Every person has some sort of talent, though I very much doubt there is an universal talent for "magic" - especially if you consider how vast and complex the entire concept is. From shaving charms to creating inferi. Just because Harry has talent for a particular branch of magic (e.g. DADA), does not mean ALL magic comes to him naturally. We can see that's very much not the case throughout the books.

As for Harry - I personally think he's an above average wizard, but by no means the next coming of Dumbledore. If you place Dumbledore and Tom Riddle on an equal footing, then Harry just does not compare. Tom Riddle created his first Horcrux at 16 - I think that speaks for itself.

 

The way I saw it, Harry was an above average wizard. The problem was that he didn't have the drive to be particularly exceptional so he was nowhere near as studious as Hermione. His advantage was in that he is a quick thinker, with fast reflexes, which often gave him the advantage over others in duels who would more knowledgeable about spells, but not as fast as he was in casting them.

His skills in duels, and in general in DADA came about with a need to be good in that simply for his survival. Placed in several situations, the mere fact that he was able to survive where some other talented wizards had died indicates that he is a decent wizard, certainly above average.

However, it appears that the truly great wizards (Dumbledore, Grindelwald, Voldemort) were great due to vast knowledge in the specific areas in which they chose to be experts. Since we only see Harry until 17, it is possible to argue that we haven't seen his true potential as wizards get better with age due to it being dependent on knowledge and experience rather than physical attributes (to a certain extent). However, from what we have seen of Harry's character, he doesn't have the drive to pursue such knowledge so it is doubtful he would ever reach their level.

In summary, above average, but nothing overly powerful (which would have likely been boring to read about anyway).

 

I don't. The only thing we know from canon about that piece of magic is that it's obscure and requires murder. I could easily return: Harry Potter killed a Horocrux at the age of 12 -- I think that speaks for itself.

---------- Post automerged at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:12 ----------

P.S. I think in the context of the Sorting Hat determining where he belongs in a school for magic, it is not a stretch to assume when the Sorting Hat says that Harry has "talent" it means that he has a talent "for magic."

 

My view on it was that Harry Potter himself mostly relied on the help of others, his actions went with the, "Friendship conquers all mentality." Harry himself was not weak, he was just stunted in a way where to succeed he needed to rely on others for the sake of making a more wholesome tale.

 

There isn't much to indicate how complex it is one way or the other, but I can certainly believe that the two biggest obstacles to making a horcrux are how obscure the magic is, and just how horrifyingly evil the requirements are. Most people with a working moral compass aren't going to like the idea of committing cold blooded murder and carving up their own soul.

 

I think Hermione's words in the first book are relevant here:

Harry doesn't show much talent for studying or casting magic. He defeats Quirrel by touching him; he kills the basilisk and Tom Riddle by stabbing them respectively with a sword and a fang; while his father's friend group were becoming Animagi and creating a map of Hogwarts, he was learning to rely on a handful of spells (Expelliarmus, Stupefy, Accio...). Yes, he learned the Patronus Charm early, but that depends on an emotional state more than spellcasting talent. I mostly agree with his self-assessment in GoF that his particular skill is flying.

But ultimately, he's an above-average wizard. He's brave enough to get into all these life-threatening situations for the sake of his friends, humble enough to get help from those more skilled than himself (often Hermione and Dumbledore), strong-willed enough to cast the Patronus Charm and throw off the Imperius Curse. Sure he's not out inventing new spells or discovering a thirteenth use of dragon's blood, but I'll bet he would have fought Grindelwald much earlier than Dumbledore did, even if he ended up dying in the fight.

 

Yet, it should be remembered that Harry had the instinctual grasp of magic to stab the diary with a fang. And look in the last book, he spends the whole book making extraordinary leaps of logic that make no sense to Hermione and yet are absolutely right. In fact, when he meets Dumbledore, Dumbledore says that he was relying on Hermione too slow Harry down.

 

In a world in which your soul is actually a thing that could be torn asunder, it'd take a singularly screwed-up moral compass to be willing to do so. Nevermind it involving cold-blooded murder, you're rending your... well, being... into pieces.

That's pretty fucked up all around, considering you're doing that while consciously choosing to end another human being's life all to prolong your own. That takes both unusual skill and knowledge and an utter disregard for any recognizable standard of morality.

-

More to the thread topic: Harry's shown to have a pretty instinctual grasp of how things work, and an ability to learn an impressive amount quickly; it's tough to dismiss a Patronus as "more attitude than talent" considering many adults can't perform it reliably- Harry had really good motivation of course, but he was also thirteen years old and had known he was a wizard for a bit over two. Willpower matters, which in that way makes him very much and very unsubtly the flip side of the coin to Tom Riddle.

Rowling spends a lot of time hammering home just how similar the hero and the villain are in many ways. There's a reason the "Harry is lazy" meme had such a... durable... run in fandom. He's not exactly your bog-standard wizard in terms of sheer ability. The problem is that in a very real way the game (taken most literally in GoF) is rigged.

 

Tom didn't have one of the most powerful wizards of his time actively plan his death every year either. I'm sure it would have been hard for him to concentrate on esoteric magic while thwarting the plans of a Dark Lord and his servants.

 

Harry Potter is a great wizard. Not all greatness is measured in ability or talent. He rose to the challenge, persevered, and overcame obstacles that others could not.

 

I think the fact that Harry becomes Head Auror speaks of him fulfilling his potential after Hogwarts and possibly gives credence to his abilities in the 7 books.

For reasons regarding plot we don't see a montage of him becoming extremely skilled but we do get to see him in action several times: The DoM battle, the battle of the 7 Harry's, various times in DH (Malfoy Manor and The Final Battle being the two that come to mind) and from this we can conclude he's above average and decidedly not a poor wizard in terms of intelligence or magical ability. Could he have pushed himself more? Certainly. But he is by no means average.

 

I'm sure that if we count the magic of love then HP can easily be considered a great wizard!

It depends on whether you judge him purely by magic. If you take into account his humanity, determination and resourcefulness there's a good argument to made for Harry's greatness. He couldn't have survived the series otherwise.

 

Well, I think that the very fact that he survived is also a consequence of luck.

 

Even then he still more often than not come out better than most adult in fight.

 

Looks like this topic can' t die.

Harry first successul patronus was against 100 dementors, he was choosen to teach students in defence by students older than him and he killed Voldemort.

We can`t call it above average.

 

He's above average in fighting magic (don't know how else to put it in words, please don't flame me), a genius in some others (everyone says it's a rather big thing to make a corporal patronus and being able to fight off the Imperius Curse like he did), but if you take him as a whole, probably average.

 

Well, he isn't exactly, average.He is above average. Because, hey, he did the patronus when he was thirteen, when most adults cannot even master the spell. He was the only one in his class able to fight off the imperious curse. And, he was able to fight off Voldemort's imperious curse. And, he defeated Voldemort. Though that was more of because they had brother wands, I think. But still, above average.

 

This fact keeps getting mentioned.

Yes, you're right. Harry was definitely above average. Lots of promise to be an above-average wizard.

At age thirteen.

Age fifteen? Not so much. He's teaching his peers how to cast the spell. Cho has got it. Hermione has got it. Seamus has almost got it.

At age seventeen? That potential to be an above-average wizard has evaporated. The signs were there when he was young, but Harry has disappointed us all. He fails to cast his vaunted patronus in the final battle. He has to be rescued by his mates (who have no problems with the spell). By the end of the series oodles of people are casting a Patronus.

Harry is, technically, still 'above average', as many people here have noted. 'Above average' in the same way that 50% of the wizarding population is 'above average'. He got a few E scores for his OWLs. He's in the top half of his class.

But 'above average' in terms of truly excelling? Being in the top ten percent? Five percent? Standing above all others? Having powers, abilities, skill, knowledge, clearly in advance of his peers?

No.

Sure, in terms of *fame* he's a luminary of the age, but -

Right. Brother wands. Luck. People sacrificing themselves to save him. Stupid Harry-only wand lore introduced in the final book by an author desperate to let Harry win *without* drawing him as an 'above average' wizard. Dumbing the villain down by 200 I.Q. points (Harry - "if you try and kill me you'll die". Voldemort - *tries to kill Harry*. *dies*.)

 

Scoreboard, bro.

 

brad

They did not cast that in front of dementors. In fact, Hermione could never cast the charm in front of dementors as she had to beg Harry to do so in the final battle.

Harry had just watched Fred die and was feeling quite guilty. Luna had to convince him to do so because those THREE mates could only keep the dementors at bay. Who, besides Umbridge, cast the spell as well as Harry against dementors?

Seeing as he has a far better understanding of wand lore than just about anyone else, I would say he is above his peers in knowledge. Not to mention, what he knows of horcruxes, possession, divination, and first hand knowledge of various magical creatures. Seeing how in every book he was the one to put the important pieces together, I would say the kid's pretty smart.

Wand lore was introduced in PS and expanded on in GOF. And who, other than Lily, James, and I guess Dobby, sacrificed themself for Harry? Cedric died because he couldn't duck. Sirius died due to his own arrogance. Dumbledore died because he couldn't let go of the past. Everyone else died for the cause. As for Voldemort, his plans were actually good. Look at OOTP and DH. He exploited Harry's weakness in both books. But, in both OOTP and DH, Dumbledore and Harry were able to turn the tables and exploit his own.