LilyAnimagus/SnapePatronus/UpsideDownMotif/DEs/ImpulseControl/Desert Island

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 187194

Carol thought in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187146>:

<< that Lily's Animagus form would have been a doe >>

Feisty Lily? Surely her self-image would have been more that she was the noble fighter for justice than that she was the passive beauty who inspired the noble fighter. Surely her Animagus would have been something with a bit more of an aggressive (protectively aggressive) than a doe. Maybe a mother bear, except that I fantasize that slender and red-haired were also part of her self-image. Maybe a red-brown greyhound? Aghan hound? A kestrel?

Randmath23 wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187154>:

<< Dumbledore knew for certain that Snape could not be a true death eater, since he was able to perform the Patronus Charm. >>

I think what was proof to Dumbledore was that Snape's Patronus was still the purity and beauty of Lily, not that he had a Patronus. The silver doe proved not that Snape was good, but that serving Lily (by protecting her hated son) was still his top priority.

As Potioncat mentioned, Umbridge was quite able to cast a Patronus that protected her and her fellow judges from the Dementor guards at the condemnation of Mary Cattermole. I still think Umbridge might have been a Death Eater; if not, she was just as evil as them on her own initiative. So I think being a Death Eater doesn't prevent casting a Patronus.

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187168>:

<< It's an early appearance of the "holding someone upside down" motif, and I'm sure *that's* not an accident. >>

You'd have it be a signal that the weak are being abused by the strong, even though Ron demonstrated and Remus said that kids were fine with being Levicorpus'ed for a moment.

Rowling may not have been conscious that she repeatedly used 'the holding someone upside down' motif. It could be that she used it deliberately so literary scholars could analyze it or it have come frequently to her writing fingers because it was always in the back of her mind.

Reasons for it always being in the back of her mind could range from it having been done in a children's book which she read so much she had it by heart back in those days, so phrases and words from that book still unconsciously appear in her speech and writing, to she was traumatized at an early age by bullies who dangled her upside down. 

(Here are two examples of in between: in her teens she was highly amused by a movie comedy scene in which someone was dangled upside down; she wrote an essay at school or university analyzing fiction in which being upside down was a bad thing or a good thing.)

It could both be unconscious AND a signal that the weak are being abused by the strong, especially if it came from a traumatic memory of having been bullied.

"jkoney65" wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187175>:

<< If they knew the DE's existed, that means that the DE's must have already been committing terrorist like acts (killing, burning, etc) and those acts must have been reported as being committed by DE's. Otherwise they never would have heard of them.

If they don't understand, than deluded is probably not a strong enough word. >>
  
Maybe we shouldn't waste the really strong words on such a super-common attitude. As an USAmerican from the second half of the twentieth century, I was raised to believe in the heroism of our Founding Fathers and Revolutionary War volunteers and of the French Resistance against Hitler. I at least avoided being brainwashed about the heroism of IRA bombers and gunmen, but I swallowed hook line and sinker the propaganda about the Afghan mujihadeen being 'freedom fighters' against Soviet invaders.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.

Carol found in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187181>:

<< calling someone "Snivellus" an odd illustration of impulse
control >>

I did not perceive that it had anything to do with impulse. It seemed to me that she almost cold-bloodedly consciously decided to use that name to signal him that she had changed sides. 

He called her 'mudblood', she blinked in surprise, and she quickly calculated that calling her that name meant that their friendship was not important to him. Then she quickly calculated that if their friendship wasn't important to him, it wasn't important to her either, so there was no reason for her to be on his side any longer, so there was no reason for her not join the Gryffindor side with the Gryffindor popular guys.

Alla wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187186>:

<< So, I guess you guys will have to deal with an approximate translation - which character you would have chosen to go to get intelligence behind the enemy lines, to spy on the enemy, maybe even to capture the enemy. To make a long story short, which character you would trust to watch your back. I suppose it is a test of personal loyalty? >>

And Hickengruendler replied in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187187>:

<< I guess I wouldn't choose Sirius or Hagrid, because even though they have their heart in the right place, they are too unreliable because they're too hot-headed. >>

And Ceridwen replied in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187188>:

<< I don't think it would be a test of personal loyalty given that you and this character are on the same side. Despite possible differences, you have the same goal. >>

Alla admitted that what she said in the question might not be exactly what she meant in the question, I am influenced by what she said in the question, so I feel that sneaking ability is just as important as loyalty, courage, same goal, etc. 

I think Sirius has great sneaking ability as a black dog who is able to Apparate. He sneaked around Little Whinging and Hogwarts. Depending on the bad guys, they might even pat his head and give him leftover food while he listened to their information and made a mental map of their location and its booby traps.

McGonagall as a cat Animagus who can Apparate would be even better than Sirius at sneaking, altho' less good at swimming, fighting, and catching balls (but better at climbing). Unless the bad guys are cat lovers, she wouldn't have as good a chance of being coddled by them.

Wormtail might have even better sneaking ability than Padfoot or Puss, but I don't want Peter. He would betray the mission out of sheer evilness.

If we're trying to capture some enemies, not just spy on them or assassinate a couple of them, then physical strength might be relevant. A big dog has more physical strength than a cat and Sirius has more physical strength than Minerva. But, with magic, being able to leap on a enemy, thus knocking him down and knocking his wand out of his hand, and holding him down while one's partner ties him up might not matter as much as duelling skills, such as being able to cast a fast, well-aimed, and powerful Stunner.

On the thread, I think I would choose Sirius rather than Minerva because it seems that Minerva freezes ot panicks momentarily when confronted with unexpected dangers, and Sirius responds as spinal reflex, not even taking the time for his brain to find out what's going on. Someone wrong with my memory: I can't remember in which book to search for Minerva freezing.

Changing topic to choosing an Animagus form. A tiger would be good at fighting, and at swimming, and at sneaking in a forest, but almost completely unable to sneak in a human settlement. Escaped tigers in the suburbs are discovered by their pawprints, and I think they have even fewer places to hide in the city. And most humans want to shoot an escaped tiger dead rather than shoot it with a tranquilizer dart and capture it -- very few want to pat its head and feed it leftovers.

A wolf or a bear would have the same problems, except if the wolf happened to be able to disguise itself as a dog.

A raccoon. They live in the wilderness, the country, the suburbs, and the city so no one could get suspicious about seeing one, and THEY HAVE HANDS. Humans are more likely to shoot them for sport or food than a cat or dog, and less likely to let them come inside an occupied part of a building to listen to their plans.

Raccoons have a relative named cacomistle. According to an article years ago in SMITHSONIAN (which called them ringtails), their little hands are even more dextrous than raccoon hands, they are amazingly agile, amazing climbers, and super-duper-good at hiding. 

If the Animagus form truly shows the inner person, mine would probably be a hog (a clean hog, maybe a pretty color like the black and white scheme called 'tuxedo' on cats and dogs), and that would be useless for anything but giving children piggyback rides.

Zanooda wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187191>:

<< I like your choice of Sirius and Snape, and not only from the point of view of loyalty. They are both more than suited for a reconnaissance mission. Sirius can disguise himself very well, and Snape is equally good at stealth, I suppose, and he is a Legilimens :-). I'm not sure they could work well together though, so I wouldn't risk it taking them both at the same time, because your mission would fail :-).  >>

That was one of my hopes after GoF, that Dumbledore would send them on a dangerous mission that required teamwork together, and their loyalty to DD would cause them to actually try to do the mission, and they would become friends.