Over the years I've pushed a few different ideas about the nature of HP magic. I'd summarise my previous arguments thus:

1. The success/power of a spell is a function of the skill with which the spell is cast, not the "power of the caster".
2. A major (passive) component of skill is one's understanding of magic, most commonly acquired via knowledge of magical theory.
3. Magic generally works via abstract concepts, not physical forces.
4. Magic is generally rule-bound but separate from physical law and capable of overruling it.

Those four points essentially summarise my take on magic up to this point and I think lots of people have come to see things in the same way. Together they account for a lot of what we see in canon, most especially the disparity in ability between great wizards like Dumbledore and average wizards like Ron. That disparity could not be explained by wand movements and incantations alone.

However, recently I've been growing increasingly dissatisfied with this way of looking at magic. I don't think it's wrong, per se, but I don't think it's the complete picture.

I feel it is lacking in fully accounting for the charm of the HP system, making it too mechanistic and systematic. It also takes things in too much of a spell-by-spell manner, ignoring the wizard behind the spell too much. This manifests mainly in one point:

Individuals are magical

At various points in the HP series characters are described using phrases like "powerfully magical", "you have loads of magic", etc. In the past I have explained this as being a kind of shorthand, used in the same way we would say Obama is politically powerful. And to a certain extent I still thing this is true. However, I think that there's still some sense in which people can be described as magical, and some people are more magical than others.

A few examples stand out. The first is Voldemort's boat in the cave that measured power. In the past I explained this as an enchantment like the Goblet of Fire, measuring general capability, or simply a virtue of Harry being underage. Those explanations can work, but they feel a bit like excuses. One wishes to take language literally where one can.

The second example is the pre-Hogwarts magic used by Tom Riddle and Lily Evans. They had no access to magical theory or formal magical knowledge. Yet they are able to bend magic to their will through instinct and practice, where others cannot.

These two example seem to point towards some people being more magical than others.

If that sounds like a major backtrack into fixed magical strength, hold on!

Firstly, I am not saying this is a quantifiable attribute like magical cores. Barty Crouch was described as "powerfully magical", not "magically powerful". It's an attribute that can be expressed to varying degrees, not a quantity of "magical power".

Second, I am not saying that it's a fixed attribute like eye colour (the fixed magical strength idea). Nor am I saying magicness is a measure of ability that people possess, like muscle size or cardio-vascular fitness.

Rather, I am saying magicalness is a personality attribute like optimism or natural curiosity. A person's magicalness is determined by their "deep character". Some characters are more magical than others, where "more magical" could be interpreted as "closer to magic" or "more immersed in magic", or "more inclined to view the world in a magical way". It would be determined, like all other character attributes, through a complex network of factors: genetic, developmental, and experiential.

This can tie in nicely with the above point about understanding of magic backing up the success of your spells. Knowledge of magical theory can be seen as a way of increasing your magicalness - if you learn magical theory then you have gained a new magical perspective on the world.

But the truly magical people will go beyond that. They won't just know magical theory, they'll incorporate it into their entire worldview. They'll see the world through the lens of magic. The people who do this most completely would be the Dumbledores and the Tom Riddles.

It also kinda explains wizards' eccentricity.

A person's magicalness, then, would be the most fundamental attribute underlying spell success and power, but also the way magic reacts to a person. Voldemort, for example, is so magical that he doesn't need spells - he was doing complex magic pre-Hogwarts, and at the end of DH all he had to do was scream in anger to send three wizards flying.

I can very easily see the independent, stubborn Tom Riddle getting back from Diagon Alley and not even opening his books for days, immediately going for his wand and starting to experiment with it, figuring out magic on his own.

All this also implies that the most likely person of Harry's generation to be a Dumbledore-like talent is Luna. She is undeniably highly magical.

There were two other ways that I felt my previous magical theory needed to be revised, but this was the biggest so I'll hold off on the other two for now. This post is long enough already.

 

So what you are saying is that some people have an instinctual grasp of magic (and/or magical theory)? Seems like a logical extension of your old ideas that a person's spellcasting ability is directly related to their understanding of magic. Geniuses with that kind of intuitive grasp of complex fields do pop up once in a while, and tend to leave their mark by advancing it in enormous steps.

 

What about a person's ability, in using one particular spell, though sheer practice. ie harry's Expelliarmus.

 

Not quite but close.

I'm not exactly saying that Tom Riddle subconsciously knew magical theory before he learnt it. I'm just saying there was something about him, his mind and the way he looked at the world that made him have a closer affinity to magic.

Yes, that means that magical theory makes sense to him, maybe to the point that much of it feels obvious. But I'm also saying that this magical affinity has real magical effects beyond that of spell casting. Magic responds to his will more readily/more powerfully. It invests a person with a more magical nature. For example, I'd expect that spells like the body bind would wear off quicker when cast on a powerfully magical person.

This idea is similar in result to the notion that, while wizards do not have a limited amount of magic, they do have a fixed magical strength. The difference is the mechanism behind the result.

This would be the same, within my theory, as it was before. Practice does two things:

1. Perfects the active elements of spell casting: the incantation and wand movements.

2. Increases your understanding of the spell via familiarity with the way it behaves in various situations and how it adjusts to changes in the way you cast it.

I'm still saying that understanding of magic is an important passive element of spell casting (by passive I mean you don't have to actively do or think anything when casting). I'm just now placing that understanding of magic in the context of a person's general magical nature.

 

I always saw this as a connection to magic, rather than a magical muscle.

Some wizards are immersed in magic. Others are standing with their toes in the pool. Some are muggle who can use wands, and others are human-shaped magical creatures. Then there are all the others in-between.

 

So... basically it's like intelligence.

I don't know. To me, there seems little difference between this and 'magical power.'

 

The difference is subtle but important.

Traditionally, magical power is something a wizard possesses, and that power is modified by a skill level multiplier to produce how powerful your spells are. Skill is entirely separate from power.

Here, your skill is your magical power. The fundamental "skill is power" message hasn't changed, it's just now I'm saying that skill isn't just manifested in the way you cast spells, it's also manifested in your nature. This was the natural conclusion of increasingly stressing the "understanding magic" element of skill. Understanding of magic is a general mental attribute of a person that can only change in the long term, so the idea of skill departed from normal ideas of skill and more towards a person's general mental state.

To reiterate: wizards have a certain level of "magicalness", but that level of magicalness is a direct function of a person's general skill with magic, not separate from it. If you increase your knowledge of magical theory, and thereby your understanding of magic, then you increase the extent to which you are magical. Essentially magical education is a transformative process that makes you more magical.

 

Could someone who is not born powerfully magical as you put it, ever reach the heights of Dumbledore or Voldemort with enough effort. Or are "Normal" wizards capped at the Moody/Snape/Bellatrix level?

Also would you say this is an either or, you have this super charger or you dont. Or is there people who are kinda sorta, Peter and Ron, compared to Lily and Snape, Compared to Dumbledore and Voldemort?

 

Well, I wouldn't really say that anyone was born powerfully magical, any more than anyone is born analytical or confident or even intelligent. Certainly certain genetic factors influence it, but developmental factors and education would have a big role.

I think that by the time a person is in their early teens it should be clear if that person is in the same category as Dumbledore. After that I think it's too late. I don't think a wizard who has shown normal talent for years can suddenly change their entire character and mental capabilities, which is what would be required to become Dumbledorean.

 

If I was to grossly oversimplify the concept, it'd sort of come down to belief in magic? If you were to take a muggle physics expert, who proceeded to try quantify and explain magic, they'd be "magically weak" so to say?

I'm curious how this concept could affect the Pureblood agenda. On one hand, a person that grows up surrounded by magic from day one, would presumably be more "closer to magic" or "more immersed in magic" so to say?

Muggleborns, on the other hand, would only be discovering it. So there's less of a chance they'd end up immersed in it(barring oddballs like Riddle). They'd also lack the cultural background knowledge etc. which presumably helps "immerse" the pure- and halfbloods. Most would also have ties back in the muggle world and mundane physics.

 

Well, I hadn't meant it quite so literally when I said "immersed in magic". I was meaning more of a metaphysical kind of immersion, related to your identity and sense of self, rather than being literally surrounded by people doing magic.

That said, it does occur to me that this would explain Hermione. She knew and understood a lot of magical theory and so could do some very advanced magic, but she never really incorporated it into the way she saw the world. She remained very logical and, well, Muggle in her essential character. Magic was a tool she used rather than a part of who she was.

 

Okay. I tried to write a bunch of stuff in response, but I deleted it all because I realized I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Innate magical power, magic as purely a skill and magical ability due to a mental state are all very different things and you are mixing them all together. What specifically separates your theory from that of innate magical power and what evidence is there for it in canon that overrides the more simpler explanation that when characters said "you have loads of magic" and "Dumbledore is magically powerful" (paraphrasing) in the books, they are being literal?

If you are saying that magical ability is increased by an understanding of how magic works, I won''t disagree with you. If you are saying that an increased understanding of how magic works is a lot of what separates Dumbledore and Riddle from average wizards, I won't disagree with you. But if you are saying that an increased understanding of magic is only what separates them, I must disagree with you. Riddle and Lily, as you said, could manipulate magic better than most when they had less of an understanding of magic than most wizards their age. This shows us that while much of magic is a skill that is learned, some is not. Some is innate. And I would argue that natural aptitude for understanding and preforming magic is what allowed Dumbledore and Voldemort to be so much better at magic than most wizards. That natural aptitude comes from an innate magical ability that Riddle and Lily demonstrated which can be called and is called by characters in the book 'magical power.'

 

There's a number of different issues there that you've merged together, and much of it is already covered ground regarding the "skill is power" theory rather than anything dealing with this new idea.

So let's start off with the already covered ground, namely these two points, which are what you contest:

1. The success/power of a spell is a function of the skill with which the spell is cast, not the "power of the caster".
2. A major (passive) component of skill is one's understanding of magic, most commonly acquired via knowledge of magical theory.

1. Why no quantified/innate magical power?

This has several points:

A. The linguistic argument regarding "power". When we normally talk of a person's power, we rarely mean an innate quantity they possess. "Obama is powerful" does not mean that Obama possesses some innate political strength.

We then ask why magic should be any different. You say that the literal reading of "Dumbledore is a powerful wizard" is that he has access to an innate power of a determined strength which is greater than others. I contest that as the literal reading. That's only the literal reading in light of other traditional fantasy, and HP is very much not part of the traditional fantasy canon.

I'd say that the literal reading of "Dumbledore is a powerful wizard" is that Dumbledore is able to affect the world using magic in a way that surpasses other wizards. The source of that difference is left ambiguous.

B. The lack of evidence pointing to hard and fast limits on a person's magical power. The absence of magical exhaustion means that magic is not something that is used up by its use and that different wizards have different amounts of. Further, spells are never spoken of requiring their user to have a certain power. Rather, a person's ability to master a spell is always posed as a function of their academic ability.

C. Wizards treating power and skill as interchangeable concepts. See these quotes:

D. Elegance. Minimalism is a theoretical virtue: the fewer novel entities you have to postulate to account for an observed phenomena, the stronger the theory. Why would you want to create an entity - innate magical power - when everything can be accounted for without it?

There's is a massive variety of ability in the Muggle world without any kind of innate strengths. Peoples' abilities simply arise out of the differences in their various capabilities. There are a multitude of different mental and physical processes backing up a skill, and the quality of those mental processes is a function of genetics, developmental factors and education/upbringing.

Those factors are perfectly sufficient to account for the variety we see in magical skill without having to postulate a single "innate magical power" value for each person.

2. Knowledge of magical theory being the main determinant of skill

Spell casting appears to have two/three active elements which affect the outcome of the spell. The first two are incantation and wand movement, though incantation can be made non-verbal and wand movements appear to disappear with experience (perhaps, like incantations, they shift to a mental representation). The third element is a mental component, requiring you to focus on a specific thing, which only appears necessary for a small number of specific spells.

It seems clear that these active components are insufficient to explain the massive disparity we see in ability between wizards at the very top like Dumbledore and wizards in the middle like Ron. There's a limit to the extent to which one can perfect the pronunciation of a word.

I'd propose that canon provides a fairly obvious passive element to spell casting. By passive I mean something which you don't have to actively do or think about while casting spells, but nonetheless has a significant effect on the result of your spell. This passive element is knowledge of magical theory.

There are quite a few reasons to think this:

A. All the greatest magic users - those capable of casting the most powerful and more advanced spells - are praised for their academic brilliance and intelligence.

B. We have never seen a stupid wizard who could nonetheless cast powerful magic.

C. Professors, who are experts in magical theory, are consistently among the top tier magic users. McGonagall and Slughorn were the ones to face Voldemort with Kingsley, not other Aurors.

D. While Harry would probably win in a duel thanks to non-magical factors (such as reflexes and sheer nerve), it's fairly clear that Hermione has superior spell-casting ability to him. And it's definitely clear that this is the result of Hermione's knowledge of magical theory. Hermione studies hard, and is shown to be able to cast advanced magic as a result.

E. The very existence of a school of magic implies that there is something to be taught. Wand movements and incantations are not sufficiently complex to require a formal school.

F. The size of Hogwarts library implies that there must be something to write about in extensive detail.

G. Early on in PS it is said that there is more to magic than wand movements and incantations.

H. Magic appears to be a transferable skill: learn how to transfigure one animal and you can also transfigure other animals of the same class without having to go through the whole learning process again. It's the theory which provides the link.

I. think this is all fairly convincing. This is one of the reasons why I hate all those fics where Harry gets introduced to magical theory post-OotP. Er, no, he's been attending Hogwarts for 5 years and gets pretty decent grades. He already knows magical theory -- he has to in order to cast spells. It's just the reader doesn't get told it.

So, knowledge of magical theory is an important component of being able to successfully cast a spell, and the more advanced your knowledge of theory, the more powerful spells you can cast. But this is just part of the story, because we know of situations where wizards have been able to develop magical abilities without access to theory, such as Tom Riddle's early control of magic.

I would say that the importance of magical theory points towards the answer to the greater question. Magical theory, after all, is a description of magic. So understanding magical theory is a route to understanding magic. I'd say this is the key passive element of spell-casting: understanding magic. Both magic in general and the particular spell you're using.

Magical theory is the most common and comprehensive route to understanding magic, and likely an absolute prerequisite of casting advanced magic, but perhaps more simple magic could be successfully cast without extensive knowledge of theory. A rudimentary understanding is enough, perhaps acquired through some other means.

This is where practice comes in. We've seen many times that practicing a spell increases your ability with it. I'd argue that what's happening there (in addition to perfecting the active elements) is that you're improving your understanding of the spell through a route other than formal magical theory.

This idea of general understanding of magic backing up spell-casting power also explains why we see so many powerful generalists. Voldemort, Dumbledore, Snape, McGonagall, even Hermione... all of them are shown to be non-specialists, highly competent in all areas of magic. This makes sense if your general understanding of magic backs up everything you do.

All of this accounts for the difference between Dumbledore-level wizards and Ron-level wizards without having to postulate any kind of innate ability, beyond the non-magical differences between different people's characters.

3. Why this new theory?

As I said above, this "understanding magic is the main determinant of spell power" was lacking something. It was too focused on spell power and didn't account for the power of individuals.

The idea of a person having a "magicalness" attribute as a part of their personality wed the two theories in a way that was thematically unified: once more, we're saying that peoples' abilities are determined by human factors, not magical ones. People have magicalness of different strengths, but this isn't a value that just pops into existence or attaches itself to a person metaphysically. It arises out of that person's character and changes as they grow.

It also ties itself neatly in with the idea of understanding magic being the main determinant of spell power. That remains true, because understanding of magic is intrinsically tied into a person's magicalness. The two change together.

Specific replies

This is a chicken and egg disagreement. I'd say that them manipulating magic at that age is evidence that in fact they have a superior understanding of magic to their peers, who are only doing magic by accident.

As would I. In exactly the same way that a natural aptitude for analytical thinking led Newton to think of theories others could not.

---------- Post automerged at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

For ease of comprehension, I have represented the theories diagramatically.

This is the traditional theory - the theory you see in a lot of fanfic and which I ascribe to you, disturbed:



This is my theory as it has been traditionally:



And this is my theory as it stands now:

 

After reading it laid out like that I find I agree with you nearly completely. It was a matter of semantics. I was using the term 'magically powerful' in exactly the same way you describe. It is an expression of what they are capable of and not that they possess a large amount of finite energy. Obviously magic is not finite energy in HP.

However, magic is not purely a skill. If it was, then accidental magic couldn't exist. You can not accidentally paint a portrait or do a 180 flip. You have to learn how to do those things, they aren't things one can do by just being born with the ability, thus they are skills. You are born with the ability to do magic. Not born with the capability to learn to do magic, but born with the ability to do it. That means that magic is partially innate. Higher level magic is certainly a skill, but not all magic is.

I can't argue with your position on understanding magic and magical ability being intimately related, but magic is not purely a skill. Most magic shown in canon, yes, but not all. Some of it is innate. If understanding magic is necessary to be able to do magic, then accidental magic shows us that some understanding of magic is innate, wizards are born with it. Which could very well be what separates wizards from muggles. Muggles are born without any innate understanding of magic and thus are incapable of doing it.

And obviously this innate understanding of magic is inheritable because wizards and witches almost always produce children with the ability to understand magic. Muggleborns then are a fluke, much like when a genius is born to two people with IQs of 80.

Also, I disagree with this:

They aren't shown to be non-specialists. Voldemort and Dumbledore, maybe, but they are geniuses and being amazing at everything is what a genius is. Hermione is not as good at DADA as the rest of Hogwarts subjects. Harry is much better at it than any of the other subjects. I don't have my books with me, but I'm pretty sure that several people are mention to be better at on particular discipline. Another example that comes to mind is Snape saying that most people are not as good at potions as other subjects because it's harder. Neville is also better at Herbology than anything else. Also, I believe I remember seeing in McGonagall's pottermore entry that she had a particular talent for Transfiguration. This doesn't contradict your belief that understanding magic better makes you better at it, it just means that you can understand the theory behind one dicipline easier than the others.

EDIT: I wrote the above before your addition of the diagrams. This confirms that I agree with your particular theory for the most part, and not the first one. I reread my last post and when I ask for your evidence against characters being literal when saying 'having loads of magic' I was playing devil's advocate, which of course usually isn't clear (especially on the internet).

EDIT 2: Also, I know that you don't think understanding magic is the same as being able to do it, but that the former is very important for the latter. I was oversimplifying. Thus, whenever I say they are the same, replace that in your head with understanding being very important for doing.

 

Taure, you mentioned that Hermione remained 'muggle' in her logic and approach to magic, treating it as a tool instead of her identity.

Would you say the same of Harry, who was also raised in the muggle world?

 

I would say that it's possible for something to be completely a skill but also something humans can do instinctively, at a basic level. I'd compare accidental magic to throwing a sloppy punch. Fighting is a skill, but you don't need training to attack someone physically in a basic way. It's just something that can come out spontaneously when you're angry.

Singing is another example: singing ability can be taught, and the higher levels of singing can only be reached with practice and training. However, many people (but not all) can sing without any teaching.

Both of these analogies are imperfect, but you get the point.

Re: generalists, I didn't mean that all wizards are generalists. Far from it. I simply meant that those wizards who are greatly skilled are often greatly skilled in more than one area. Snape may have been the Potions teacher, but he also was highly skilled in Defence Against the Dark Arts and could match McGonagall's transfiguration skills in their duel in DH.

For much of the series maybe, in so far as Harry is pretty much a blank slate magically. He never thinks about magic at all, so it's hard to say really. But by the end of the series? No. I think by the end of DH Harry had a good understanding that magic works on story book logic and was able to use it to his full advantage.

 

True. However, people who can punch and sing without training understand that those things exist. Harry didn't know that magic existed and yet he still did. More than that, he didn't even try to 'sing' or 'punch' he just did it, like someone can just move their arm without realizing, which is more in line with an innate ability. Also, singing and fighting are not things that can be done by anyone. All wizards preform accidental magic. Another thing is that the average person can't accidentally sing or fight as well as someone whose had a lot of training in it, but Harry managed to accidentally apparate, something that you are only taught as a seventh year, and is pretty hard for most people to learn. He also vanished a pane of glass, and the vanishing spell wasn't taught until 5th year and most of them couldn't vanish a snail. Accidental magic is not comparable to weak attempts at any skill, because it isn't weak, just accidental. Accidental magic has more in common with innate abilities than it does with the easy beginnings of a skill.

I also find that comment about Hermione particularly interesting, especially in conjunction with the one about Luna. It could be that if she had a more open mind, and incorporated magic into her worldview then she could have been the next Dumbledore.

EDIT: It makes a lot more sense that magic is innate, but learning to control magic is a skill. Much like being able to make sounds with your vocal cords is innate, but being able to arrange those sounds into words and words into sentences is something that is learned.

 

(Just to extend the voice analogy) accidental magic is much like baby's first words; often done at highest possible volume and very indistinct in meaning. As wizards get older it wouldn't occur to them to just scream with rage except under rare circumstances, when their words and/or their microphone/instrument just can't express the desired effect.

 

Another example I just thought of is parseltongue. Harry can do it without realizing it, he can do it without trying and he can do it far easier than someone who actually tries (Ron). Presumably, controlling it would have been something he would have to learn. (Not speaking it while addressing a snake, learning to speak it while no snake was around.)

Also, he got it from Voldemort. It was an innate ability tied to Voldemort's soul and Harry only had it because he had a piece of the soul attached to him. Presumably magic is the same way. It is tied to a wizard's soul. Which raises an interesting question. If a wizard made a muggle a horcrux, could the muggle do magic?