Dumbledore wand/animagus; small families and Houses

[vulgarweed]

No: HPFGUIDX 37984

Melody wrote:

> I have a hard time with the idea that Dumbledore is an Animagus. 
Just 
> because he's a really powerful wizard who's an expert at 
Transfiguration, 
> doesn't mean he has to be an Am=nimagus.
> 
> Remember when Hermione says that she looked up Professor McGonagall 
on the 
> list of registered Animagi? If Dumbledore was on the list, wouldn't 
she 
> mention it?
> 
I have a hard time with too many Animagi everywhere too, and I agree 
that Dumbledore doesn't need to be one. But if he *is* one, the 
reason he might not pop up on that list is that Hermione looked up 
only the list for this century (meaning the 20th). Dumbledore, being 
150 or so, would probably be on the 19th century list.

Now, even though I am tired of the Revelation of Animagism! Plot 
Twist and hope JKR doesn't use it again, I _do_ wonder if they're as 
rare as they're hyped to be. In canon right now, we know of five, 
only one of whom is registered. What if that's actually pretty much 
the typical ratio of registered to unregistered animagi out there in 
the wizard world, or even a skewed-low one? I mean, if it's so easy 
to hide that three unsubtle teenage boys and the -extremely- unsubtle 
Rita Skeeter can figure it out and get away with it indefinitely, 
what's the advantage in registering, unless you want a high and 
secure position that might need background checks, and also require 
you to demonstrate your ability in public a lot, like McGonagall has? 

On the small families and Sorting thing.
I suspect that having one kid might just be kind of the norm in the 
wizard world right now. Maybe they have better birth control than 
Muggles do (in fact, I'm sure of it!); maybe, having longer life 
spans, they don't need to have many children because in times of 
peace at least, the death rate is pretty low (compare this to 
Tolkien's elves, who don't die and barely reproduce at all). This of 
course would suggest that the Weasleys have so many kids purely 
because they wanted and intended to, which I would like to believe, 
so I think I will! So they get a lot of attention because it's really 
unusual and ALSO it's perhaps yet another reason why the Malfoys 
sneer--such profligate breeding, such a peasantish litter, is just 
gauche, low-rent, tacky.

But then, is Muggle-born Herm an only child? Well, some Muggles do 
that too. I myself am an only child with no complaints about it; so's 
my only first cousin in the US. It's really not that rare, and seems 
to be becoming more common. More children survive childhood than 
don't these days, and fewer families need as many farmhands as 
possible, so patterns change.

On Sorting--I'm wondering whether or not all or almost all Hogwarts 
kids actually negotiate with the Sorting Hat to choose their House. 
Wasn't Dumbledore's "it is our choices that determine who we are" 
speech made in this context? Maybe Padma and Parvati felt more of a 
need/desire to develop independently of each other than Fred and 
George did. Maybe Hermione figured she already had the hard work, 
cleverness, and ambition stuff down cold and that her courage was 
what she needed most to _develop_. Kids are often more self-aware 
than adults give them credit for, and I can believe Dumbledore would 
want to get them used to making important choices as early as 
possible. But most kids at that age might opt for the familiarity of 
whatever House their family's culture most leans toward (the Muggle-
born kids would pick the one that most appealed in some other way); 
if the Sorting happened at, say, 15, I bet hardly *anybody* would be 
in the same House as their parents were. The joke is, of course, that 
it is not commonly known that _everybody_ picks, so everybody thinks 
_they're_ kind of weird and uncertain and special.

AV