Discrepancy of skills

[exodusts]

No: HPFGUIDX 147778

Allie:
> Two topics in the area of magical skill do not add up for me.
> 
> 1.  Hermione Granger, most talented witch of her age, able to 
> perform well on both written and practical exams, able to master 
> complicated spells in a single lesson, able to produce a Patronus 
in 
> one D.A. session... achieves only an E on her DADA Owl????  I 
> realize that JKR wrote the OWL grades to highlight that Harry is 
> exceptionally talented at DADA, but it's not realistic for me that 
> Hermione wouldn't have achieved the same grade.  I know JKR planted 
> the seed way back in PoA.  It's not like the subject is difficult 
> for Hermione - she masters those spells in the same way as anything 
> else.  So what gives?
> 
> 2.  Harry Potter is the son of Lily Evans and James Potter.  James 
> Potter was a Quidditch star, but he was also Head Boy and very 
> smart.  Lily, we know, was very talented in Charms and Potions.  We 
> know that Harry VERY MUCH takes after his parents - he looks 
exactly 
> like James, is a Quidditch star himself, and he has Lily's eyes and 
> her cheek.  Despite being JUST LIKE his parents, Harry is, by most 
> standards, a slightly above average wizard with an aptitude for one 
> subject.  He works very hard a lot of the time for even the basic 
> skills.  By rights, Harry really ought to have a little more 
> **natural** magical talent than he's written.  
> 
> 

Of these two points, the first is the strongest. Logically, there is 
no reason why Harry ought to have inherited his parents talent to 
their degree. Genetics is a messy business, and real-world examples
of this abound - in fact, passing on of exceptional ability is the 
exception, not the norm (see "regression to the mean"). JKR also 
prefers to emphasise that "our choices make us who we are" (see 
Dumbledore), and specifically rejects pure-blood reasoning. Harry is 
anyway special enough by virtue of what has happened to him SINCE his 
birth. If we want to rationalise further, within the context of the 
story, we might wonder what Harry COULD have been had he not been 
neglected, and in a non-wizarding household, for the most important 
formative years of his life. Blame the Dursleys.

The second point is well made. It is an unfortunate and unrealistic 
contrivance that Hermione doesn't have a clean sweep of top grades. 
The idea is to emphasise again that "books and cleverness" are not 
the most important things in life (see Philosopher's Stone). This is 
probably because JKR has issues with her younger self for being an 
insufferable swot. It doesn't stand up even within the internal 
detail of the stories when, as you point out, Hermione appears wholly 
capable in the RoR sessions. A child as clever and determined as she 
is portrayed to be would not let herself get anything less than a top 
grade - it is her psychological raison d'etre. That is not to say 
that Harry wouldn't have bettered her, but she would not fail to 
ensure that no discernible difference would appear in the grading 
system. If JKR had wanted to make this point, what she SHOULD have 
done is work in some kind of unexpected starred grade / top-in-the- 
country award for Harry, revolving around an emmissary from the Exam 
Board being an ally of Amelia Bones, and the corporeal Patronus.

exodusts