> Uncmark had asked >>BTW does the wizard choose there anamagi form or 
> is it dictated by their nature? I could picture Darco Malfoy studying 
> to become an anamagi and becoming a dungbeetle.<<
> 
> Personally, I favor the dictated by nature form of anamagi creation. 
> Even if it *is* up to the wizard to choose, their nature would guide 
> them to the form they choose. I mean, it's basicly asking said wizard 
> or witch to answer the question: If you could be any animal in the 
> world what you be? 
> 
> Although I don't see Draco as a dungbeetle. A peacock or a rooster, 

I think that dark wizards (& Slytherins) cannot animag into anything "good".  The fact that Pettigrew becomes a rat is a pretty clear indicator.  Skeeter's a beetle.  Now both of these forms have worked pretty well for them, but wouldn't it be more useful to transform into something people like a little more.  Sure, Peter gets to live as a"beloved" pet, but skittering about outdoors among cats & among muggles in general, there's a good chance you'll get whacked!  Being a beetle would be pretty dangerous as well!  Good thing Krum doesn't just enjoy squishing bugs for fun!  Ok, a big, black dog running loose is a good target for animal control, but all he has to do is be a good dog.  If taken in, he can escape when no one's looking.  Not to mention getting aroung is much faster than on the little legs of a rat or wings of a beetle.  Being a stag, all you have to avoid is hunters (& other real stags). McGonnagall's cat, same things as being a dog(except watchout for dogs).  So, what would Snape transform into?  He's good *and* bad!  The only things I can thing of are big and not indigenous to the UK.  I would think you would transform into something from the same place as you! Kind of hard to blend in anywhere in England when you're a rhino!  What about our Trio?  Pretty sure Hermione would be a cat; Ron, I don't know, a weasel-too easy; Harry, probly stag.  lots of fun questions to contemplate!  

Susanne <siskiou@e...> wrote:
> > Maybe they "outgrow" their wands?
<snip>

adatole (?) wrote:
> Then why would Harry have the "brother" of Voldemort's wand? The one 
> that Voldy uses against him in GoF? 
> 
> No, the wand chooses the wizard, and it's for life. However, like any 
> tool, the wand could suffer from wear and tear. And from the 
> description it has. Charlie, perhaps upon graduation or when he saved 
> up enough on his new job, went and bought himself a new wand. And 
> that meant his old one was OK.

Perhaps Charlie's old wand is actually grandpa's old wand.  Charlie could have inherited it from him (or a grandama or whatever).  Since it was a family member's wand, maybe it works pretty well. (this would be the case even if it were just Charlie's old wand.)  In the movie, Ron's wand looks pretty bunged up compared to the others we get to see.  Wouldn't be surpirsed if Charlie was not the origianl owner & finally went and got his "true" wand with his first paycheck.

I think anatole continues: 
> > Dumbledore manages just fine without a wand, but is this a
> > rare thing, or something you learn with experience?
> But that aside, I do believe Dumbledore would do fine without a wand. 
> At his age he is so practiced at focusing the magical energies that a 
> wand would be redundant for all but very complex magic.
<snip>

I think Dumbledore does do quite well without a wand, but we do know that he *does* use one!  One example is when he's placing thoughts in the pensieve.  Another is when he does his patronus.  I'm sure there are other examples, but those are the two the immediately come to mind!

Wands and animagi, two of my favorite concepts!

Kitty


Find the best deals on the web at AltaVista Shopping!
http://www.shopping.altavista.com