is indeed correct. If they have no idea what the task may be they would be at a disadvantage as they are likely to research every spell for any situation, and thus are cluttered with thought when the actual task comes to bare.

A Hufflepuff, whom is much more likely to ask the friends he's made in Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and possibly Slytherin for advice while studying as hard as he can for the upcoming task and gaining the aid of his fellow Hufflepuffs in the task itself... If that is allowed.

Aekiel