Patronus issues (was ChapDisc: HBP8, Snape Victorious)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 146731

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Wink45zes at a... wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> 
> First, I think we frequently become confunded more by what we don't
> know than by what we do know. For example, we don't know that a
> Patronus has to stay visible for the whole time that it exists. We
> also don't know that it must travel in realtime by 'real' methods. 
> 
> Wink:
> True enough, but what I am feeling confunded by is trying to
> make what little we do know about the Patronus Charm from book
> three work with this new action  that a Patronus can perform.  
> ...
> 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Well before we get bogged down in security problems let's
> acknowledge security advantages. First, a Patronus has no 
> solid form and thereforecan not be harmed. Since it can not
>  be harmed, it can not be compelled to give up it's message.
> ...
> 
> Wink:
> Ah, here we run up against a pet peeve of mine. Rowling does
> indeed say that a patronus is "anit-Dark" magic  on her web 
> site, but it is never said to be so in the books.


bboyminn:

The Dementors are clearly dark, dangerous, and destructive creatures,
I don't think we need any more than that to consider them 'Dark'. 

My main point was that since Patronus have no substantial physical
form or substance, they can't be harmed, and if they can't be harmed,
they can't be coerced. If a Partonus were somehow, though extremely
unlikely, trapped, it could simply 'terminate' itself; it could simply
cease to exist. That would certainly stop anyone from getting the
message. 

Though I will confess that I think trying to trap an insubstantial
Patronus is about like trying to trap the wind in a tea strainer; good
luck with that.

> Winks continues:
>
> I'm an old-fashioned gal, and firmly believe the books should 
> provide adequate and correct information. ...I really object 
> when it is used to change what is in the books themselves. 
> 

bboyminn:

First we know that the messenger aspect of a Patronus is something
conceived and refined by Dumbledore. No one else has figured this out.
 So, I really don't see any inconsistency; either that or I don't
understand your comment.

> Winks continues:
> 
> A Patronus can of course be used against other forms of attack 
> ...then just a dementor. Harry used one against the boggart in
> the maze,.... Harry's Patronus also effectively took care of the 
> Malfoy / Crabb./ Goyle / Flint fake 'dementor' at the 
> Quidditch match.  ...
> 

bboyminn:

We constantly see missed spells having significant impact, and doing
things the spell is not designed to do. In a sense, a spell is a form
of directed energy. When it is on target, the energy is released in
it's intended form with the intended results, but when the spell
misses it's target or purpose, we have a random discharge of
undirected energy usually causing some physical effect like knocking
plaster off the wall etc.... So, the fact that the misused Patronus
worked in the situations you suggested is not a function of the spell
but a by-product of the spell misused and misdirected.


> bboyminn:
> 
> We don't know the extent of the Patronus Messenger. Maybe they
> do travel in realtime and are therefore only good for short 
> distance messages. If they do not travel in realtime then logic 
> would assume that distance is not significant barrier to them. 
> They could near instantly deliver a message halfway around the 
> world. 
> 
> Wink:
> I have a really hard time wrapping myself around the idea of a 
> Patronus time-traveling. ...
> 

bboyminn:

The opposite of 'real-time' is not time travel. Real-time means that
if you walk, you walk like a normal person. In the example I gave, if
a cat walks at 2 mile per hour, and your Patronus is a cat then it can
only move at 2 miles per hour. That is real time. 

Apparation, Portkey, and probably Floo travel are not real-time. The
movement through space is grossly disproportionate to the distance
traveled. For example, when they Portkeyed from Stoades Head Hill to
somewhere in probably Scotland for the World Cup, there is some sense
of time, space, and movement, but that sense is not in proportion to
the distance traveled. Let's make conservative best guesses and say
that they Portkeyed 300 miles in 15 seconds. That's 72,000 miles per
hour. THAT is not real-time travel, but neither is it 'time travel'.

If Patronus travel in real-time and a Stag can travel at 10 mph, then
it takes 50 hours to travel from Hogwarts to London (assuming 500
miles). If a Patronus can travel in magical time, then that same trip
might take from a few seconds to a couple of minutes. That is not
'real-time' travel; it's magical-time travel, which is very much
different than magical time-travel. 

The whole point I was making is that we can't assume Patronus is the
standard, common, or preferred method of communication for the Order.
I speculated that even under the best of circumstances, Patronus
Messenger was reserved for urgent and critical communcation. Routine
communication would use routine methods.

> bboyminn:
> 
> I suspect that in the instance of Tonks trying to contact
> Hagrid or Dumbledore summoning Hagrid to the location of the
> Barty Sr attack, there were no messages. The mere presents of
>  a recognisable Patronus would have cause people to come and 
> investigate. ...
> 
> Wink:
> I daresay that simply pointing in a direction is inadequate 
> for me. I sure don't have an accurate compass in my head, and
> I've yet to see any indication  of that talent among wizards.  
> ...edited...

bboyminn:

You seem to be taking my statements of ASPECTS of Patronus
communication as the SINGLE definitive statement of method. I'm not
saying Patronus is limited to non-verbal communication, just that in
some situations a verbal message in not nevessarily necessary. 

I gave those two example of situation in which a verbal message would
not be necessary. Hagrid seeing Dumbledore's Patronus would have known
that Dumbledore would never send it unless there was trouble, so THERE
IS TROUBLE, no explanation needed. In the case of Tonk, she may have,
but didn't necessarily have to send a verbal message that was
intercepted by Snape. She may have simply sent her recognisable
Partonus to that Great Hall assuming that is where Hagrid was, Snape
saw it and came to investigate.

Everyone was so freaked out at the idea that Snape intercepted a
message meant for Hagrid, I thought I would simply point out that we
don't know that there actually was a verbal message. Snape may have
simply seen the Patronus and that is all he need.

Again, my point is that we are making assumptions not in evidence. We
know Tonks sent a Patronus, but we don't know that that Patronus
contained a verbal message. Tonk may have simply said
(mentally/nonverbally) when creating the Patronus 'go to the Great
Hall and alert Hagrid'. That is an instruction for action, not a
verbal message. If she had framed it as 'find Hagrid where ever he is
and tell him 'Harry is waiting at the front gate''. Then the Patronus
would have acted differently. I'm not saying that's what she did, I'm
saying that since we don't know, we can't make assumptions about the
presences and nature of both the instruction and the potential message. 

> Winks continues: 
> I note that it says "made contact," and not "arrived there,"
> which to me means Snape did not run down to Hogsmeade and 
> Apparate to Grimauld Place. He sent a complex message; ...
> 

bboyminn:

And elsewhere in my post I gave a more common illustration of a
Patronus carrying a verbal message in the voice of the sender. The
limitation I set was that the Patronus couldn't engage in dialog; it
is like a recording, it simply replays the message it was given. It
also does not take a response. All speculation on my part, but
speculation toward a workable description of the likely nature of the
Patronus; ...the likely nature of a /workable/ Patronus.

We know the Order uses Patronus, but we also know, or at least, it
seems, that they do not use the routinely. I'm speculating on workable
limitation that would put the use of the Patronus in a workable context.


> bboyminn:
> 
> Part of what I'm trying to say is that give our noticable lack of
> information on the nature of the Patrous as a messenger, we really
> can't accurately speculate on how good or bad a messenger they are.
> 
> Wink:
> Ah, my mistake I believe.  I was not concerned with whether or 
> nota Patronus was a good or bad messenger.  I am trying to work
> out if the devise of a Patronus as messenger works in all its 
> details, however we can find or imagine them or if it is poorly 
> conceived.  My problem is that the previously described 
> actions/abilities of a Patronus just don't jive with this
> new use. 
> 
> > 
> > Marianne:
> > 
> > I wonder if there is some sort of additional spell on the 
> > OoP Patronuses to protect these messages from being told to 
> > someone not in the Order, sort of a magical encryption. ...
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> I guess it is a matter of prespective and assumption, if you
> assume the Patronus Messenger is flawed then of course you 
> will react accordingly. If you assume that it is a worthy 
> messenger, then evenlacking the details you will assume there
> is a reasonable explanation. It's a case of determining in your
> own mind whether the glass is half full or half empty.
> 
> Wink:
> It is not so much that I think the messenger-patronus is flawed,
> just perhaps simply misnamed, or ill defined. ...
> 
> Perhaps the real difficulty is that Rowling is using the same
> name for two different things. This messenger Patronus is 
> something new that Dumbledore developed, and taught only to 
> members of the Order of the Phoenix. It is based upon the 
> Patronus Charm, but he has made something completely new of it.
> ...
> 
> Thanks all for your patience and help while I slogged my way 
> through this problem to a workable solution. 
> 
> Wink

bboyminn:

I think perhaps were are all over thinking the Messenger Patronus. I
would assume that Dumbledore discovered that if he simply made his
Patronus appear at a particular location, say the Order Headquarters,
the people there would take that as a sign that Dumbledore was in
trouble. Next it occurred to him that he could get the Patronus to
relay a short verbal message. In a sense, it could act like a
recording device, and play back his words to the intended receiver of
the message. I don't see this as a complete re-invention of the
Patronus. He simply realized an aspect of the Patronus that no one
else had ever realized before. 

The central theme of everything I've said is that we are making
extreme assumption based on ...well ...assumptions. Everyone is up in
arms because Snape intercepted a message from Tonks Patronus which had
an intended recipient of Hagrid. 

Well, first you are assuming there WAS a verbal message, next you are
assuming that Snape heard it. Neither of which is in evidence. Snape
became aware of Tonks Patronus and came to investigate, that much
speculation we can say with reasonable sureness, but beyond that is
unfounded speculation. 

On a last note, I seems more than reasonable that the Trio will learn
the Patronus Messenger charm in the next book. We knew about
Apparation long before we had the details from Harry's point of view.
We have known about Patronus Messengers for several books, though
mostly through implication. Now in the last book, we will finally get
the details.

Just a few rambling thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn