Of course this is a subjective matter, but it doesn't trivialize the Animagus process at all to me. Rather, the idea that it takes diligent effort and years of practice lends it an excellent reason to be considered a significant achievement.

I think that 'flawless' is the wrong word to use. As an example, suppose McGonagall Transfigured a plain white box. It is 'flawless'; the white is uniform and the lid fits on snugly. But what if she Transfigures the box so that a red stripe runs around it? Is the box not still flawless?

Likewise, you cannot say that the presence of markings indicates that the Animagus spell has been cast imperfectly. I would say rather that your animals markings change slightly based on the mostly unconscious way you think of yourself - i.e., the object being Transfigured. For McGonagall, having worn glasses for a long time (reasonable based on her apparent age) she just considers her glasses part of her. I'm certain other members who wear glasses than I will say that after a while you just stop noticing them for day-to-day activities (I do, at least). McGonagall considers her glasses a natural extension of herself (or more precisely, doesn't consider them as foreign), and thus the markings.

This indeed would be the strength of the Animagus markings for identification - not that they are difficult to remove, but that you just don't give them a second thought.

This also explains why clothes do not manifest as changes on the Animagus' animal. Unlike the body and possible object (glasses, etc.) that the wizard/witch considers a part of him/herself, clothing is eminently transient, and thus makes no difference.

See my concession.

Aha, but the crucial bit is how the wizard finds himself Transfigured into a bat, and thus looses his human thoughts. Obviously meaning he did not plan on being Transfigured, in contrast to Animagi. I could easily say that a part of the long training time is learning techniques so that you do not lose your reasonin mind during your time as an animal.

However, I won't say it, because I conceed my arguement. Although I still think it makes more sense, and fits into the HP magic system better, its clear from your example, Taure's, and others that the 'finding your inner animal' theory is closer to canon than mine.

What puzzles me though is how Rowling, despite otherwise having created a remarkable equalitarian magic system, wrote in the Animagus transformation, where it appears only a select few have the possibility of even trying to perform it.

More on the second half of your post later: for now, you think Rita Skeeter was motivated enough to learn it in school?

 

On the contrary, it fits in to her personality quite well in my opinion. The steady portrayal, at least in the later books, of Gryffindor house as being the Elect of Hogwarts matches with her belief in Calvinism almost perfectly. If you don't know what I'm talking about, Calvinism is a sect of Christianity that believes that only those upon whom God grants mercy will enter Heaven and thus no matter what you do in life, you are either spared or damned.

Can you still not see how this would fit in with the animagus transformation? Albeit on a lesser scale, JKR as always shown that a select few are 'Holy' and anyone who does not show the traits of those few are either evil or unimportant. Just look at Snape. The only reason he is considered to be good is because he was self-sacrificingly brave and not showing any sign of being a Slytherin. Then there's the whole debacle with the Slytherins in DH.

 

I don't think saying the animagus is a transfiguration trivialises it. It's a transformation, thus comes under the subset of transfiguration. Plus, they learn about it in Transfiguration class. It's as simple as that.

I don't think that the process of becoming an animagus is like any other transfiguration spell though. It clearly has differences to other branches of transfiguration.

 

The only question I have is this, what are your most detested animagus forms for Harry in Fanon. Every time I think of some I realize that they've been used frequently enough to become corny and overused. Let us not even mention multiple animagus forms... as that aspect should never have been written in the first place, and the person who came up with it should have been aborted.

At this point I'd have to say Lions, and any big cat for that matter. At first it seemed like lions, stags, gryffons and phoenixs were the most popular, and still are for the most part, However lately I've been noticing a trend towards Jaguars and other large cats (BiTJ, Vox Corporis, etc.)

Thoughts?

 

I'd say multiple forms is a no-go, unless the wizard has a split personality.

...that would be a really interesting character. An insane wizard who knew the animagus transformation and had a load of different personalities and thus a load of different forms.

ANYWAY.

Yeah, beyond multiple forms there's nothing I dislike really, so long as the form suits the individual's personality. Magical forms are okay so long as they're not uber. Though that's not really a rational rule, so best to say no magical forms at all.

I dislike it when a person's form affects the person in their human form too.

 

I don't think Sirius' "bark-like" laugh is just how he laughed as a child. It seems to be specifically meant to indicate his Animagus form, though it is unclear whether one resulted from the other. As far as the actual transformation goes, I imagine that because it is a piece of magic whose result is based on one's character traits, it would take a great deal of introspection (seeing which traits most define you, being able to focus on them in order to facilitate the transformation), to try and connect with the inner animal, which would be one deterrent. Because one does not know their form beforehand, and thus cannot picture it, which I think is integral to Transfiguration magic, it would have to be, like Sesc said, something special. If anything, I'd say it is closer to "soul" magic.

If I could elaborate on magical history, I'd say it's some ancient from of shamanism, or especially Druidism, which would fit with the historical inhabitants of Britain, the Celts IIRC. Conquering cultures often absorb the conquered into their own, which would also fit, as IMO the transformation seems too primal in its basic nature to be like normal transfiguration, chiefly because it requires no wand, which suggests it, though extremely difficult, is less magically complex. It's lack of theoretical complexity could be a reason that Peter was able to do it, if it does indeed focus on someone's innate magic and their identification with and knowledge of themselves rather than technical skill.

As previously stated, I think the difficulty would lie having the intense focus to concentrate on finding and becoming the inner animal. Peter's motivation (desperation) to fit in with somebody, anybody, would be why, even as a mediocre wizard, he was able to do it. If it relies on personality, than it means that this transformation would involve a dissipation of the barrier between the animal and the higher mind that at first does not recognize its animal form, which would indicate that meshing could and IMO probably would occur, at least on a minor level. The best evidence I can see for this is that the animal forms seem to have human markings (McGonagall's glasses), and that known animagi have clearly defined traits from their animal, seemingly beyond just basics like "viciousness" or "pride", such as the bark-like laugh or Peter's excessively rat-like behavior. I doubt anybody would have acted that much like a rat before becoming one, although that could be a result of living as one for twelve years.

 

So if its all about the personality of the person than theoretically if it fits the description of being say a "T-rex" you can become a dinosaur. Is space and time like a constraint? I mean can you only become a creature that exists at the present? Can you become something that was just extinct? where do you draw the line.

 

I suppose anything is possible, as I havn't seen anything to the contrary, though I feel bad for fish and whale animagi. It's a good utility, but it's no T-Rex (which would be epix).

 

I think it'd be best to be a flying creature, because that gives you the ability to fly unaided, which is something that wizards can't replicate with other magic.

The stealth of small creatures can be matched by disillusionment, notice-me-not charms, transfiguration, invisibility cloaks, silencing charms, and so on.

The ability to survive underwater of aquatic creatures can be replicated by transfiguration, Bubble-head charm, or Gillyweed.

The ability to destroy things and fight like a large creature can be easily done by spells.

So flying is the best in terms of allowing you to do what you couldn't before.

 

Voldemort's flying thing in DH could replicate flight. So can broomsticks, flying carpets, and spells. How is that different from invisibility cloaks, gillyweed, and other spells like silencing charms?

 

You just beat me to it, I was going to mention Voldy's flying abilities. But yeah I can see your point, I mean destruction is great and all but spreading your wings and flying is fantastic if you want to not be detected using magic becuase it probably takes a shit load of magic to do Riddle's wandless levitation.

Speaking of which, is it just me or don't you think there are some INSANELY strong spells that can be done wandlessly. Dumbledore set the wall on fire when he met Riddle and that was before he beat Grindlewald!

 

Voldemort pushed the boundaries of magic, and Dumbledore seems to have mastered it. Judging by the surprise, Voldemort probably invented that spell, and many other forms of magic, but Dumbledore had such a masteful grasp on it that IMO not even Voldemort could ever overcome, which is why he never beat Dumbledore in his prime. Such is the reason for being able to set Riddle's wardrobe alight with what I would call illusionary flame, seeing as no damage was done. Not of incredible magnitude, but certainly and rightfully intimidating.

But even wandless magic feels like it doesn't do justice to the Animagus transformation. If I had to imagine as any specific type of magic, I'd write it probably as a series of "rituals" that take vigorous mental preparation. It seems to be on that level, with the concept of an inner animal being unleashed. It would have been nice to have had even a hint of what goes into becoming one, but maybe it's better that she left it open instead of possibly ruining it.

 

Makes sense leaving it open ussually leaves a lot of creative fanfics out there, interesting though so if Voldemort pushed past the limits does that mean you can push past the limits of an anigmus form, like make it larger or shift it look like some abomination.

The most manipulation I have seen on an anigmus form was in Bungle in the Jungle, the last scene at least.

 

I wasn't counting Voldemort's flying charm, since the only two people who knew how to do it are dead, thus taking the secret with them to the grave.

Broomsticks are magic carpets are flying aids, and thus do not contribute towards flying unaided.

 

@Zero

I assume that it has to be an existing animal. The only way to manipulate that form IMO would be outside forces. A person cannot identify with an animal that does not exist, simply because it is outside of his perception. The whole process of becoming an animagus seems to be about identifying with one's base nature, manifested as an animal in nature. "Inner animal" implies a reconnection to base instinct, or the natural order, almost devolution of thought, while being able to turn into something derived from human thought would seem to indicate forward progression. That would be a whole new ability.

But moreover, although one can imagine an animal that does not exist, he cannot identify himself with it, simply because any imaginary product is on some basic level a new interpretation of what has already been seen. Colors, shapes, words, everyday basic things, all shuffled among an immense data base (mind) over and over, creating "new" things each day, from the basic input received by the brain. That which the brain has not encountered, it cannot imagine. One can imagine a new creature, but that creature is composed of building blocks based on the physical universe. This is proven by the fact that there always have been and will always be things beyond our imagining, something undiscovered that nobody foresaw. It's rare now, because we've discovered much more of our environment.

The only instance of significant mutation from the caster I could imagine would be if the they performed the magic wrong.

 

This raises a question.

If someone had a limb amputated and became an animagus, would their limb still be missing in their animal form?

What about if they were an animagus before-hand and had time to pattern their magic to a being with four limbs?

So many use the majestic animals as animagus transformations. Phoenix, etc.

Why not Dementor, werewolf...and before you get in on me...the animalia kingdom is generally defined as vertebrates and other crap I can't recall.

I've never seen a Scorpion!Harry. Feeling that tail sprout would be...very disturbing. Homoerotocism ftw!

Also makes you wonder if animagus forms are limited by the innate magic of the place. For instance, you never see an aquatic animal on land.

Also begs the question if the ability to be an animagus is imprinted on genetic code. Would have oppurtunities.

*Ponders Harry watching Evangelion and becoming Zeruel*

And Dinosaur!Harry...that would be interesting.

And what about sight, Taure? Or hearing, touch and smell?

Regards
GM