Muggleborn vs Pureblood

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 168832

Magpie wrote:
> Who's talking about statistics? I'm talking about the Harry Potter
series of books (the author of which I can't imagine basing anything
on statistics!) where I read this in chapter 8:
> 
> "Harry was very relieved to find out that he wasn't miles behind
everyone else. Lots of people had come from Muggle families and, like
him, hadn't had any idea that they were witches and wizards. There was
so much to learn that even people like Ron didn't have much of a head
start."
> 
> People like Ron--magically raised people--don't have much of a head
start. And I've never seen any reason to think a Muggle-upbringing
effected anybody's experience in class.

<snip> I can see the logic in your claims that just being in a magical
environment is an advantage but canon seems to not only deny it's
enough to be significant, but make it sort of a prominent plotpoint
that it's something bigots say, whether by claiming "they just don't
know our ways" or that there's a problem in their blood. Of our three
 main characters Hermione's able to come to school ahead of everyone
else despite being raised in the wrong environment (which isn't that
odd--it's just pointing a wand and talking) and Harry, who's been
raised in the same environment and doesn't apply himself as much to
his studies, can also easily compete with other students.

Bart:
> >
> > And it's environment, not pureblood; if you switched a muggleborn
wizard and a pureblood wizard at birth, then the pureblood will be at
the disadvantage.
> 
Magpie:
> But where does the text suggest that this environment causes
Muggle-borns to not excel at magical studies? Is there anywhere in the
books that actually describe the experience of being at the school
that in any way shows a difference in how students Muggle-raised for
the first 11 years handle classes? Because I'm not seeing Rowling
writing a difference at all--to the point where I can't really imagine
how it's supposed to work. <snip>

Carol responds:
I can see both sides in this discussion. I think that Magpie's
position is the one we're supposed to take--that blood doesn't matter
and prejudice against Muggleborns (which, I agree, Slughorn does show
to a mild degree) is based on ignorance because magical ability (both
talent and power) isn't dependent on the presence or absence of Muggle
blood (or genes, if you prefer). Yet Hagrid expects Harry to be
talented and powerful because his parents were, so it's not only
Slytherin pureblood elitists who hold this view.

And we do see that certain students start out with an advantage.
Draco, for example, seems to know what a Bezoar is and already knows
how to fly. (Harry's innate talent gives him a advantage that Hermione
and even the pureblood Neville, whose grandmother has never permitted
him to ride a broom, don't have. Logically, Harry would have to learn
to fly, but JKR doesn't want her story to go that way.) As for magic
being "just pointing a wand and talking," I disagree. If that's all
there were to it, all of the kids would instantly succeed in
performing any spell once they mastered the pronunciation and wrist
movement. Part of it seems to be attitude--confidence and
determination, both of which Hermione has and Ron, Harry, Neville et
al. don't in SS/PS. Part seems to be awareness of theory and knowledge
of a large number of spells (Hermione again).

And then we have a student we don't actually see, eleven-year-old
Severus Snape, coming to school knowing more "curses" (in the sense of
hexes and jinxes) than most seventh years, surely only possible in
someone with at least one magical parent who has had access to a wand
before he received his Hogwarts letter. (Whose wand did he use, I
wonder?) And we have the Weasley Twins, ostensibly performing, or
attempting to perform, an Unbreakable Vow at age five. Surely, they
didn't know what they were doing and could not have succeeded, but
they did manage to get hold of a wand. If Fred (the meaner of the two,
IMO) could accidentally turn Ron's teddy bear into a spider at age
three, think what those two could do with a borrowed wand. They would
hear spells performed around them all the time and would practice them
in secret, just as Ginny practiced flying in secret, any time a family
member left a wand lying unguarded.

It seems unrealistic to me that Ron doesn't know any real spells, but
he isn't as sneaky as the Twins and has only Charlie's old wand,
presumably given to him when he got his Hogwarts letter, so he hasn't
had much time to practice. Between his lack of interest in his
schoolbooks, his having someone else's wand (perhaps already used when
Charlie got it, considering that the unicorn hair is sticking out the
top), and no self-confidence, he can't be considered a typical
pureblood in terms of his initial performance in, say, Charms or
Transfiguration.

I agree with JW that, logically, purebloods and half-bloods would have
an advantage over Muggleborns in terms of their overall knowledge of
magic, even in families that enforced the no-underage magic rule,
simply because they'd be familiar from birth with the names of spells,
the accompanying wand movements, and, in some cases, with
potion-making and flying, neither of which is apparently monitored by
the MoM (as long as you're not seen flying by Muggles, that is).

So, in terms of blood determining magical potential, the prejudice is
shown to be nonsense from the beginning. But in terms of environment
and Purebloods coming to Hogwarts as woefully ignorant of magic as
non-Hermione Muggleborns, I agree with JW that the books are
unrealistic. (Not that we expect realism in a fantasy, but we have a
right to expect logic and internal consistency.)

Carol, trying to strike a balance between the two views and seeing
both sides