Charms (and) What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration?

[aldrea279]

No: HPFGUIDX 39680

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" <catlady at w...> 
wrote:
> They also turn animals into inanimate objects e.g. turning a mouse 
> into a snuffbox for final exam in Book 1. I don't know how this is 
> useful, but it makes me wonder about lives and souls. When they 
turn 
> an animal into a thing, is that killing the animal? If not, where 
> does its life, soul, life-force go? When turning a thing into an 
> animal, does that mean they are creating a life?

I've thought about that also, when they make animals from inanimate 
objects.  Is it just poof! there's a dog that's going to act like a 
dog(and what about memories and such? It might not matter in smaller, 
more ignorant animals, but it does in dogs and such), or does the 
creator have any control over the creation?  I've been meaning to re-
read HP4, and when I get to the dragon task I'll have to see what the 
description was on Cedric's dog.


> I would think that would be a Charm, defined as changing the 
> appearance or behavior of something, rather than Transfiguration, 
> defining as changing something into something else. I have some 
> trouble determining which is which, such as I would have expected 
> sticking wings on the keys to be a Transfiguration, but it was a 
> Charm.

I suppose a Transfiguration is changing something into some 
completely new something else.  Such as a mouse and snuffbox- two 
very different things.  But with the keys, just adding wings wasn't 
entirely changing them.
  

> So then I thought, maybe the wizarding folk have an ability to SEE 
> what Charms were done, and if they see that rotten dress robes were 
> Charmed to look new, they say even more vicious and mocking things 
> than they would have said about the rotten dress robes anyway. 

If they did, that'd be rather embarassing, I think.  And I don't 
think the Reparo charm would be quite as normal as it seemed when Mr. 
Weasley did it to Harry's glasses.
 
> JKR wants to make the wizarding world have the same problems as the 
> Muggle world, such as poverty, and class differences (and 
prejudice, 
> and bullying, and stupidity), but I think it's illogical for any 
> "fully-qualified" wizard or witch to live in poverty. *Surely* 
magic 
> can create and/or improve houses and clothing and furniture and 
food. 
> At least by Transfiguring them from old dead leaves and wild 
> mushrooms.

I agree with you here.  And lately I have been wondering why some of 
the more evil wizards haven't thought about living a life of luxury 
in the Muggle world.  With their Alohamora charms, Avada Kedavra 
killings, and Invisibility cloaks and such, a wizard could probably 
make quite a life for themselves.  

But then again, if all wizards and witches can improve their houses 
and such, then I suppose that after that, money will begin to matter- 
and so I suppose though a witch or wizard would be much better off 
than a Muggle in poverty, they would still be in a sort of poverty- 
or atleast what would be considered such in the WW.

~Aldrea