DD as Animagus

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 182797

---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> Jerri:
> > I believe that DD was an Animagus
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> > During the course of the OWLs in book 5 a wasp is noted 
>  > as flying around in the examination room for no particular
>  > reason.
> 
> It would certainly seem odd that neither DD nor Riddle -- the
> two greatest wizards of modern times  -- appear to have 
> mastered animagism. 
>
bboyminn:

Well, first we don't know with absolute certainty that either
of the wizards was not an animagus. Of course, I readily 
admit that we don't necessarily have a hint that they were
animagus either.

Still, let's ask ourselves what the purpose of being an
animagus is? It is nothing more than 'cool' to be able to
turn into an animal, or is it, as I suspect, a method of
stealth and concealment? 

If it is primarily a method of stealth and concealment, then
let us also consider that both Dumbledore and Voldemort had
other, probably superior, methods available to them. It seems
that Dumbledore could do a Disillusionment Charm, or similar,
that was so perfect that he was completely and totally 
invisible. 

Perhaps, when it came to deciding whether or not to become an
animagus, Dumbledore assessed his current skill level and 
saw no need to spend the time and energy, and further to take
the risk, to accomplish this very cool but for him very
unnecessary task.

Personally, as I've already said, I think the transfiguration
magical aspect of it would have been enough that he would have
certainly been curious about it, and would have certainly
investigated it. But whether he did it or not remains just
speculation. I think he did become animagus just to investigate
the magic of it, but having done so, saw no real further
need for it. Again, admittedly pure speculation on my part.

Still, we have reasons both for and against it, and as the 
story stands and given Dumbledore's other prestigious skills,
I don't see any need for it to come into the story. 

So, I'm torn, while I can make reasonable arguements either
way, I lean toward 'yes', but on the other hand, can't deny
that once investigated, Dumbledore saw it as nothing more
than a cool but pointless gimick.

What a waste of parchment.

Steve/bboyminn

>...
> 
> As a corollary, I've missed it somewhere, but why can witches
> only transform into a single animal? Has there never been one
> who has mastered multiple forms?
> 
> CJ
>

bboyminn:

I assume you mean, why can witches and wizards only transform
into a single animal?

I think it is just the nature of the magic. First, they can
probably transform into many animals, but not with the same
level of maintained self-awareness nor the same level of 
speed as is found in the spontaneous at-will animagus 
transformation and UNtransformation. Second, I think the 
animal represents some deep psychological aspect of the person.
Unlike a patronus though, that can change with mood, animagus 
represent a deeper more unchanging aspect of a person. 

For what it's worth.

Finally, I surprised no one has commented on McGonagall's
TRIPLE Patronus in the Battle of Hogwarts. That seems pretty
cool trick, and one that could come in very handy when attacked
by a large group of Dementors. 

Whatever...

Steve/bboyminn