As Oz said, there are many definitions of power. Political power, for instance.

 

Yep. Raw magic = pressure. Creates pressure fields, causing wind.

Lol.

 

Perfectly true. But take Cornelius Fudge for a moment. He is/was politically powerful, held the position of the Minister of Magic and was able to overrule and out maneuver Dumbledore. Could we say he was magically powerful (ignoring scientific definitions for now)? Not really. Of course the two, political and magical power, are certainly not exclusive but they are inherently different. That is why I compared magical ability to Physical Energy. (Also the descriptions of magic authors use in their stories: a great sphere of golden energy, a well of power, an ocean of magic and so on)

The reason why I used the scientific definition to argue the point was that, as Oz said, people use the word power to mean strength. So in that context the one who has 'more magic' so to speak, is the greater wizard, magically. My point was that the concept of 'more magic = more power' is itself based on the premise that magic is a form of energy, which I disagree with. The phrase 'more magic' seems meaningless to me (which is also why I stay away from Elemental Harry stories, they generally have Harry converting magic into elemental power).

Anyway, it is in that context there are descriptions of raw magic and magical cores and magical exhaustion and depletion of reserves...but if that were to be the approach, then we may as well rename magic as chakra, fuse HP with Naruto and be done with it.

There is no source of magic simply because it is not necessary, as magic is not energy. As a literary construct, that was the purpose of sorcery wasn't it? To provide the wizard with super natural power that not even the greatest of men can match? And in the defeat of sorcery wasn't the mind always the instrument that meted out defeat? Intellectual ability rather than so called strength?

That is why I argue that terms like 'strength' and 'power' mean little in magic except to serve as an indicator of the extent of a wizard's ability. Put another way, 'powerfully magical' is a layman's way of saying that a particular wizard is very dangerous and awe inspiringly capable of weilding magic.

Edit: I'm not entirely sure I'm putting it very well, nor am I sure that I am actually making a point pertinent to this thread. But I've seen too many stories of raw magic and depletion of reserves and that irks me to no end.

 

*chuckle*
Well yeah there isn't. Another reason to stay away from that genre unless it is actually done well...
(Though the exact same sentence as above can be applied to the existence of magic as well...)

 

Magic would best be described as 'eccentric' – here in HP anyway. The laws of magic are vague and really, a Wizard can do almost anything with magic. Why there are incantations, "dark" spells, et cetera is almost inexplicable.

So why should magic follow any sort of more = stronger? Why should there be qualities like "power" or "strength"? What if magic is best at its weakest? What if the relationship of "power" and magic is sinusoidal – that is, at certain frequencies of output, magic is stronger or weaker. What if squibs are just in the middle? Their magic isn't "weak" rather the forces inside them are balanced, rather than chaotically "strong" or "weak" –

Magic can be approached in any manner. From a strictly western standpoint, "More Power = More Magic," a scientific one, or even a philosophical one.

Taure's ideas on magic are good, but they can't be, and aren't comprehensive.

It'd be great if some authors put some more thought into magic when writing. Truly different systems or theories would be interesting to read about.

As for "raw magic" I suspect it'd be like anything else "raw" like raw eggs, or raw iron – essentially useless. Unless you consider... "raw" as in "unsheathed" or "unrestrained" in which case, raw magic should behave chaotically, and thus be uncontrollable or even deadly, to evoke (regardless of whatever prophecy a story pulls out of its arse).

 

Just a comment on elemental wizards, have any of you read a story where elemental magic was merely a talent the wizard had for casting spells of a certain element without a wand? Kind of like controlled accidental magic (an oxymoron if I ever heard one >_>), or young Tom Riddle's "TELL ME THE TRUTH!" thing. Or even more mundanely, like James Potter had a talent for transfiguration, and Lily for potions.

 

Yes. There are tons of ff.net.

They're not hard to find. They are also, for the most part, extremely shitty.

 

I think I have but I can't recall.

I was writing some stuff where Hermione developed a (pretty fucking scary) knack for fire spells. Someone used the word 'elemental' around her as a noun instead of a verb and she spent the next few minutes lecturing about how ridiculous the notion was that anyone could confuse a fictional creature composed of an element with someone who had an 'Affinity' for spells that used a certain element.

That was the term she used for it, an affinity for fire based spells.

I think I may have seen one or two stories take that angle, but most just slap the word 'elemental' every other sentence. Ugh.

Stories where a witch or wizard is referred to as an elemental aggravate the crap out of me. Is the line between pyromancer and fire elemental, between person specializing in elemental spells and a being composed of an element, that hard to see?

 

The way I see it, pyromancer insinuates that the wizard can use other magic as well, while a fire elemental is limited to only using fire magic. Elementals (with a capital 'E') are a species of magical creature that are composed primarily of their element, though I think heliopaths are the closest you're going to get to one in the HP world.

 

Assuming that the Quibbler just didn't make them up.

 

If I remember this right, Hermione didn't say that they didn't exist, just that it was stupid to assume the Minister of Magic had an army of them. I took that to mean that they could exist, but weren't forced into an army >_>.

 

The way I see it, 'raw magic' has just as much chance of putting Voldemort in a top hat and tails as it does of blowing him through the wall. I kind of think of it like the Infinite Improbability Drive. It would do something totally random. That is of course if the person using it didn't just blow himself up.

The idea of wizards developing their skill into a certain subset of magic, like fire spells, does fit well with canon. Basically, there is nothing in canon that prohibits it. Even having an 'affinity' for a particular set of spells/type of magic isn't ruled out. But having so much of one that the wizard is an 'elemental'...no, doesn't fit. Besides, other than Parseltongue and the metamorph ability, there aren't that many canon examples of such intense concentration to a particular area of magic that could even be used to base the idea of an 'elemental' on. It is purely fanon and highly inspired by anime/video games, almost like the whole magical 'core' idea. The only magical cores in the HP universe are in wands.

 

Speaking of raw magic, I was wondering what you guys think of that silver spell used by Dumbledore in OOTP? The spell was said to be so powerful that Harry could feel the hair in the back of his neck rise.

 

That was probably just a spell that Harry wasn't able to identify; the narration of the HP books are always from Harry's POV, thus based on what he knows at a given time.

 

So power in this case would be due to unknown magic or the skillful casting of such magic?

 

IT'S OVER 9000!§§!!! NINE THOUSAAAAAAANDD!!!!§§§§!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI

 

Power in this case would be because it's a very powerful spell cast extremely well by the most skilled wizard we know of.