Nature of Transfiguration/Poor Wizards

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 39748

James wrote:

>Also the pin cusion that kept curling into a ball, that seems to
>suggest that it  was really a hedgehog all along.

No, I think it signifies incomplete transfiguration.  McGonagall is 
criticizing Dean at the time; the point of the comment is that this is an 
object that is supposed to now be completely inanimate and be unafraid of 
pins like a good pincushion should be <g>, but instead it still has hedgehog 
characteristics.  It can't be used as an example of what is *supposed* to 
happen in Transfiguration.

Greg wrote:

>So then this brings us right back to my original point.  If a
>transfigured leaf still acts like a leaf & doesn't nourish you, and
>a pin cushion is still a hedgehog, just pretending then what is the
>purpose of Transfiguration?  If all Transfiguration is only
>temporary & only changes the appearance of a thing, doesn't that
>make it even more useless then if you were actually creating
>yourself a new pin-cushion?

I do think transfigurations are permanent for this reason.  What are the 
main reasons we propose otherwise?

(1) Animal rights, which, let's face it, JKR and the WW are not greatly 
concerned with, so I think we can answer that objection very simply:  the 
hedgehog ceases to be a hedgehog and turns into a pincushion, just like you 
and I will one day cease to be human beings and turn into compost.  Those of 
us who find inflicting this on a hedgehog to be ethically questionable will 
have to take it up with PETA, 'cause the MOM doesn't care.

(2) The Weasleys and Lupin attest to the fact that there is such a thing as 
a powerful but poor wizard; one apparently cannot transfigure unlimited 
quantities of dirt into Galleons or useful food or Floo powder or new robes. 
  That's the tough one, IMO.  Caius Marcius took a good whack at it (he 
writes filks! he quotes Shakespeare! he solves major enigmae of the 
wizarding world via conservative political theory!) and his piece is on the 
Lexicon.

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/magic_theory1.html

Other possibilities are that one needs "money in the bank" in some way in 
order to transfigure worthless items into valuable ones.  Perhaps Galleons 
literally disappear from one's Gringotts vault each time one conjures up the 
items on one's grocery list.  A possibility I prefer is that the "bank" is 
one of magical power, and so one saps one's energy each time one conjures 
something out of thin air or transfigures it out of something of less worth. 
  Families could have accumulations of this magical capital, so that even 
though Arthur Weasley is as powerful a wizard in his own right as Lucius 
Malfoy, the latter has a family fortune to draw upon and can just keep on 
conjuring up polo Pegasuses or whatever else his spoiled family desires.

Sigh...not a very satisfactory solution, I know.  When's JKR going to do 
another chat?  Let's put "Why don't the Weasleys just Transfigure what they 
need out of the dirt in the backyard?" top on the questions list.

Amy Z

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx