Is Harry a Metamorphmagus?
imamommy at sbcglobal.net
imamommy at sbcglobal.net
Fri Oct 29 02:03:44 UTC 2004
No: HPFGUIDX 116661
--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" <ginnysthe1 at y...>
wrote:
>
> Kim asked:
>
> >... On the other hand, animagus ability (which either requires a
> wand or doesn't -- I confess to being confused about this: didn't
> Peter Pettigrew need a wand to transform himself back into a rat in
> PoA? But McGonagall doesn't need a wand to turn herself into a cat,
> does she? So is it a spell for some and an innate ability for others?)
> <
>
> Imamommy responded:
>
> >Methinks we have a case of movie contamination. The canonical
> reference is this:
>
> "Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand. Ron, unsteady on his
> bandaged leg, fell. There was a bang, a burst of light--and Ron lay
> motionless on the ground. Another bang--Crookshanks flew into the
> air and back to the earth in a heap. "Expelliarmus!" Harry yelled,
> pointing his own wand at Pettigrew; Lupin's wand flew high into the
> air and out of sight. "Stay where you are!" Harry shouted, running
> foreward. Too late. Pettigrew had transformed. Harry saw his bald
> tail whip through the manacle on Ron's outstretched arm and heard a
> scurrying through the grass." -PoA, Scholastic, p.381.
>
> >So no, an animagus does not require a wand to transform, but I
> remember in the film Pettigrew *does* point a wand at his own head
> before transforming. I hope that helps.<
>
> Here's Kim now:
>
> Thanks for looking that up! Unfortunately I'd already looked at the
> same passage a while back and didn't interpret it the same way you
> have. I'd looked it up after seeing that the same scene in the movie
> seemed to contradict what I'd thought was true about self-
> transfiguration (in this case animagus ability), i.e. that a
> witch/wizard didn't need a wand to turn her or himself into an
> animal. What I read in that passage is that Peter had had the wand
> in hand for just long enough to start the process of "rat
> transformation" before Harry's "Expelliarmus!" knocked the wand out
> of his hand. I realize it doesn't say that explicitly, but I also
> don't think there would have been a bang and burst of light for a
> self-transfiguration spell anyway, so that part is naturally missing
> from what's written. And the "Too late" implies (to me anyway) that
> Harry had been too late in expelling Lupin's wand away from Peter and
> so Peter'd been able to transform himself back into Scabbers right
> before. Of course, you could argue that I was trying to make sense
> out of the movie portrayal of that scene, so unconsciously
> was "seeing what I wanted to see" in the book passage. But I
> honestly don't want to see anything that's not there or doesn't make
> sense (if any of this stuff really makes sense... ;-)). What I do
> see is that transfiguration, on the one hand, is something that has
> to be taught in a class using wands (isn't that how Peter and the
> other "marauders" learned transfiguration in the first place? Why do
> you need a wand for the "small stuff" if you don't need it to
> transform yourself?), but on the other hand, it appears at times as
> an innate ability that doesn't require a wand. So what I'm saying is
> that there seem to be contradictions in JKR's writing about it.
> After all, if it does require a wand, then cats and rats wouldn't be
> able to turn themselves back into people, would they? But clearly
> they can so they don't need a wand then. But I also think that JKR
> had a lot of input into scene interpretation in the Azkaban movie and
> isn't likely to have let them stick in the part where Pettigrew wands
> himself if she thought it was flat-out wrong. But I could be wrong
> about that too. Nevertheless I'm standing my ground til I see more
> solid evidence, and have no problem with agreeing to disagree!
>
> Kim (who says Pshew! and Sorry! for what appears to be a long-winded
> argument to your succinct response)
imamommy:
Ok, for the sake of argument, we seem to see a lot of animagi
transforming without wands. Firstly, when transforming back from
animal form they can't use one. Secondly, McGonagal doesn't seem to
use one. Thirdly, I can't ever remember a reference to Sirius using a
wand to transform; how would he ever have transformed in Azkaban?
I guess we have interpreted the text differently. I do think wands
would be necessary to *become* an animagus, but not to use that power
once you were one.
So, until I have further evidence, I stand my ground.
imamommy
"Then it appears we are at an impass."
The Princess Bride
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive