That was when the shining creature came to him, gleaming soft white beneath the candlefires of the Ravenclaw common room, as it slithered out from nowhere, the silver snake.
My second guess is that Minerva got in touch with Draco. She knows Harry taught him the Patronus from a conference in the headmasters office and has seen Harry’s reaction to losing Draco.
At first I dismissed it at a silly thing for her to try, but now that she will be really making an effort it seems much more likely.
Yeah, when I try to imagine future events in HPMoR, my brain keeps editing Minerva out. She was an NPC for so long that I’m having trouble factoring her in.
It’s just over 24 hours since Hermione died—he probably just found out. It’s the sort of reason you’d get in touch with a friend you used to know pretty well until recently.
Draco will have heard about Hermione’s death by now and probably wants to express his condolence and/or tell Harry that he has made a resolution to side with Harry as soon as he can.
Versions already mentioned somewhere: “It was sad she died”, “Harry, now you don’t owe anything to House Malfoy anymore”, “Father wants to disband Hogwarts because it’s not safe anymore, Wizengamot vote is tomorrow”.
My guess: the rationality-theme of this arc is roles, and this is relevant in almost every chapter. Probably something about Lucius playing a role of loving father instead of going off-script? Or Lucius playing the role of important Wizengamot member?
My second guess: it is connected to the (former?) belief of Lucius that Harry is Voldemort. Role of Death Eater overriding Lucius’s neocortex?
Third guess: “Harry, you remember the vow you gave to me about murderer of Narcissa Malfoy? Listen carefully. I swore to find the murderer of Hermione Jean Granger and...”
The first definition of “falsifiable” means that it’s easy to fake—if a Patronus is falsifiable under this definition, you don’t get much information when you see a Patronus, since it could easily be something else and you couldn’t tell the difference.
The second definition of “falsifiable” means that it’s easy to prove that it’s not fake—if a Patronus is falsifiable under this definition, you get a lot of information when you see a Patronus, since it is very difficult for something that looks like a Patronus to actually be a fake.
Because the two defintions are pretty much opposites, between them they cover everything—the ones that are easily fakeable and the ones that are not easily fakeable.
At least one of the definitions is applicable to any arbitrary proposition. Either (1) it can be counterfeited, implying that there’s no test you can perform to determine the true state of things, or (2) it can be tested to determine the true state of things.
I was under impression that “to counterfeit” means only “to create imperfect copies in order to fraud someone”, but it seems that it also means “to deceive”. Thank you!
That first is the primary usage. Usually there is some way to tell a counterfeit from the real thing, but one can theoretically make a counterfeit that’s indistinguishable from the original. I have only rarely heard it in the sense of “to deceive”.
It doesn’t actually say that it’s from Draco, and Quirrelmort would probably have a snake patronus if he somehow managed to cast it after his conversation with Harry.
We do know that two people can have the same Patronus, though, so it’s not a matter of shape.
In canon—but even in canon those people who ended up with the shape of someone else’s Patronus didn’t seem to do so deliberately, nor with intent to deceive.
We already know that Draco’s patronus is a snake, and it is reasonable to assume that Quirrelmort’s patronus would be a snake as well (given that he’s a snake animagus).
That sounds reasonable, but unless everything we saw about Quirrel is lie, he is unable to cast animal Patronus, being cynical sociopathic rationalist with a homicidal tendencies.
There is some possibility that Quirrel have analyzed his conversation with Harry, words about “rejection of Death as a part of natural order” and picture of stars being able to keep Dementation away and re-discovered True Patronus (there is speculation about Quirrel being enemy of Death, so it at least plausible), but True Patronus couldn’t look like a snake.
PS: Your argument partly applies to the Patronus of Lucius being a snake, though.
I see no justification for that statement. Perhaps True Patronuses can’t take the form of an animal, but that says nothing about what they can look like.
Would a sentient snake wizard say a True Patronus can’t look like an ape?
Being a transhumanist, and being good at the kind of mental gymnastics that allowed him to do partial transfiguration, Harry might be able to change his Patronus into any form he likes if he tries hard enough. We know mental stuff can change Patronuses in canon: Tonks’ Patronus changed due to her feelings for Lupin, though she didn’t do it on purpose.
Huh, I was sure you are able to choose your Animagus form, but it appears I was mistaken.
Apparently you become the animal that suits you best.
Still, there is a potential for a creative Legilemency and False-Memory Charm casted on oneself in order to create an appropriate self-image. Assuming Bellatrix was an Animagus before meeting Voldemort, was her Animagus form changed when she was shattered into pieces and re-combined into someone else?
Also, what if I Memory-Charm myself to believe that common characteristics of spiders are intelligence and courage? Will my Animagus form change depending on the beliefs of native population (e.g. if you are very cunning, you will be snake in Britain, fox in Russia and mongoose in Asia)?
ETA: Can’t stop thinking about it. Created a topic on Reddit since I feel like Reddit is more suitable for a this discussion: LW is serious and I prefer it to stay this way.
I’m fairly sure it would be easier to change your regular Patronus form than become an Animagus multiple times, even if you could choose what to become. As most people haven’t learnt the True Patronus, they would be able to have animal Patroni.
Lucius is pretty darn likely to have a snake patronus, yes. However, there is one other character we know of with a snake patronus. Slytherin himself. It is highly likely to be Draco—the timing is about right for him to learn Hermione died, but hey..
However, Harry knows that Draco’s snake is specifically a Blue Krait, and has seen it before. The probability that Quirrell would end up with a Blue Krait by pure chance is low.
The reference in the text doesn’t state anything more than that it was a snake, not that it was a Blue Krait. We don’t even get to see Harry’s reaction, be it familiarity or perceiving it as novel.
The snake is described as “gleaming soft white” and “silver”, which fits with the description of a patronus. And as it doesn’t match the description of Quirrelmort’s animagus snake “bright green and intricately banded in white and blue”, it is clearly not Quirrelmort’s animagus form.
While I assign a much higher probability that we just saw Drako’s patronus, we can’t rule out the possibility that it was someone else’s patronus, including Quirrelmort, even though I see those odds as being exceptionally low.
Sorry, I thought you were implying that Harry might be deceived by Quirrell pretending to be Draco, not that you were making a comment on what we can predict about the next chapter.
Just because Harry saw the snake Patronus doesn’t mean he recognizes the species. He probably could recognize the same Patronus, but maybe not; Harry paid more attention to it than a regular snake, but if I saw a snake once, and then saw another snake three months later, I don’t think I’d be sure they were the same even if I did have reason to think they were.
True. Then again, Harry knew when he taught Draco that one of the uses of a Patronus is to carry unfakeable messages, for which you need to know exactly what the other person’s Patronus looks like. Also, it’s the snake on Lucius’s cane, which we know he paid attention to. If he recognised Draco’s snake as that snake, it would set it firmly enough in his mind that he might recognise it when he saw it again.
Quirrel is said to be unable to cast the Patronus, and the established explanations for how it works makes it likely that this is true. Anyway, Harry already talked to Quirrel; no need for a second encounter.
Even if Quirrel had somehow learned how to cast a Patronus (which seems unlikely), why would he need to use it to communicate with Harry now?
Perhaps Quirrel learned to cast a Patronus as a consequence of his discussion with Harry, in which case he may want to (1) say “thank you”, and (2) discuss new plans that now seem meaningful to him.
Even if that were the case, a Patronus delivers its message in the exact voice of the person who spoke to it, and as far as I know, that can’t be falsified. This means that not only will we find out if it’s Draco (almost certainly is), but we’ll also know if he’s in trouble or under duress (pretty likely; he’s Harry’s second best friend).
A good guess, if it’s someone else than Draco. But where and when did that happen? Are you referring to Harry’s comment “I thought of my absolute rejection of death as the natural order.” in Chapter 46? Neither of the gentlemen present thought that was sufficient information for understanding how to cast a Patronus.
Even if that was sufficient understanding, neither of those gentlemen seem to absolutely reject death as the natural order. Nor, for that matter, do Harry or Eliezer. They reject death as proper and good, but I’m confident that most would admit that it is natural. The other people present don’t seem to do that, though, and would be unlikely to be able to cast a True Patronus.
Something like this would be my first guess. Draco torn between the roles of son and friend, either revealing to Harry information about Malfoy faction involvement in Hermione’s death or trying to convince Harry that they aren’t responsible.
Any guesses why Draco is contacting Harry?
My second guess is that Minerva got in touch with Draco. She knows Harry taught him the Patronus from a conference in the headmasters office and has seen Harry’s reaction to losing Draco.
At first I dismissed it at a silly thing for her to try, but now that she will be really making an effort it seems much more likely.
Yeah, when I try to imagine future events in HPMoR, my brain keeps editing Minerva out. She was an NPC for so long that I’m having trouble factoring her in.
It’s just over 24 hours since Hermione died—he probably just found out. It’s the sort of reason you’d get in touch with a friend you used to know pretty well until recently.
Draco will have heard about Hermione’s death by now and probably wants to express his condolence and/or tell Harry that he has made a resolution to side with Harry as soon as he can.
Draco’s Patronus says in Parseltongue, “OK, we have the girl-child’ss body and are keeping it cold as insstructed. Now what?”
This probably isn’t it just because it would’ve wasted a great opportunity for a chapter ending.
Versions already mentioned somewhere: “It was sad she died”, “Harry, now you don’t owe anything to House Malfoy anymore”, “Father wants to disband Hogwarts because it’s not safe anymore, Wizengamot vote is tomorrow”.
My guess: the rationality-theme of this arc is roles, and this is relevant in almost every chapter. Probably something about Lucius playing a role of loving father instead of going off-script? Or Lucius playing the role of important Wizengamot member?
My second guess: it is connected to the (former?) belief of Lucius that Harry is Voldemort. Role of Death Eater overriding Lucius’s neocortex?
Third guess: “Harry, you remember the vow you gave to me about murderer of Narcissa Malfoy? Listen carefully. I swore to find the murderer of Hermione Jean Granger and...”
Is that even Draco? I think Gung Uneel nppvqragnyyl gnhtug Dhveeryzbeg gb Cngebahf.
Patroni have been previously claimed to be effectively unfalsifiable. I, for one, am certain it’s from Draco.
Are you sure you don’t mean you mean extremely falsifiable? It is very easy to tell a true patronus from something else.
Different usages: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsifiable
I’m referring to the first usage—it can’t be counterfeited.
Ugh. Apparently the two definitions partition the set of all things.
Great, now everything is falsifiable.
I don’t get it. Could you explain it please?
The first definition of “falsifiable” means that it’s easy to fake—if a Patronus is falsifiable under this definition, you don’t get much information when you see a Patronus, since it could easily be something else and you couldn’t tell the difference.
The second definition of “falsifiable” means that it’s easy to prove that it’s not fake—if a Patronus is falsifiable under this definition, you get a lot of information when you see a Patronus, since it is very difficult for something that looks like a Patronus to actually be a fake.
Because the two defintions are pretty much opposites, between them they cover everything—the ones that are easily fakeable and the ones that are not easily fakeable.
Aha! Thank you!
My mistake was that I kept thinking about “false” as in “false theory” instead of “false” as in “false money”.
At least one of the definitions is applicable to any arbitrary proposition. Either (1) it can be counterfeited, implying that there’s no test you can perform to determine the true state of things, or (2) it can be tested to determine the true state of things.
(non-native speaker here)
I was under impression that “to counterfeit” means only “to create imperfect copies in order to fraud someone”, but it seems that it also means “to deceive”. Thank you!
That first is the primary usage. Usually there is some way to tell a counterfeit from the real thing, but one can theoretically make a counterfeit that’s indistinguishable from the original. I have only rarely heard it in the sense of “to deceive”.
It doesn’t actually say that it’s from Draco, and Quirrelmort would probably have a snake patronus if he somehow managed to cast it after his conversation with Harry.
What probabilities do you assign on it being from Draco and on it being from Quirrelmort?
Something like 60 − 40 or so.
Heh. Mine are something like 95% and 1%. I’d actually consider it more likely for it to be Lucius’s patronus, than it to be Quirrel’s.
And here is a PredictionBook link.
EDIT: And one for the second prediction.
It’s unfalsifiable, but we don’t know what that means. We do know that two people can have the same Patronus, though, so it’s not a matter of shape.
In canon—but even in canon those people who ended up with the shape of someone else’s Patronus didn’t seem to do so deliberately, nor with intent to deceive.
We already know that Draco’s patronus is a snake, and it is reasonable to assume that Quirrelmort’s patronus would be a snake as well (given that he’s a snake animagus).
That sounds reasonable, but unless everything we saw about Quirrel is lie, he is unable to cast animal Patronus, being cynical sociopathic rationalist with a homicidal tendencies.
There is some possibility that Quirrel have analyzed his conversation with Harry, words about “rejection of Death as a part of natural order” and picture of stars being able to keep Dementation away and re-discovered True Patronus (there is speculation about Quirrel being enemy of Death, so it at least plausible), but True Patronus couldn’t look like a snake.
PS: Your argument partly applies to the Patronus of Lucius being a snake, though.
I see no justification for that statement. Perhaps True Patronuses can’t take the form of an animal, but that says nothing about what they can look like.
Would a sentient snake wizard say a True Patronus can’t look like an ape?
Being a transhumanist, and being good at the kind of mental gymnastics that allowed him to do partial transfiguration, Harry might be able to change his Patronus into any form he likes if he tries hard enough. We know mental stuff can change Patronuses in canon: Tonks’ Patronus changed due to her feelings for Lupin, though she didn’t do it on purpose.
1) Research wandless magic
2) Become a cat Animagus
3) Cast a True Patronus Charm while in a cat form
4) Awesome, now you can impersonate Patronus of McGonnagal and no members of Order of Phoenix can trust each other anymore!
5) Ask an Auror friend to destroy your Animagus form.
6) Become a spider Animagus
7) ???
8) Terrify people!
For this to work a wizard would need to be able to choose what Animagus form to take.
Huh, I was sure you are able to choose your Animagus form, but it appears I was mistaken.
Apparently you become the animal that suits you best.
Still, there is a potential for a creative Legilemency and False-Memory Charm casted on oneself in order to create an appropriate self-image. Assuming Bellatrix was an Animagus before meeting Voldemort, was her Animagus form changed when she was shattered into pieces and re-combined into someone else?
Also, what if I Memory-Charm myself to believe that common characteristics of spiders are intelligence and courage? Will my Animagus form change depending on the beliefs of native population (e.g. if you are very cunning, you will be snake in Britain, fox in Russia and mongoose in Asia)?
ETA: Can’t stop thinking about it. Created a topic on Reddit since I feel like Reddit is more suitable for a this discussion: LW is serious and I prefer it to stay this way.
I’m fairly sure it would be easier to change your regular Patronus form than become an Animagus multiple times, even if you could choose what to become. As most people haven’t learnt the True Patronus, they would be able to have animal Patroni.
Lucius is pretty darn likely to have a snake patronus, yes. However, there is one other character we know of with a snake patronus. Slytherin himself. It is highly likely to be Draco—the timing is about right for him to learn Hermione died, but hey..
Probably the only two things the True Patronus can look like are humans and snakes. Possibly flying squirrels?
What about parsley?
Since when does this universe have parsleymouths?
However, Harry knows that Draco’s snake is specifically a Blue Krait, and has seen it before. The probability that Quirrell would end up with a Blue Krait by pure chance is low.
The reference in the text doesn’t state anything more than that it was a snake, not that it was a Blue Krait. We don’t even get to see Harry’s reaction, be it familiarity or perceiving it as novel.
The snake is described as “gleaming soft white” and “silver”, which fits with the description of a patronus. And as it doesn’t match the description of Quirrelmort’s animagus snake “bright green and intricately banded in white and blue”, it is clearly not Quirrelmort’s animagus form.
While I assign a much higher probability that we just saw Drako’s patronus, we can’t rule out the possibility that it was someone else’s patronus, including Quirrelmort, even though I see those odds as being exceptionally low.
Sorry, I thought you were implying that Harry might be deceived by Quirrell pretending to be Draco, not that you were making a comment on what we can predict about the next chapter.
The chance that Quirrell would do anything by pure chance is low.
Just because Harry saw the snake Patronus doesn’t mean he recognizes the species. He probably could recognize the same Patronus, but maybe not; Harry paid more attention to it than a regular snake, but if I saw a snake once, and then saw another snake three months later, I don’t think I’d be sure they were the same even if I did have reason to think they were.
True. Then again, Harry knew when he taught Draco that one of the uses of a Patronus is to carry unfakeable messages, for which you need to know exactly what the other person’s Patronus looks like. Also, it’s the snake on Lucius’s cane, which we know he paid attention to. If he recognised Draco’s snake as that snake, it would set it firmly enough in his mind that he might recognise it when he saw it again.
File under “more evidence needed”.
Quirrel is said to be unable to cast the Patronus, and the established explanations for how it works makes it likely that this is true. Anyway, Harry already talked to Quirrel; no need for a second encounter.
Even if Quirrel had somehow learned how to cast a Patronus (which seems unlikely), why would he need to use it to communicate with Harry now?
Am still sure it’s Draco.
Perhaps Quirrel learned to cast a Patronus as a consequence of his discussion with Harry, in which case he may want to (1) say “thank you”, and (2) discuss new plans that now seem meaningful to him.
Even if that were the case, a Patronus delivers its message in the exact voice of the person who spoke to it, and as far as I know, that can’t be falsified. This means that not only will we find out if it’s Draco (almost certainly is), but we’ll also know if he’s in trouble or under duress (pretty likely; he’s Harry’s second best friend).
It wasn’t deliberate, but it wasn’t coincidental either. Snape’s Patronus was the same as Lily’s because Snape loved Lily.
A good guess, if it’s someone else than Draco. But where and when did that happen? Are you referring to Harry’s comment “I thought of my absolute rejection of death as the natural order.” in Chapter 46? Neither of the gentlemen present thought that was sufficient information for understanding how to cast a Patronus.
Even if that was sufficient understanding, neither of those gentlemen seem to absolutely reject death as the natural order. Nor, for that matter, do Harry or Eliezer. They reject death as proper and good, but I’m confident that most would admit that it is natural. The other people present don’t seem to do that, though, and would be unlikely to be able to cast a True Patronus.
Lucius is behind the murder of Hermione.
Something like this would be my first guess. Draco torn between the roles of son and friend, either revealing to Harry information about Malfoy faction involvement in Hermione’s death or trying to convince Harry that they aren’t responsible.