Just a quick note - Lord Voldemort was actually more powerful than Albus Dumbledore.

Dumbledore barely beat him at the Ministry of Magic with the Elder Wand, which is supposed to be the kill-all of almost anythin you point at.

 

Definietly Lord Voldemort is far more powerful then Albus Dumbledore. He is also not handicapped by self imposed restrictions, as he would do anything that was necessary to win, while Dumbledore handicaps himself by refusing to touch the Dark Arts even with a stolen wand.

I am somewhat confused as to the point of it to this discussion, however. If it is an argument to say that the Half-Blood Voldemort beat the presumably Pureblood Dumbledore, please consider the following.

Lord Voldemort's powers stem from his affiliation to the Slytherin line. He has great potential for magic, coupled with his fervent study and innate curiosity, making him a prodigy.

In the Gaunt's case, the old blood of Slytherin had "thickened itself" too much. There is a theory that old blood needs an infusion of new blood after many generations, to refresh it.

In Lord Voldemort's case, the Riddle blood helped him, by reducing the inherent flaws of the inbred Gaunt one, while still maintaining the advantages of the powerful Slytherin line.

It seems a very useful thing for Pureblood families to quietly adopt "new blood" every six generations let's say, and marry it off to their heir. That way, risks associated with "old blood" are reduced, while the benefits still run strong.

EDIT: I am amazed, no one follows Dumbledore's beliefs...

 

Methene, I've been reading you're attempts at reasoning. They suck. Other people have been kind enough to point out the flaws, but I just wanted you to know that.

By the way, JKR says that no wizard has more power then any other, rather what they learn creates their power (except if the have the extra magic Elder wand, which negates the message of her book).

 

Just to point out a mistake I've seen, and no I didn't read the responses. James didn't fight Voldemort, Both Lily and James were without wands.

Also, as far as I remember, Potter was never invited into Slughorn's little club of Whose Who of the Wizarding World. And as is implied by most people, Slughorn is really only interested in those who can make something of them selves. The Creme de la Crem. Lily got in and James didn't.

And despite my dislike of James, he is someone who apparently had some reason to be respected. Becoming an Animagus and Transfiguration expert we'll say. And probably some other shit we'll never know about because JKR is a twat.

My personal opinion is that James and Lily were more equals on the top teer of the standard. For whatever reason, Slughorn had no interest in Potter though. James could probably do shit Lily couldn't, and vice verse.

Harry, on the other hand. I don't think he was weak or stupid. I think he got so used to Hermione and everyone else doing shit for him early on that he became lazy and had no motivation to improve himself. (And JKR is a twat.)

Most of the characters we see on a regular basis are rather one-dimensional, so it really isn't a decent basis for comparison.

 

This thread is so unbelievably stupid. There is no evidence whatsoever to point to magical talent having anything to do with your parenthood.

It seems to be more linked in with intelligence, knowledge, technique, instincts, creativity, practice, mental focus, emotional control (or lack of) and improvisation. All of which would have more to do with upbringing than parenthood. Even if you believe intelligence etc. is from your genes, because sexual reproduction creates so much genetic variation, an intelligent person can very easily arise from two stupid people, and visa versa.

On the Dumbledore vs. Voldemort topic:

The Elder Wand appears to make very little difference once you reach the level Dumbledore and Voldemort are at. They already cast all their spells perfectly, so theres no room for improvement. If there's no room for improvement, the Elder Wand is just a nice keepsake.

And Dumbledore rather soundly beat Voldemort at the MoM in OotP.

Not only did he force Voldemort to retreat, and land far more attacks on Voldemort (Voldemort was unable to avoid completely the mystery spell, the firey whip and the sphere of water, whereas not a single one of Voldemort's attacks got through Dumbledore's defences) but he also was fighting Bellatrix at the same time, and has just single handedly caught about 6 Death Eaters in the Death Chamber.

 

There's an easy solution to this. Make all the so-called muggles become purebloods and make all the so-called purebloods become half-bloods.

For example, Hermione Grangar. She's actually a pureblood - it's just that her parents decided to get out of the magical world.

Yeah, Tom Riddle Sr. was not a muggle - he was actually a wizard. Hey, canon never proves that wrong, does it? Have we seen ever single moment of his life? If not, you can't say 100% that he wasn't a wizard.

Or Crabbe and Goyle. They aren't really purebloods - they're half-bloods because their mothers had affairs.

The so-called pureblood Gaunt family we saw in book six were actually very adept wizards. It's just that Dumbledore altered the Pensieve memories to make Harry believe in that blood doesn't matter.

1984 logic ftw.

 

After reading through my posts and the replies that have come to them, I must concede that you Gentlemen and Ladies were right. Kindly do remember that I said it was a mere idea and not an ideal to be defended to death.

As regards to James not standing up to Voldemort, it seems to have slipped my mind. Either that, or I have read to many stories to know the actual truth any more.

Although I still stand with my beliefs and vote as concerning to the Magical Society, there is significant evidence that blood is not that much of a measure of magical power as others. Deathinapinkboa, I haven't followed all of JKR's interviews to keep up with all she says, but I will trust you on it.

The reason I am admitting you are right is because my own idea is beginning to make less and less sense in my mind. It seemed a viable theory in the beginning but not so much now.

 

I just wanted to say this...JKR turned into a horrible writer after the 4th book..and is way to inconsistent with details about magic..therefore it's kinda hard to speculate about magical power etc.

 

Actually, your theory could be as correct as any other. JKR contradicted herself far too often for us readers to have any clue what the truth was.

She said that there was no such thing as magical power, but how the hell can that be true when there is such a thing as a squib? It said on the squib pamphlet in book 2 that even a squib could cast low level spells (I believe. I do not own that book). That obviously shows that they have some power to cast spells, and therefore there is such a thing as a difference in power level.

But I picked Equalitarian Half-Blood because of two factors:

1) The likelihood of a child being a wizard of any power level is obviously much higher for those of already magical descent so I can't say that blood has nothing to do with it.

2) But I also think that power is essentially random once the kid has been born with the ability to use magic.

Fleur, who is half-veela, is chosen from a list of many students to be her school's champion in the tri-wizard tournament.

Hermione can do a Protean charm, which is apparently newt-level magic, in fifth year which makes me think that she is powerful.

Tonks, who is half-blood, is an extremely powerful metamorphmagus and is a rather top notch auror.

Neville, who is pureblood, lacks the talent to do anything but blow things up without LOADS of practice.

And finally, Snape, who is an powerful half-blood.

So, in essence, my belief system would be that within the wizarding community people should be able to marry whoever the hell they want, and marrying a muggle-born should be encouraged to keep the magical blood flowing strong. What should be a bit less accepted is marrying a muggle, as muggles seem to have far smaller of a chance to pop out a new wizard to add to the community.

 

Back on the topic of House distinctions, why do people assume that members of the House only possess it's defining trait? Why could a Gryffindor not be smart? Or ambitious? Hermione is both.

Why can't a Hufflepuff be brave, courageous and smart all into one, besides being loyal and hardworking like they are known for? Cedric Diggory possess all these traits.

Who said Ravenclaws have to be stuck-up bookworms? They could be brave or cunning too, you never know. That's the problem about such distinctions- people tend to focus more on the identifying trait of their House, but forget that each and every student may possess traits of the other Houses too. It could be that bravery is a Gryffindor's dominant trait. But that does not mean he has to go charging into a battle without a plan. What's to say that he or she does not plan things out methodically?

Do not take Harry as a benchmark for all Gryffindors.

What's more, taking Gryffindor as an example again, most of the more well-known ones like Hermione and Neville seem to be fanatically loyal as well. Isn't that one of the Hufflepuff traits?

 

Lucullus this thread is not about discussing House distinctions. It is about blood=)

Anyways I mean I agree with above that any of these theories could be correct as JKR leaves way to many gaps in all her works.

 

Let's see here...

About the House traits you discussed, Methene, they are stereotypical. You can't expect people to react the same; that would mean that no one has any depth. If you assume automatically that if you're in this house, you'll always react this way, that's just House bullshit. People concentrate too much on the houses and think about their traits. I'd rather think that people go to houses when a particular trait is stronger than the rest of their character traits i.e. someone is loyal above smart.

And it's a very biased thing to say, Hufflepuff being weak. No, they are most definitly not weak, or else we haven't seen that in the book. Their reputation is that they are a 'bunch of duffers', that's according to Slytherin, which I would like to mention insults everybody. It's reputation. Doesn't actually mean it's real.

Well, I'd better cut that rant, since this isn't about houses.

Blood is unimportant.

Blood doesn't judge whether or not you are skilled with a wand. If you have the determination and ambition to be powerful, you can be powerful.

Harry's in no way ambitious. That's why he's a failure of a wizard.

 

I disagree, in the beginning, when he was first sorted, I think he had quite a lot of ambition. He wanted to be someone special and have friends and be respected and all this. But it progressed, he became so used to someone helping him and doing it for him, he no longer had the motivation to act on his ambition. In the Weasley's and Granger, he had pretty much everything he wanted, so why try?

Take them out of the equation, or lower their value and assistance, and I think it would have made a huge difference in his character.

And replace JKR, of course, with someone who could write. :|

 

Well, yes, I suppose Harry did start out ambitious. If JKR hadn't been stupid about putting love as a theme for Harry Potter, she could have acted on the ambition. Depending on Hermione isn't good for Harry, no, no. But I disagree on the fact that he still had ambition at then end.

My point for this is that Harry knew that he would be the one to fight Voldemort, not Hermione, when the prophecy was revealed. Did he act on any ambition and try to become powerful when his life depended on it? I think that's good motivation. The weird thing I don't like about HP is that when in Book 4, Voldemort wasn't back and Harry didn't know about the prophecy, Harry did start learning, learning stuff meant for older years.

Later on, he kept using the same spells he learned, learning nothing new. And that's when he knew that Voldemort was after him. It's like he's gotten so lazy he subconsciously imagines Granger killing Voldemort for him.

EDIT: I accidentally voted Light Side Champion. I wanted Equalitarian Half-Blood.

 

Harry was to busy in the books, don't you see? In Fifth year he spent all his time wondering why Dumbledore was ignoring him and in Sixth year he spent his whole year following the ferret.

As for reality...

In most independent Harry stories it shows Harry rebelling against Dumbledore's idea of Harry having a childhood. In the books however, its opposite. He seems to accept this and does just what an average teenager is going to do. Hang out with friends, and only do what needs to be done to pass in school.

Would anyone with half a brain study if they knew Voldemort would most likely come after them? Yes. I guess J.K Rowling just wanted to write it as if Harry was brain dead.

 

Just imagine if that was the message of the books. A generation of studious HP fans. We would have a cure for cancer within 10 years.

 

Not that I'm seeking to get into another lengthy debate with you...

But one can always argue that it was Voldemort who came closest to killing Dumbledore when he launched a dual-pronged attack by timing his Killing Curse so that it coincided with his transfigured snake's attack, allowing for Dumbledore to avoid one, but not both. It was only Fawkes that stood in the way of a premature death for him.

Granted, it is always possible that Dumbledore knew Fawkes would be there to save his ass when it is really on the line (Once, anyway...).

 

That's complete bullshit. Shut up.

 

I may be wrong, but I think the Rowling universe has a fairly unique magic system in this regard. There is no difference between individual wizard's magical power; no mana points, spell points, etc. There is no difference in magical power between Albus Dumbledore and Neville Longbottom, so the only difference between them is determination (Gryffindor), ingenuity (Slytherin), intelligence (Ravenclaw), and perserverance (Hufflepuff). So yes, learning magic is the path to success.

I'm hoping someone like Taure can post evidence of this, but I'm pretty sure this is J.K.'s stated position.

Hm, by the time I posted this, there were ten new replies.