Different people excel at different things. There are mindset that are prone to the sciences, there are people with an innate skill for mathematics. Others are better suited to the enjoyment and dissection of literature or the analysis of cause and effect that is the pursuit of history. Some people are painters and actors, while other folks enjoy running about with soccer balls.

To a large part the middle and high school education attempt to introduce people to all these things, allowing them to find what they are best suited for.

Presumably different types of magic also appeal more to certain types of people then to others. Potions are for those with a keen scientific approach to study, it requires that instructions be strictly followed, though while they may be improved upon. Transfiguration is manifestation of a person’s visualization, and thus an art. The greater ones breadth of imagination, the greater the breadth of ones transfiguration potential. Dumbledore, as a careless fairy (and because it is not sufficient for JKR to perpetuate stereotypes by having him dress in outrageous flamboyant colors, be kookily eccentric, prance about in a dress, fill his office with shiny bobbles, be intellectually superior to everyone, have an extra special magic-stick, and start a club named after a creature that is positively flaming), has tremendous artistic ability and those can create elaborate armchairs, fill the stern and regimented Minerva is limited to straight-back chairs.

Hermione, who has a very regimented mind, surpasses others in diversity of application; she can make potions and quickly to match to needles. However, people like Luna*, who have a tremendous amount of imagination, would ultimately be better at transfiguration, because they are creating more elaborate visuals. Luna can do more with a carrot that Hermione could ever dream of.

Anyways, my point is: What about the other magical subjects? What type of mindset is required for them?

*Granted we have no cannon evidence that Luna is good a Transfiguration, but she and Albus are both Loony, and that does seem to help.

 

Well, speaking for the pornomancers; the same type of mindset that made me snicker at the above phrase.

 

Charms would be for people who picture magic as a tool to be harnessed for every day life. You say a word and something happens. They have no deeper understanding.

DADA is a mix of lots of things but it needs people who can problem solve to be great.

 

Nice Idea

Changed 'fill' to 'but.'

Now, I don't think that 'artistic ability' has much to do with the type of chairs that Dumbledore and Minerva can conjure. Remember the situation they were creating them in; Dumbledore was in front of the Wizengamot, and would naturally have wanted to make a good impression by showing of some class. Minerva, on the other hand, created chairs for her student (IIRC), and didn't have anything to gain by showing off. Thus, the more utilitarian chair.

I don't really agree that Hermione could be surpassed by Luna. Remember, this is Canon, not Fanon, so Luna isn't this all-seeing Seer of Doom, she's just a slightly disturbed girl. I see Hermione's smarts compensating for any lack of creativity.

However, I do believe you are on the right track. Dumbledore was said to do things with his wand which the OWL examiner had never seen before. We know that in canon, there is no difference in power between Harry and Dumbledore (skill, however...), which means that creative/inventive ways are needed to explain the different echelon of wizards.

Arithmancy, Ancient Runes... No clue really, but probably ability with logic and mathematics (die anyone who believes Hermione when she says wizards haven't a drop of common sense).

Enchantment/Warding... Ability to memorize spells, as seen in DH.

Mind Magics... Probably mental competency, some common sense (this would explain Harry's abysmal failure at it without resorting to OpeningHarry'sMind!Conpiracies.

Final Note: Inborn creativity/intelligence really, really helps a wizards... BUT WAIT! The ability to put work into something, an ability Harry hasn't shown since book 4, probably helps alot too.

 

Freudian slip...

 

Runes = Foreign Lanuages
Arithmancy = Mathematics
Charms = Practical Thinkers
DADA = An Application of Charms and Transfiguration

 

Yeah that pisses me off. No way can a school student erect powerful wards or make lasting enchantments. The practioner of those arts needs the ability to interpret and modify spells and charms in order to create a self-powering object that can last for centuries. That takes a keen critical mind.

Hermione can memorize facts all day long, and I can't see her being good at this. She reads something, like the impossibility of apparating through the wards at Hogwarts, and simply believes that it is true, rather than thinking of a way to bypass them.

 

About the warding done by Hermione in DH, note that the area affected was really quite small, and the wards weren't amazingly complex. Larger areas (like the Quidditch World Cup stadium) probably require more that waving your wand and saying "Repellum Mugglutum," or whatever it is Hermione said.

Bad example, I think. When Hermione doesn't try to figure a way to apparate in the Hogwarts locale, that's probably because the 'really powerful wards' do their job.

 

I don't entirely agree with the concept that certain traits predisposes people to be good at one thing, but not another.

All of the brilliant people I know aren't just adept in one subject: they're at/near the top of the class in every subject.

It isn't so much a biological/physical difference that determines competence, so much as the way a person thinks. If through one subject, an individual has learned to think critically, that new mindset will be evident in the person's approach to all problems in all subjects. Thus, in my experience, a brilliant person is great with all subjects.

I think that this concept applies to Harry Potter as well.

Take Dumbledore, for instance. We know that he's brilliant in transfiguration, but I'm certain he's no slouch in the other subjects as well. I'm sure his brilliance is just a state of mind, per se, that can apply equally to all the other subjects.

Likewise, while Snape is exceptional at potions and has made it his vocation, I'm sure that he's also a competent wizard in the other areas as well.

Perhaps that's why there is such a huge disparity between great wizards and the average wizard? The average wizard is stuck in his average mindset, and excels at nothing while the great wizard has a brilliant mind (or intuitive grasp for magic, as Harry does) and can, theoretically, excel at everything.

Granted, wizards are born with various power levels. But power, without genius/intuition, is no use at all. The great wizards/witches are those with both power and brilliance.

 

What? Specifically the 'Harry has an instinctive grasp of magic' part. Where'd that come from? The only thing he has an 'instinctive grasp' of is flying, which we're led to believe is genetic. His being good at DADA doesn't count, it just shows he put a bit of effort into the class, as opposed to others.

Rant aside, though, I agree with the rest of your post.

 

You misquoted me. I said "intuitive", not "instinctive". The latter implies a biological action involving no cognitive processes while the former refers to an innate state of mind which fascilitates performance.

Although if you do insist on using "instinct", one can also argue that perhaps Harry just got a great gene that gave him an "instinctive grasp" of magic?

But Harry's not just good at DADA, is he? His third-year patronus was absolutely extraordinary, in both its power and its effect in driving away droves of dementors. Thus, Harry has what I would call an intuitive grasp for magic. That, coupled with his sheer power and knowledge of how to cast the patronus (having been taught by Remus), resulted in greatness.

 

Too bad that intuitive grasp of magic only encompass one highly situational spell with him being utterly useless at everything else.

 

Obviously, since all he taught the DA was the Patronus. And nothing else.

 

The power of Harry's Patronus has nothing to do with his ability or intuition with magic, and everything to do with his emotions. The Patronus is a spell that's success is dependant upon emotion. Harry's greatest power (and indeed his only remarkable talent) lies in his emotions. Thus he has a good Patronus. Unfortunatly, this is a very unique case.

An interesting idea to work into a story would be making Harry better at magic, not through uber studying in a time twisting trunk, but by him figuring out how to lace all of his magic with emotion, thus transfering his success with the Patronus over into all areas of magic.

Everything else he taught the DA was pedestrian. Once we get into Sixth Year we discover that really there was no need for the older years to attend, because NEWT DADA is far more advanced than the DA was.

 

I'm not saying that Harry should have taught NEWT DADA, or that the new Defense Teacher was thoroughly impressed how a certain part of the class was way better than the other (urgh).

Just that Harry was not that bad at Defense. It was his best class, and others wanted him to teach them. Not Hermione, or some Ravenclaw.