Snape and Magic Dishwasher. Was: Re: DD and the rat:

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 116521


Pip!Squeak wrote: 
<snip interesting Snape analysis that I agree with>
> Just as in Book One, we see that a spell to 
> change Scabbers appearance *doesn't work*, and are told that First 
> Years can't bring rats. There's something odd about Scabbers. We're 
> given the clues from the start. <snip>

Carol responds:
One small quibble. We're never told that first-years can't bring rats
(only brooms are expressly forbidden, and McGonagall gets around that
one). They're just not on the list of pets that first-years are likely
to bring. If someone had tried to bring a dog, the Head of House might
have pulled out the list and pointed to their absence from the list,
or their unsuitability as pets, but nothing is said about the
seemingly innocuous Scabbers. (McGonagall may not even realize that
Ron's rat is the same as Percy's. She could have thought one was a
descendant of the other. More likely she never gave it a thought.) Lee
Jordan is allowed to have a tarantula, certainly not on the list of
approved pets, and the Weasleys, being too poor to provide owls or
cats for all their children, are allowed a rat.

I don't dispute your point that there's something odd about Scabbers
from the beginning. I just don't think Ron's (and the rule-loving
Percy's) having him as a pet is a violation of the rules--though it
may bend them a little.

Carol