I’m finding myself fascinated by the realization of how many different and creative ways Rowling gives us in the series to see “inside” characters, and to understand who they are at the deepest core.
The Sorting Hat “sorts” the students at Hogwarts, discerning the personality traits, strengths and weaknesses that make them most suited to one of the four houses.
Meeting up with a dementor uncovers, though only inwardly to the person directly affected, a person’s worst memories.
But then we have patronuses and animagi. They too seem to reveal something deep about a person, but they’re a little different.
Patronuses are conjured, and only wizards of a certain skill and/or power level are capable of conjuring a patronus. Lupin calls it very advanced magic; Harry (even after considerable effort) can only conjur a misty, amorphous patronus at first. When he does finally manage to call forth a full patronus, even he is surprised (and deeply moved) at the shape of that patronus – the stag animagus form of his late father. Hermione is amazed to find out Harry did the conjuring, not only because of the time conundrum but because she’s already stated that it would take a very powerful wizard to call forth a patronus able to dispel so many dementors. Dumbledore says that Harry has discovered his father in himself.
So it would appear that, though the wizard is fully involved in calling forth a patronus, the form that patronus takes is not a choice, at least not a conscious choice. Instead it takes the shape of something deep and precious and strong, something in which one believes one can take refuge or stand behind and be protected. I don’t even know if we can say (at least entirely) that the form is shaped by the conjuring wizard’s unconscious, since Harry doesn’t yet know his father’s animagus form the first time he conjures his patronus. Dumbledore indicates that he could see at least the rudimentary shape of Harry’s patronus at the quidditch match, and certainly Harry didn’t know about Prongs then. And at the end of Azkaban, when he conjures the patronus fully, he has learned that James was an animagus whose form was called “Prongs” but no one has specifically told him yet that Prongs was a stag.
I think we do have evidence in later books, when we hear about the shape of Tonks’ patronus changing, that inward changes in the conjuring wizard – in their relationships, emotions, loves – can affect or change the shape of the patronus.
But what about animagi? I’m fascinated with them in part because of what Rowling doesn’t tell us, at least not straight out. Mostly I am wondering, is an animagus form a choice, or a given?
There are supposedly not many animagi in the wizarding world. Presumably it’s also very advanced magic, to be able to transform oneself into an animal. Hermione, with her usual thorough researching, informs us in Azkaban that there have been only seven “legally registered” animagi in the past century. Professor McGonagall is one of them; presumably one reason she got the job she has as transfiguration teacher at Hogwarts.
However it’s clear that a number of wizards can change into animals and haven’t bothered (for whatever reasons) to register their ability and their form with the Ministry of Magic. We know of four so far: James Potter, Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew, and Rita Skeeter.
Remus Lupin doesn’t count, because his monthly transformations into a wolf come about because of a werewolf bite. He didn’t choose that, wouldn’t have chosen it, and can’t control when it happens (except that the Wolfsbane potion, developed during his adulthood, enables him to remain “sane” even though he still changes into a wolf at each full moon).
James, Sirius and Peter learn to change into animals in order to keep Remus company, and probably for the sheer joy of learning how to do something difficult and keep it secret. Incidentally, it strikes me that we may be underestimating Peter’s abilities a bit – if he could learn to do this, even though he needed lots of “help” from brilliant James and Sirius, then he must not be too shabby of a wizard.
We don’t know Rita Skeeter’s motivation, but it’s a good bet that she decided to turn her transfiguration talents toward something that would help her hide easily and snoop around – skills I’m sure most tabloid journalists would love to have.
But all of this doesn’t really answer the question: did these people choose the animal they turned into? Lupin, who explains the whole concept to the trio, doesn’t really say. He mentions that Peter, “as the smallest” is the one who can touch the root to open up the passageway under the Whomping Willow, and the other two change into big enough animals (the bear-like dog and the stag) to help keep a wolf in check. All of that would lead one to believe that perhaps the trio of marauders had some say into what they changed themselves into. From what we’ve seen of transfiguration classes, the wizard usually knows what they’re changing…the students are often set tasks, it sounds like, to change one thing into something else specifically. Rita certainly would have some wish to turn into something very small to aid in her snooping habits, and her last name might have given her the idea!
Of course, Rita’s last name lets us know that Rowling at least has a lot to say about what each of these people turns into! Rita is so “skeeter” like – shrill, buzzing, and oh yes, blood sucking. Peter is definitely a rat. In fact, Peter is the biggest evidence we might have to the contrary, that a wizard doesn’t have entire control over what he turns into – why would someone choose to be a rat, unless it was just such a major part of his inner nature? There are plenty of other small animals that Wormtail could have chosen to be if he could have chosen. I think the bear-dog is an interesting choice for Sirius, because of his name (why didn’t she just make him a bear? perhaps because it would have been decidedly odd to see a bear wandering around Hogwarts, whereas a stray dog looks so ordinary no one would think twice). And the stag for James is the most interesting choice of all. It’s a Christ-symbol (perhaps doubly so when the form we meet him in is pure light). And the symbol also has deep roots in Lewis and Goudge – two of the authors who have influenced Rowling at a deep heart level, it would seem.
Edited to add: I just went over to Accio Quote! and prowled around a bit to see if Rowling ever specifically addressed this question (choice or given) in an interview. She has, of course. :-)
Here's the relevant bit from a 2005 interview. I've bolded the part that answered my musings (and which also makes me laugh!). I also find it a bit odd that she said Hermione's animagus form was an otter...that's clearly a slip of the tongue, since we know that an otter is Hermione's patronus, and we've never been given any indication that Hermione is an animagus, though she certainly seems skilled enough to try. It's good to know that even Rowling confuses things in her own fictional world sometimes!
*******
Robert Dawson for Asda - If you were an animagus what would you like to be?
JK Rowling: This always amuses me this idea. You see, you do not know what you are going to be until you have done it, so you might spend half a decade trying to turn into an animal and then find out you were a slug or something, which would be most unpleasant.
I gave Hermione my favourite animal, which is an otter. If you wanted to be something impressive, you would probably be something like a stag or a tiger, would you not, I just suspect I might be a guinea pig or something which would be so embarrassing.
********
