Is Harry a Metamorphmagus?

[cunning_spirit]

No: HPFGUIDX 116688


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ginnysthe1" <ginnysthe1 at y...> wrote:
 
> 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!
> 


cunning spirit here:

On the other hand, Sirius is able to transform himself into his dog form while in Azkaban. 
Does this mean that wizarding folk are allowed to keep their wands while incarcerated? I 
find that a little hard to swallow.