Crookshanks reprised: Observations and Etymology

[Haggridd]

No: HPFGUIDX 16661

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Amanda Lewanski <editor at t...> wrote:
> Haggridd wrote:
> 
> > Wonderful textual investigation, thank you!  Wouldn't your 
citations
> > equally support the possibility that Crookshanks is an unregisterd
> > Animagus, though?
> 
> Well, if he is, he's been one a damn long time---I'm not sure I 
could
> eat a spider for any reason, even in cat form.
> 
> I just think that Animagi, like the polyjuice potion, is a plot 
device
> that has been done unto death. Every smart animal in these books is 
not
> an animagus. From the point of view of an author, especially one 
fond of
> unexpected twists, I'd be stupid to use the same mechanism more than
> twice before I gave it a nice, long rest.
> 
> I also think that JKR is indeed adhering to her own view and plan 
for
> the books, and not bending to any commentary or criticism--but I 
think
> she took the charity schoolbooks as a God-given opportunity to 
answer
> some of the commentary without impinging on the narrative itself
> (witness the number of witches in the history of Quidditch, a 
possible
> nod to those wanting more female prominence). I think she also used 
the
> schoolbooks to give us some hints. They read, to me, like enormous
> in-jokes, and I can't believe she didn't put any "inside" 
information
> that we'll need in future for them.
> 
> Aside from the lion-tail, the description of kneazles reads pretty 
much
> like a description of Crookshanks, so I think the supposition that
> Crookshanks is part-kneazle is more likely than the animagus
> possibility. I'm tired of finding that all the cool animals are 
really
> just people. I want cool animals. Just like I don't want to know 
that
> the cool stuff about Harry (and it's been postulated, Ginny) is a
> transplanted Voldemort talent; I want them to have their OWN cool
> talents.
> 
> --Amanda, who really *must* go kill that black widow in the mailbox
> before Jan gets home and checks the mail....
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I respect your argument, especially the part condemning the overuse
of what had been nice and original plot devices.  The point about 
using the charity books as an opportunity to "spin" the commentary is 
most insightful. I can't wait to see what the real answer about
Crookshanks will be!

Haggridd