Magical animals in canon/ Re: Musing on Buckbeak/ Some Crookshanks and Snape

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 166265

 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > I think that animal reactions are valid canon analysis ever since 
> > JKR introduced Crookshanks into canon
> >
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> But Crookshanks is Crookshanks and Buckbeak is Buckbeak. 
Crookshanks 
> is part Kneazle and we know from "Fantastic Beasts" that they have 
> the ability to detect unsavoury characters. We know nothing like 
this 
> about Hippogriffs, neither from Hagrid nor from "Fantastic Beasts". 
> So I would argue that it is in Crookshanks' nature to detect 
> traitors, while it isn't in Buckbeak's.
> <SNIP>

Alla:

I was saying that analysing humans by animals' reactions to them is 
**at least** valid argument, because we know at least of one animal, 
who can certainly judge humans.

Sure, we do not know for sure that Buckbeack can do the same, but I 
believe that to judge humans he reacts to is at least a valid 
conjecture, because of Crookshanks, just as say it is valid to say 
that life debt can play out in more situations in canon we are 
explicitly aware of.

Crookshanks is not the only animal in canon, who can to some extent 
judge human reactions and experiences. Fawkes can judge loyalty to 
DD, yes?

Thestrals will only appear to those who saw death. So, I would say 
that many magical beings can do some evaluation of humans to more or 
less degree.

We know that Hypoggriffs are intelligent animals, no?

The books that Ron is reading are named "The study of Hypoggriffs 
psychology" and something like "The study of hypoggriffs brutality - 
friends or foe" ( paraphrasing, was looking at them yesterday, but I 
think it is closed enough).

To me those books suggest that Hypoggriff is very intelligent, so 
yeah, I do think it is a valid argument.

IMO,

Alla