Animagus - and Transfiguration

[evangelina839]

No: HPFGUIDX 79528

Jazmyn:

> > I have a theory on animagus.  I believe a wizard with any 
> reasonable > skill in transfiguration can turn into any animal they 
> have practiced > at.  What defines an Animagus is the ability to 
> turn into an animal AT > WILL, meaning without a wand.   With a 
> wand, they could turn into other > kinds of animals, but the animal 
> form they are most specialized in, is > their 'animagus form' and 
> they can switch back and forth between this > form at will, with or 
> without a wand.

Wendy:

> The only problem with this theory is that we have canon which 
> indicates that someone transfigured into an animal does not retain 
> his or her human mental faculties. Whereas, it seems clear that 
> someone in their animagus form does, at least to great degree 
> (McGonagall reading the map, for example, as well as various 
> comments made by Sirius). Sirius did say that his emotions were 
> different in his animagus form, but he still appears to be able to 
> think as a human.
> 
<snip QTA quote>
> 
> This indicates to me that there is a substantive difference between 
> Animagi transformation and transfiguration more than just the 
> ability to do it with or without a wand.
> 
> Having said that, I will admit to being confused by Krums' partially 
> successful shark transfiguration during the second task in GoF. If 
> transfigured humans have the brains of their animal forms, why 
> didn't the transfigured Krum go on a feeding frenzy? This is 
> contradictory with what we're told in QTA. Maybe the fact that the 
> transfiguration *was* incomplete allowed Krum to retain his capacity 
> for human thought. Perhaps if he'd transfigured completely into a 
> shark, this would not have been the case? 
> 
> Hopefully we'll learn a bit more about this later, but for now I 
> lean towards the conclusion that transfiguration into an animal is 
> not actually a useful thing that wizards and witches would want to 
> perform upon themselves in most cases. 
> 
> Hmnh. In trying to answer a question, I've only brought up a new 
> question, haven't I? Funny how often that happens around here! ;-)
> 
> Wendy

I think you make good points, both of you. That a type of magic is done without a 
wand indicates to me that it's more a focus of the mind thing, and therefore more 
difficult to do. Which is a good basis for my theory to come. :) And I agree with Wendy 
that the difference between Animagi and humans transfigured into animals is the 
amount of human left in them, except I think it's the other way around. You don't 
become less human when you transfigure into an animal; you just don't get animal 
enough. I think that assuming your Animagus form is like getting in touch with your 
inner animal or something; you become the animal most suited to you. So, in 
contrast to transfiguring into an animal, you don't only transform physically, but 
mentally as well. This doesn't mean that you lose your sense of identity or anything. 
You just apply it, a little differently, to your animal self. On the other hand, since 
transfiguration only works physically, you're just a human in an animal's body, which I 
don't think really benefits you the same way. You're not comfortable enough with 
your animal body, so you can't really work around the obstacles (or, differences) of 
this other creature. Whereas, if you use your Animagus form, you can apply your 
human skills to your animal abilities and, for example, read a map. I'm not entirely 
sure that this fits with all the evidence, but I feel it makes sense. And I think it 
explains Krum's TWT task strategy.

evangelina, who really would have preferred to do this in Swedish ;)


By the way; Hermione said, while helping Harry with the second task in GoF, that they 
wouldn't be studying transfiguration of human beings until sixth grade. I haven't seen 
that brought up anywhere, so I thought I'd mention it.