|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minerva the Bookwyrm Crew
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:16 am
Death Eaters and Patronuses
I have come to the conclusion that any person that any Death Eaters loved would not be willing and/or able to protect them should the need arise. Now, I’ll explain how I reached this conclusion and you all can let me know what you think. smile
J. K. Rowling said in this interview that “Snape was the only Death Eater that could produce a full Patronus…because a Patronus is used against things that the Death Eaters generally generate, or fight alongside. They would not need Patronuses” True, a Death Eater normally wouldn’t NEED a Patronus, but she said that only Snape COULD make one in the odd event that one was ever needed. Why might this be?
Well, we know from Harry’s stag, Tonk’s werewolf, and Snape’s doe that a Patronus is represented by a person that you love. Because of this, it’s safe to assume that people will be unable to make Patronuses if there is no one whose life and happiness that they value more than their own.
Loving someone more than oneself would explain why Voldemort and Wormtail cannot create Patronuses, but it cannot be the only requirement for the enchantment since we have seen that Lucius loves Draco and Bellatrix loves Voldemort. This is why I believe that it has to do with the person that you love more than yourself being able and/or willing to protect you in return. Voldemort would certainly not risk himself to protect Bella, and Draco is not the greatest of wizards, so while he’d WANT to shield his parents he might not be capable of doing so.
After all, the word “patronus” means “protector” in Latin. It is derived from “pater,” meaning “father,” which is interesting considering that Harry’s Patronus indicates his father. You could also break it down into the English “patron,” who is a “protector, helper.” It makes me curious as to who Hermione’s otter, Cho’s swan, and Luna’s rabbit represent.
Anyway, there’s my theory! whee What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:13 pm
That is very interesting, Min. You make quite a good point.
As for the part about what other things represent is where I wanted to present my opinion. I think not only does patronuses represent your love but also your personality. Tonks had a patronus that was different from the wolf in the 5th book. Thus, I think since Luna hasn't found a love (or maybe it represents her mom), Cho was having messed up feelings, and Hermione and Ron were still in the whole, I like like you part of the relationship when we read about it in OotP. It didn't really reflect their loves then. It might change in the future though biggrin !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AdmiralAdamaismyanti-drug
|
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:26 pm
I feel I must input that in the 6th book, after Sirius had died, even though it was really because she was in love with Lupin, Tonk's patronus changed shape, so in a way, I too feel that it does to a point represent what you love. But, I also feel that in a way, it is a lot like the Mirror of Erised, it might show a part of your hearts most deepest desire. Like Harry, wishing he could have known his father; Snape, loving Lily, and hating the Dark Lord for killing her.
Honestly, mine would probably be a Lionhound, the bravest of all dogs, beacuase I am calm in the face of danger, and I look out for those around me. I just recently had a friend pass out while running during school, and we carried him, because he couldn't walk, to the nurses office, and I didn't leave his side until I knew that someone was there to take care of him. I made sure that he didn't fall off the bed when he started seizing.
Which leads me to the fact that I feel that a patronus would most represent how you view yourself above all else. Harry views himself much like he viewed his father, and Snape I guess sort of blames himself for allowing Lily to be killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:18 am
Sure, Patronuses change shape sometimes, but no matter what I still believe the form indicates someone that you love...just maybe a different individual than before. I like the Mirror of Erised idea. It's the magical item exclusive to HP World that I'd like to see most! Although, Voldemort and all of the DE's would have a deepest desire, and they can't make Patronuses, so I'm not certain that concept completely works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minerva the Bookwyrm Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:27 pm
Well, of course they can't. Not only is making a Patronus itself difficult, but didn't Lupin say that most wizards couldn't get past an indistinct Patronus into making a corporeal one? That refers to the general population. Making a full-body Patronus is apparently rather difficult and not widely accomplished. And besides that, has any Death Eater besides Snape ever tried to make a Patronus? I think what Jo was trying to say in that interview was that none of them have tried, because they don't need to. (Almost exactly what she said, by the way.) And because they don't need to try, none of them can make a corporeal Patronus.
I believe you are looking too closely at the linguistic choice of the word "can't." Let me use an analogy to display how we use the word with one of the first things that popped into my head. Can you play the piano if you have never tried to learn? But can you play it so well that you could pass for a professional? Most can't. And does having an affinity for silence or liking silence make it any easier to want to try to play the piano? And play it well?
All the people in Jo's world had a reason to want to make a Patronus. All the members in the Order had to learn how to make a Patronus to communicate back and forth; Harry had to learn because of his extreme reaction to the effects of Dementors; and the DA learned because Harry taught them to protect themselves from the harmful effects of the Dementors who were out of the Ministry's control. And a few high-ranking Ministry officials had to learn to keep the Dementors under the control of the Ministry. But other than that, it is not a spell that is widely taught or practiced. The Dementors are supposed to stay in Azkaban most of the time.
I believe that the form of a Patronus is first and foremost, a reflection of oneself. Then, it is a reflection of what one thinks will protect oneself. And finally it is a demonstration of the effects that a love has had on oneself. And when the changes that love has caused overwhelms the previous self-perception, that is when it changes.
For example, Hermione's otter. An otter is really a reflection of Hermione. It also displays what Hermione thinks will protect her, and that is her intellect, as an otter is quite intelligent. Hermione's love for Ron didn't really change her perception of herself or her perception of what would protect her. She still trusted in her intellect to protect her.
Also, Snape's doe. I expect that he might have produced a different Patronus if he had learned as young as Harry did. It doesn't necessarily demonstrate the reflection of himself, but it does indicate the protection and the changes of the love he holds for Lily.
Now, the love has been associated with his Patronus already, so the more interesting thing to look at is how he thinks of it as a protection. For the love of Lily is what Dumbledore is able to trust in, and thereby Snape's salvation from Azkaban, and his security in the current life. It is his love for Lily which prompts the remorse that heals him as it never could heal Voldemort, and Snape's soul's salvation. It symbolizes the love, but also the protection Lily provides.
Lastly, I think I'll end with Tonks's werewolf. Like Snape, it is a Patronus that demonstrates the changes a love can have on one's perception of oneself. Tonks did have a previous Patronus, and depending on how often she used her Patronus to communicate with Snape and the people in his company, it changed sometime during Harry's fifth year.
Whether this is before or after Sirius died, I'm not sure if we have confirmation. Harry assumes the latter, but he also assumes that it is a bear-like dog for Sirius, rather than a werewolf for Remus. But her initial Patronus did demonstrate her perception of herself and what would protect her. And after falling in love with Lupin and letting that love change her, her Patronus reflected that change, and also her trust in Remus to protect her. And trusting a werewolf is a pretty big thing in Jo's world, so I find that Patronus one of the most tender and touching that she allows us to see.
Good topic, Minerva!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:09 pm
Matelia, I LOVE your theory! That makes so much sense. I see your a Ravenclaw for a reason. That was way deeper then I would've thought. (Unless I sat here for like 30 minutes!)
I am posting here for a reason besides complimenting Matelia xd . I was on HP Wiki today (because I read it and HP Lex all the time!) and I read something about Hermione's patronus I thought to be interesting.
Quote: Hermione's Patronus, an otter, is Rowling's favorite animal. The otter is in the family Mustelidae, the same as the weasel, which is the origin of the surname Weasley. In addition, the Weasleys live in Ottery St. Catchpole, possibly foreshadowing Hermione's marriage into the family.
I read that and thought of this topic so I thought I'd share it. biggrin .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minerva the Bookwyrm Crew
|
Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:40 pm
Quote: a Patronus that demonstrates the changes a love can have on one's perception of oneself.
Although, I don't think I analysed the word "can't" too closely. I've read loads of fantasy novels where the difference between can't/wont/don't are extremely significant, and JKR likes to be vague and subtle most of the time.
Thanks for sharing, Suze!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 pm
Thank you Min! Thanks, Suze! And yes, I have lots of fun overthinking certain types of things. So the Sorting Hat made me a Ravenclaw. ^_^ Yay for Ravenclaw!
But Min, in the interview, it isn't Jo that uses the word, it's the person asking the question. And we do typically say that somebody can't sing, or they can't play the piano, even if they have the potential to do those things if they worked at it.
I've been trying to find the source for this since my last reply, but I finally found it. On her website, in the FAQ section is this Q&A:
Q: What is Draco Malfoy’s Patronus?
A: As of the end of Half-Blood Prince, he has no idea how to produce one, so nobody knows. You must remember that the ability to produce a Patronus demonstrates an advanced level of magic not routinely taught to young Hogwarts students (hence the surprise of the prospective members of Dumbledore’s Army when they find out that Harry can make a Patronus).
And so, no one knows Draco's Patronus, because he's never tried to make one yet. Is this similar to the rest of the Death Eaters? You decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 10:11 pm
If no death eater but Snape could produce a patronus does/did that include Peter? As a member of the order you would think he had to know, but since he was also a death eater. Did he actually know? And if so, doesn't mean that two Death Eaters could produce a patronus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:19 am
I don't think Wormtail could make one. JKR said Snape was the only DE that could, knowing full well that Wormail was a DE too. I think that this is probably because Wormtail doesn't love/value anyone's life more than his own.
Most Order members have to be able to make Patronuses in order to receive messags, but if one or two members were unable to perform the difficult charm, I doubt Dumbledore would forbid them from being an in the Order.He'd welcome anyone wishing to defeat Voldemort. Order members probably traveled in groups/pairs for safety, so Dumbledore would just make sure that someone that couldn't form a Patronus was matched up with someone that could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minerva the Bookwyrm Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
