Or at least, if they're not, I must have really drank too much through Fantastic Beasts. That was kind of the whole point of Credence's character, wasn't it? Kind of surprised I haven't already seen a thread about this. How's everyone else's view of canon holding up in light of that? Because it definitely breaks a few bits of mine.

 

As was discussed in the main Fantastic Beasts thread:

Spoiler

As for magical cores, in so far as they are the idea that you have a reserve of magic which is used up by casting, I don't think there was anything in FB to support this idea. Once again we have a Harry Potter story with wizards casting a lot of magic but none of them ever tiring from that magic casting or mentioning any kind of risk of running out of magic.

So at best FB could be used to support the idea that wizards are born with fixed power levels, but not that magic is quantifiable and depleteable. But as I say, I don't think there's anything in FB either to suggest that wizards have fixed power levels, nor that they're born with certain power levels. All it supports is the idea that some wizards are more powerful than others at a given point in time.

In also further supports the idea that wizards are powerful not in general but rather powerful at specific things. Credence is a powerful Obscurial but doesn't know any other magic. Queenie is a powerful legilimens but (as far as we know) is not particularly impressive in other areas of magic.

 

This actually reminds me somewhat of the power levels from the Wheel of Time series. Everyone has differing levels, while at the same time people are strong in certain fields known as Talents (if I remember correctly). For instance, men were strong in some elements while women were in others. Then there were people who could Shield and hold that shield against even stronger Channelers, Talents in Healing etc. And, of course, there were Talents like being able to create objects of the One Power.
I personally see it similar to athletes who can have the same build, do the same training, have the same diets, yet perform to differing levels to each other. This Talent, for want of a better word, is innate to the person and can be developed further through training/studying etc. Like Ivan Lendl, tennis' world number 1 during the late 80s while up against far more talented men.
Going back to the magical world, someone like Dumbledore, who had great Talent, strived to improve it as far as he could. In the magical world, he is one of the few wizards, that when he brings his A game, lesser wizards, no matter how much training they've put in, cannot match. The Federer or Bolt of magic as it were!

 

I don't think that Credence has much to offer about magical cores or magical talent. Credence was a powerful Obscurus, but that probably has more to do with how deeply (and how long) Credence repressed his magic. There seems to be a inverse proportion regarding being an Obscurus vs. being a wizard.

Credence didn't do any magic in the film and implied that he didn't know any. I highly doubt that there is any correlation between a powerful obscurus and high magical talent.

 

You'd be right, hadn't the movie included the following lines:

Newt: It's the Second Salemer's boy, he's the Obscural.
Tina: Credence? But He's not a child!
Newt: He must have been so powerful that he somehow survived.

 

And yet, "powerful" could mean almost anything.

Harry's Patronus was considered "powerful" for banishing a hundred Dementors in PoA. We know that it's because his happy thought was bolstered by the confidence that he'd already done it, but that doesn't change that it was, indeed, a powerful Patronus. No cores.

Ginny was referred to as a powerful witch by Fred and George - presumably in part to the ferocity of her Hexes.

There is the matter of that "power levels chart" that Rowling allegedly wrote for Harry's year, but since it's never seen the light of day - and such levels or quantifiers have never been mentioned since - it should be safe to assume that cores are bunk. Or the fanon definition, at least.

 

Okay, I thought you were talking about the level charts, so... You meant wand cores being related to how powerful a witch or wizard is?

 

Well, wand cores and their relationship to the nature of a wizard's magic is already canon, but no, that's not what I meant. JK mentioned in a TV special that she'd assigned a number to each of the pupils in Harry's year to signify their level of magical ability.

It's one of the releases I was most anxious to see from Pottermore, but as it hasn't surfaced since, one can only assume that she discarded the idea entirely, or that it wasn't an in-universe mechanic to begin with - just a rough benchmark of talents for her head only.