And from evidence in canon we note that emotions play a huge role in magic especially more powerful spells. Cruciatus, imperius, patronus, etc. So his ability to master such spells at a relatively young age combined with his wild emotions would make him better at powerful spells.

I agree that DH and HBP are quite nonsensical in nature, but canon does according to JKR and my reading of it place Harry as being an extremely competent individual especially considering in OOTP Harry was the one learning the spells and teaching them to the rest of the students.

You would accuse me of reading canon to fit what I want my main character to be, and I would accept that point to an extent. I do read canon and ignore things I don't particularly like just like I do in interviews JKR does. However, you and several other people on this forum read canon and interviews with JKR and dismiss things you don't agree with as well.

Trying to say Hermione always mastered a spell better than Harry when we see very little examples of spells in canon where you can actually tell the difference in mastery of them is an extrapolation that could very well be proven very much false when compared to what actually occurred during classes.

The fact is according to JKR Harry was amazing at defense. We don't know exactly what makes him better than other students at it because we see very little of him doing the theory part of defense or preforming many of the spells he would have learned over the years.

I would go a step further and say that the learning curve for spells in the books makes little to no sense at all. They all seem to pick up repelling a boggart on the first try, Harry can preform both the curse used by Tom to kill spiders and all of Snape's little spells on the first try, and yet, they seem to struggle with other relatively useless spells or spells that you would think would be easier to cast than those were. Not to mention how easy the unforgivables seem to be to cast.

You state that Harry can preform the patronus charm because he has the right memory, but it seems that many wizards and witches struggle with the charm and are impressed when someone so young can cast it. You can't discount that unless you have more information about the way magic works. How do you know that other spells require more studying or what they require to properly be cast that would make them so dramatically different from that charm? You don't not from canon at least which means you are reading into magical theory what you want to see in magical theory much in the same way I read Harry the way I prefer to see him.

 

Imperius doesn't require emotion. In DH Harry casts it without any mention of emotion.

I also lol at the "etc." here, given that these two spells (Cruciatus, patronus) are the sum total of spells in canon referred to as having an emotional component. Furthermore, the Cruciatus is never referred to as advanced: just very evil. This seems to be backed up by the fact that almost anyone appears able to cast it. Finally, that the Cruciatus requires emotion is itself is in doubt, given that in DH Harry cast it successfully with righteous anger, not sadism (as Bellatrix said it needed. But when you think about it, Bellatrix had plenty of reasons to lie).

So really, we have one foolproof case in canon of an advanced spell requiring emotion. Hardly a concrete basis for:

I wasn't disputing the sense of canon, but rather of Harry's thinking. JKR herself has said we can only trust information from Dumbledore and Hermione. Harry may certainly tell himself that his not learning Occlumency was because he was unwilling to learn from Snape (and I would still like a citation on that, please), but this does not mean that what Harry thinks is true. People - especially people like Harry - often make excuses to themselves for their own shortcomings.

We're told repeatedly that Harry's strength is his heart/love/emotions. Harry's greatest attribute (yet also, according to Snape, failure) makes him predisposed towards performing the Patronus charm well where other wizards cannot.

Except normal processes of reasoning side with me. I see no evidence for more spells like the Patronus charm, so I do not postulate them (though certainly I find it likely that there's at least some other spells that have emotional components). You see no evidence of other spells like the Patronus Charm but go ahead and postulate them anyway, citing the lack of evidence against such spells as proof for them. This is similar reasoning to that involved in the statement "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so you can't say I shouldn't believe in him/her/it."

However, if you want an argument against it, here you go:

1. In Occlumency, the Occlumens suppresses his emotions.
2. Dumbledore and Voldemort have performed advanced magic while practising Occlumency (e.g. duel in the Atrium).
3. Dumbledore and Voldemort have performed advanced magic while suppressing their emotions.
4. Advanced magic has been used where emotion is suppressed.
5. If an emotion is suppressed, it cannot be used in spellcasting, for it is not strongly enough felt (the Patronus charm, which we are taking as the model for emotion-based magic only works with strong feeling, and is stronger the stronger the feeling is).
6. Emotion is not needed for advanced magic.

Have fun with that one. Though I don't fully endorse it myself, it is an interesting argument. I would venture, however, that a sufficiently advanced Occlumens is still able to feel and utilise emotion, it's just that they have control of it, rather than the emotion controlling them.

 

Not to be a pain, but I was curious about your canon justification for #2. I understand that Snape read Harry's thoughts in their short, inauspicious duel (the one where Harry cast Cruciatus curses and Snape deflected them, thereby demolishing the fanon myth that one cannot block/shield unforgivables), but I don't remember it being said that Dumbledore/Voldemort practiced Occlumency when they fought.

 

But Taure....that would require me reading DH again. I really don't want to do that. Also, I always thought the imperius curse required an intense emotion of wanting to subdue an opponent or perhaps a feeling of superiority. I assumed that, but I figured it was highly likely considering JKR's...well unusual thought process that doesn't explain why some spells are apparently so very easy to learn and others are complicated. Personally, I find it rather confusing to even attempt explaining her magical theory because it makes no sense.

You either believe it takes actual work and understanding of theory which would make sense given you have to go to a school and write a lot of papers on such things or you can apparently see someone cast a spell then mimic them perfectly given a little info that people apparently waste vast amounts of paper trying trying to explain in books when half a sentence can cover how to cast most spells if even that! -_-

Also, Taure I will admit I perhaps assumed things about spells in previous posts/was effected by my views and the views of others on spell theory, but we have next to nothing logical to go off of in canon about spell casting that doesn't contradict another part of canon on casting spells.

I still maintain that you can't say Harry isn't good at spell theory without knowing more about his classwork. If anything I have realized flaws in my logic in this argument, but I think you perhaps share flaws rooted in the same problem in your arguments i.e. you tend to see what you want to see when you read by picking out the studious side of spell casting and ignore the numerous cases of spells being cast perfectly with little to no knowledge of the theory behind such magic.

Also, the emotion thing...I don't know if you are correct since Occulumency was supposed to stop Harry from ever getting into Voldemort's mind so if Voldemort was supposed to be master of Occulumency then wouldn't it then logically follow that Harry wouldn't need to master Occulumency because Voldemort would actively keep Harry out of his mind? We know Voldemort can break into minds with amazing skill, but it is never actually show that he can prevent people from entering his own.

 

But, given the disatrous results of an unoccluded mind versus a legilimens, don't you think it's a fair assumption that both Dumbledore and Voldemort were practicing Occlumency ?

 

In HBP Dumbledore explains that the reason Harry no longer sees visions is because Voldemort has begun practising occlumency against him. Prior to this Voldemort did not realise the danger having a link to Harry presented (Dumbledore's words). In DH even Voldemort's occlumency is able to keep Harry out, however.

I think his less than outstanding grades are good evidence, as well as the occasional mention of theory being confusing (especially with respect to Transfiguration).

What JB said. Had oen of them not being practising occlumency during that fight, the other would have wtfpwn'd them, as both are skilled in legilimency. Given that it was a fairly even fight, I think it's clear that neither had access to the other's mind.

 

That's not the way I read it. From what I remember, it says that Voldemort wouldn't attempt to take over Harry's body again. Iirc, Harry continues to experience visions from Voldemort. Also, if Voldemort was a master of occulumency why wouldn't he be protecting his mind at all times anyway? We already know that several death eaters know occulumency so wouldn't he want to protect his mind at all times anyway. And I thought the implication was that if you mastered occulumency people couldn't break into your mind unless you were trying to break into their minds otherwise you would have to wait until you detected someone breaking into your mind in order to use your talents which would beg the question if you were a master of occulumency then how do you miss someone entering your mind?

 

I'm not sure how much room there is for interpretation there.

 

Or they just chose not to look into each others' eyes. Or they decided that the other knowing the spell coming was worth it to get off a more powerful spell. It seems an inference at best. *shrug*

 

You still didn't explain the other problems with that statement such as the continued visions or the fact that this supposed master of occulumency couldn't detect someone entering his mind or wasn't already practicing occulumency anyway. It would also be prudent to mention Dumbledore had no way of knowing that Voldemort was using occulumency against Harry.

It could have been some other weird side effect of the way Harry tossed Voldemort out of his mind or some bit of soul magic assuming Voldemort was able to connect the dots in a similar way that Dumbledore did to figure out the true extent of what went wrong that night which would make sense considering Voldemort knows a hell of a lot more about how the soul gets fractured than Dumbledore does. I just don't see the Voldemort we've seen in canon actually learning occulumency not because he couldn't but because I don't think it would ever cross his mind that someone would actually attempt to enter his mind. He seems to be that full of himself.

 

The whole "legilimency needs eye contact" thing seems to use a very loose definition of "eye contact". When Snape blocked every one of Harry's spells Harry was a fair distance from him, and running. A mere passing glance appears to be sufficient.

Indeed, I am now trying to remember if it ever says that two-way contact must be made, or if it just says that you need to see your opponent's eyes. If the latter, the only way to avoid it would be to cover your eyes.

The second point is fair, but given the way Snape was able to completely counter every one of Harry's spells with effortless ease, no matter how powerful the spell might have been, it seems to me that the advantage of knowing what's coming is far greater than getting off a powerful spell.

Also, Snape was able to block Harry's spells before the incantation even left his mouth, so that would seem to further the idea that Voldemort and Dumbledore weren't in each others minds. If they were, then it wouldn't be a matter of " the other knowing the spell coming was worth it to get off a more powerful spell", because they wouldn't be abel to get that spell off at all - it would be blocked first.

These didn't occur until DH, when Harry actively tried to enter Voldemort's mind i.e. overcame his defences. The reason for this, I think, is quite clear: the bond Harry and Voldemort share is deeper than can be blocked by Occlumency.

See above. Also, the question is rather silly. If someone has broken into your mind they have already surpassed your occlumency, and so evading notice is not really any greater achievement.

It seems to me that from the way the word is used that Occlumency isn't some state of the mind that you switch on or off. Rather it is something you practice towards something on a case by case basis (or at least is at higher levels). I can be practising Occlumency towards X but at the same time decide to allow Y in (or not notice Y's invasion). Canon never makes any mention of shields or anything like that.

 

Canon does do a pretty good job of showing that a simple protego can bitch slap legilimency pretty darn effectively though. Hell, if all you have to do is cast that spell and no more mind gazing for you then it'd be a waste of time for anyone to even attempt to use it in a duel assuming they are facing someone thinking properly which would pretty much mean attempting to use it in a high level duel would be counterproductive.

 

Good point, though neither Dumbledore nor Voldemort used a magical shield in that fight (protego manifests visibly, so we would be able to tell) so in that case it's not really relevant. Also: why would someone cast a shield charm to block something they can block with occlumency? Finally, the strategy has a weakness: the moment the shield goes down/fails, your opponent can re-engage in legilimency.

 

It wtfpwns active legilimency, not passive. And we all know how many times we see the words 'Dumbledore's eyes bore into him' and the hundred other variations thereof.

Anyone got a theory for active/passive legilimency? The distinction between them being one is a spell and the other seems more like an abiility.

 

This is actually something I thought about, and I came to a the conclusion which is somewhat more of a theory than anything else though it is based in canon. The reflection of the attack seems to be rather difficult for the caster to stop even with someone as skilled as Snape attempting to do so which means the reflected attack may be harsh enough to cause you to pause in order to force the person out of your head which could leave you quite vulnerable, and since most people seem to be able to detect when someone is attempting to enter their mind the normal way it would be foolhardy to open yourself up on a gamble that could cost you more in the long run from a simple counter.

To take that theory to the duel between Albus and Tom. If Tom were to attempt it, Albus would detect it, use protego (or some other shield), and in that pause Tom would essentially be at the mercy of Albus mind you this is just based on Snape's reaction which could have been from shock though having your mental attack simultaneously forced out of the mind you were reading and then slammed into your mind could be enough to shock you anyway.

There are many other useful reasons to learn occulumency according to JKR mind you such as it allows you to bypass the effects of mind altering potions, but in this case, I see using it in a duel to be rather pointless especially if you attempted to use it against a man like Albus who would probably have the world's most vicious counter already lined up for the moron who thought that would have been a viable attack.

On a completely different note, wasn't it heavily implied during the OWL exams that Harry stole one of the answers from the back of a student's head implying that eye contact may not be needed to enter someone's mind though it might be a skill unique to Harry due to the many mental attacks he has been under from his connection to Voldemort and his time training with Snape.

EDIT: There is no such thing as active/passive legilimency. There is legilimency period. What you call passive is simply someone casting it without the use of a wand. The idea that a wizard has to have a wand to cast a spell is fanon considering Dumbledore, Snape, Voldemort, and Harry all do it at some point or another.

 

I'm not a fan of the active/passive legilimency distinction in fanon. It seems to be a distinction of the way the spell is applied to a situation, rather than an actual magical difference.

@Oneiros: I thought about that, but then remembered that when Harry reflected Snape's legilimency back at him in OotP, Harry was just as absorbed (and therefore vulnerable) in the memory as Snape was.

With regards to the stealing of answers: my impression was that nothing magical was going on there, and it was just an insight (perhaps intended to be humourous, or to create a mundane mood to make the impending vision all the more dramatic) into the "average person's" thought process in an exam.

 

Dueller 1 uses Legilimency.
Dueller 2 is repels it with Protego!
Dueller 1 casts Avada Kedavra while Dueller 2 is busy shielding against the Legilimency.
Dueller 2 dies.

 

Dueller number 1 is getting the shit kicked out of his mind and can still cast that spell before the guy who is currently in his mind knows about it? I don't think so.

 

Why the fire hose theory works: predisposition of wands and a seeming predisposition of wizards to have an affinity towards a particular school of magic, ie transfiguration or charms.

I like it more than the if you practice, it will come theory - or the "sum of all the parts" bullshit going on.

It's fine and dandy to believe you've parsed the text to find the holy grail of how magic works or how its users interact with it. But the entire story is inconsistent; what applies in Book I does not apply in Book VII. The only common theme I notice is the discussion of wands and their strengths; wizards and their strengths. It's something the author does without much thought to her world as far as I can ascertain but it is an underpinning of how people view one another in her world.

Good at cursebreaking, a master at transfiguration, a master at charms. I think wizards just have a thing - kind of like Sandal in Dragon Age. Unless you're telling me a moron can cast fiendfyre with nothing more than a butchered translation and a rudimentary understanding of how it should work is somehow indicative of the 'train-it-up' theories.

As for magical cores, they're an as-you-want sort of thing in fanon but lets face it: they're a joke. Any time you want to measure ability by letter grade or number, you're probably failing at a crucial element of storytelling: showing, not telling.

Edit: Edits/additions in bold.