Patronus Forms

[choki]

Harry's patronus is a stag, the animagus form his father took.
Hermione's patronus is an otter. Otter is often associated with playfulness.
Cho's patronus is a swan. Swan symbolises beauty and grace.

What significance does the patronus form plays? Out of the DA members, only Hermione and Cho manage to conjure a corporeal patronus with Harry's help of course. Hermione, probably being the smartest witch in the entire school, is convincing enough to be able to conjure that, but Cho? Why is Cho mentioned instead of other characters such as Fred, George who also seems clever and capable?

[Alice I]

Hey Choki I like the scarf!

Well Cho is a Ravenclaw so she is obviously smart even if she is an emotionally crippled individual. (That is a nice way of saying she is a simpering idiot )

You make a good point about Fred and George. They are defiantly smart enough and talented enough to come up with full corporeal patronus'. Maybe she just didn't put in all the lovely little tidbits that we wanted because then the book would have been too large to fit in a standard sized school bag!

[choki]

I read it from somewhere that the patronus reflects the caster's personality. Is the Patronus Charm in the NEWT level?

I wonder if there are any other functions of patronus.

[Athena Appleton]

I'll have to reread that part, but I got the idea that several students were able to do the Patronus, but only Hermione's and Cho's were mentioned. Like I said, I'll have to reread it, as I haven't gone over that part in a long time.

[Dumbledores Master]

I think it might just have been to say what they were doing while they talked but if it did have a special significance than what do you thinbk it could be.
I think it could be a hint as to a love triangle

[Groo]

i dont think the Patronus charm would be there at Newt level.. nothing has been mentioned of any other student like Percy being able to produce one so far

i think a Patronus has a bit to do with your personality but not as accurately as say your animagus form does. its like, your patronus form is in compliance with your personality but it is not an exact replica of it, thus wormtail's patronus wont be a rat.
but this is completely my own opinion

[Alice I]

Groo may be right.
Perhaps a patronus is something learned in Auror Training.

The only thing I remember being stated spacifically being NEWT level was the charm Hermione used on the coins so that they could set the DA meetings secreatly. (?sp)

[choki]

I re-read Book 5 recently. Other than Hermione and Cho who were able to conjure a corporeal patronus, the rest only conjured feeble wisps of silver except Seamus whose patronus is not definite but hairy.
So if Patronus charm is not tested in NEWT, they must be very advanced in Defence against the Dark Arts. Now that romance between Harry and Cho is near impossible. I wonder that role will Cho take in Book 6, not forgetting she is one of the three students who are able to conjure a corporeal patronus.

[Groo]

i somehow dont think that Cho's ability to produce a Patronus will have any later significance. Cho has a lot of importance in the fifth book and JKR took pains to mention her as often in the book as possible especially in connection with Harry.

[choki]

I'm not too sure but...ok here's what I think

Now that we know the Dementors are way out of the control of the Ministry of Magic and had probably joined Lord Voldemort's expanding forces. What if Voldemort decides to let the Dementors run wild in the wizarding world, perhaps as a mean to distract the Order's attention or as a mean to attack Hogwarts? The ability to conjure a corporeal patronus sure comes in handy.

[Gower]

It could be relelvant, but I don't know if Cho's Patronus is such a great achievement. She is a ravenclaw and the year above Harry, and also had been training hard with the DA. Maybe other students had problems just because they were younger.

[Nightcrawler]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I have my own theory that Harry's Patronus is a stag partly because of the spell his mother cast over him.

The spell protect(ed) him because of Lilly's love for Harry. But who else did Lilly love? Well, James of course. Is it possible that when Lilly was chaneling her love into Harry, she may have put a bit of love for James in there as well, thus affecting Harry's Patronus?

Also, JKR never fails to remind us that the Patronus charm is quite a difficult one, and requires an enourmous ammount of happiness. Don't you think that this would be especially hard for Harry, due to his unhappy upbringing?





What I origianlly meant to ask, before I got sidetracked there, was: does it ever specificly state that a Patronus always takes the form of an animal?

I mean, when Lupin told Harry about a Patronus, I belive Harry imagined his Patronus to be a Hagrid-sized ogre weilding a club.

And Seumuses Patronus could be some sort of animal -then again, it may not, all we know is that it is some sort of indistinguishable mass of hair.


Up until this point I always assumed that a Patronus was more "spirit" than it was animal.



My thoughts on current Patronus forms:

It was really cool that Harry's Patronus took the shape of "Prongs" that made perfect sense, and was a key issue later on.

I thought that Cho's "Swan" Patronus was rather cliche and whilst it reflected her obvious outer beuty, that was all the swan really did. But I suppose since Cho's a minor character, JKR gave her Patronus something to get the point across and little else (as not to confuse readers).

I am unsure why Hermione's Patronus is an Otter... the otter does not seem to reflect any part of her personality, perhaps something may come up in book 6 or 7 to explain why. (I think I may have to read over book 3, the part where Lupin explains Patronuses ("Patronusss"? "Patroni"?) and the forms they take)

As for Seamus, well what do we know about him so far? (Personally, I can't even remember who he is) Anyhow, we have seen three animal Patronusses so far, so I hope that Seamus's "ball-of-fluff" Patronus is something unique.


Sorry about the long post. I have a tendancy to ramble. 8)

[Dumbledores Master]

Maybe the Cho patronus was to show that she would have no real use in the next books because she is only a little sideline to show that harry is not completely devoid of emotion in the love area of things. Hermione`s otter could be to do with the fact that otters are quite smart and in every books description of an otter I see a mention of the words "sleek" and "powerful" so that could hint to her having a much more active role in the downfall of Voldemort than was previously thought.

[Nightcrawler]

Good point DM. Cho is not a particuly deep character unlike Harry, Snape, Neville etc.

Yeah, I totally agree that her only role in the series is to be a (failed) love interest for Harry. The books are quite long as it is and I suppose if JKR were to give EVERY character a thougrough backstory, they would be impossible to read. Cho is not even nearly as complex a character as Harry, so I suppose it would be difficult to give her a Patronus that makes you go "oh so that's why..." A swan, whilst being cliche is probably the simplest thing to do and if Cho is not going to play a larger part, then the reason behind her Patronus has been explained rather quickly.

I hope we see more of them in the upcoming books -I want to know what Snape's Patronus is.

[Phinea Rogue]

I hope we see more of them in the upcoming books -I want to know what Snape's Patronus is.

If he can produce a Patronus, he must use some good memory, I wonder what his best memory can be.