Babbity Rabbity and Her Cackling Stump

[Kanksha]

Maybe that wasn't transfiguration then, it could be some sort of charm or even a plant like Gillyweed?

On another note, Fred and George's Canary Creams - would that be transfiguration too? I would guess not, it's way too complex for a pair of fifth years to attempt.

[Felix2090]

Originally Posted by Kanksha

Maybe that wasn't transfiguration then, it could be some sort of charm or even a plant like Gillyweed?

On another note, Fred and George's Canary Creams - would that be transfiguration too? I would guess not, it's way too complex for a pair of fifth years to attempt.

Babbity Rabbity! Yay! Yes, I would think that it was some sort of charm that Viktor Krum used in GoF.

I am not sure about the canary creams. I wouldn't think so, because as you said, it is complex magic even for them. Then again, they figured out all the rest of their products, and some of those are complex, so why couldn't they have?

[bookworm13]

It was one of my favorite stories. I found it funny that Babbity was able to manipulate everyone because they thought she was nothing but a stump, but really she was just hiding beneath it.
I didn't think that an Animagus could talk while they were an animal.

[Dan_the_Man]

It never says she is an animagus although it does make it sound like it. Here is what it says:

When the grounds were deserted once more, there wriggled from a hole between the roots of a tree stump a stout and whiskery old rabbit with a wand clamped between her teeth. Babbitty hopped out of the grounds and far away, and ever after a golden statue of the washerwoman stood upon the tree stump, and no witch or wizard was ever persecuted in the kingdom again.

She does talk but who said she was an animagus. It never mentions her turning back into an old washer woman...

[MrSleepyHead]

Originally Posted by Kanksha

Maybe that wasn't transfiguration then, it could be some sort of charm or even a plant like Gillyweed?

When announcing the results of the Second Task, Ludo Bagman says, "Viktor Krum used an incomplete form of Transfiguration, which was nevertheless effective..." (GoF, Ch. 26, Pg. 507).

Therefore, I think it is clear Krum did use Transfiguration, but the incomplete form may have allowed him to retain his human knowledge.

Originally Posted by Kanksha

On another note, Fred and George's Canary Creams - would that be transfiguration too? I would guess not, it's way too complex for a pair of fifth years to attempt.

Fred and George's products include a variety of complex magic. Though Hermione claims the twins only know "flashy stuff," I think that when they put their minds to an idea, they found a way to make it work. Therefore, I do not think it odd that Fred and George could put some sort of transfiguration charm on a canary cream to temporarily transform the person into a canary. In Beedle, Dumbledore states that Transfiguring oneself requires "somebody else to Transfigure one back to one's original form." I think the twins manipulated a charm so, instead of having to personally say a counterspell, the transfiguration spell would simply fade away after a short time (hence also why it would not need to be a very powerful transfiguration spell).

Originally Posted by bookworm13

I didn't think that an Animagus could talk while they were an animal.

Animagi cannot talk when in their animal form, according to Dumbledore:

The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Babbitty Rabbitty and Her Cackling Stump, Dumbledore's Notes It is worth noting at this point, hwoever, that while Beedle uses the talking-tree device to show us how ignorant the Muggle King is, he also asks us to believe that Babbitty can talk while she is a rabbit. This might be poetic license, but I think it more likely that Beedle had only heard about Animagi, and never met one, for this is the only liberty that he takes with magical laws in the story. Animagi do not retain the power of human speech while in their animal form, although they keep all their human thinking and reasoning powers.

I wonder if Dumbledore is including a personal experience when he notes "Beedle had only heard about Animagi, and never met one..." Does Dumbledore make his statement about Animagi not retaining human speech because he has spoken to McGonagall (or is it more likely Sirius or an unnamed Animagus, if one at all)?

Originally Posted by Dan_the_Man

She does talk but who said she was an animagus. It never mentions her turning back into an old washer woman...

Dumbledore speculates about it in his notes:

The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Babbitty Rabbitty and Her Cackling Stump, Dumbledore's Notes The tale of Babbitty Rabbitty does, however, give us one of the earliest literary mentions of an Animagus, for Babitty the washerwoman is possessed of the rare magical ability to transform into an animal at will.

[potterrifick]

This story was really good. Yes, it did remind me of "The Emperor's New Clothes" in a wizarding world context. It still has all the necessary elements including morals and values to make a brilliant story for children to enjoy.

[ronweasleysgrl]

I din't really like this story. I don't know why. It just seemed kind of.......weird.

[ardnaxela]

I think in regard to whether Babbity could have spoken in animagus form we need to look at the context - this is a fairy (or morality) tale and many things happen in such tales that are not possible in real life [regardless of whether 'real life' is our real life or the potterverse]

[PeverellWand]

Originally Posted by Yoana

I'd think so; also, he transformed his upper body plus his head - so it can be supposed that his mind was transformed too. And yet he kept human intelligence...

Maybe because he only transformed part of himself he was able to transform his upper body and head, but not his mind? I don't know if that would be possible, but he did use incomplete transfiguration, so could he choose what to transfigure?
Anyway, this was actually my favorite story. I loved Dumbldore's comments at the end.