[HPforGrownups] Re: The Dursleys:

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 167579

> Shelley:
> I still think that it is possible that Petunia is a witch that refused her
> witchhood- that there could be some formal process for doing what it is 
> that
> JW proposes: to de-power a wizard into Muggleness. Since Petunia might 
> have
> chosen this route for herself, there is no abuse in that, but to also 
> choose
> it for her son, that indeed might classify as "abuse of Dudley". Thus, JKR
> would be correct in saying that Petunia is currently a Muggle, and that 
> she
> will never do magic.

Magpie:
I don't see how it's possible. JKR said she has never done magic and she 
never will and that she is a Muggle. You know you are a witch because you do 
magic. A Muggle is defined as a non-magical person. There is nothing in 
canon that suggests anything like a way for Witches to get rid of their 
magic. Nor is there any suggestion that any such thing has been done for 
Dudley. I know we've been discussing how canon can be inconsistent, but I 
think it goes beyond inconsistent to introduce this idea for becoming a 
Witch. It also suggests that JKR is directly lying in an interview saying 
that Petunia is a Muggle when she's really a Witch who didn't go to 
Hogwarts.

Also, totally unrelated, but I mis-attributed quotes incorrectly in my 
Patronus post. This part was Carol:

> > << I wonder if we're not confusing the concepts of Animagus and Patronus 
> > here. A Patronus, according to JKR, is a "spirit guardian," a protector 
> > rather than an indication of the caster's personality and character, as 
> > the Animagus form clearly is. Sirius Black's Animagus form, a Grimlike 
> > black dog, reflected his personality and character, just as Peter 
> > Pettigrew's rat form reflects his, but I doubt that their Patronus forms 
> > were identical to their Animagus forms. >>

This was Catlady:

> > I think it was JKR, not us, who confused the idea of Animagus and 
> > Patronus. She said she would want her Animagus form to be an otter, and 
> > she gave the otter to Hermione, her Mary Sue character, as a Patronus. I 
> > don't think that meant that Hermione feels that she is protected by 
> > having the Author on her side, and I don't think Hermione knows that the 
> > Author's Animagus form is an otter. Otters are known for playfulness as 
> > well as effectiveness, which seems appropriate to JKR with all her puns 
> > and other wordplay, but not appropriate to Hermione, who shows no sign 
> > of having a sense of humor.> > I think Sirius might well have the same 
> > Patronus as Animagus form,
> meaning that he feels he is protected by himself and his own powers.
> >
> > I can see Cho as a swan Animagus -- they're beautiful, but known 
> > viciously bite the kind humans who are feeding them -- but can't see her 
> > as self-confident enough to feel protected by her own powers. > > Still, 
> > she could have one swan as Animagus form and a different swan for 
> > Patronus, showing that she feels her beauty is her strongest power.

Magpie again:
I mistakenly attributed both contradictory ideas to Carol.

-m