#patronuses

[dirty-dirty-muggle]

Canonical vs Fanonical Symbolism of Matching Patronuses

There’s a persistent belief in HP fandom that both twin (identical) and paired (same species but different sexes) patronuses are symbolic of love, especially romantic love. But while researching for a different meta, it struck me that these beliefs aren’t canon, but rather an oversimplification of what they truly represent, as well as a projection of a fixation on soulmates and “one true love.”

Note: I am considering canon in this case as the seven HP books only. I am not considering extracanonical sources.

Matching patronuses as symbols of grief

Notably, when Remus explains what patronuses are in PoA and why they change in HBP, he doesn’t mention love at all. A patronus is “a kind of anti-Dementor — a guardian which acts as a shield between you and the Dementor. The Patronus is a kind of positive force, a projection of the very things that the Dementor feeds upon — hope, happiness, the desire to survive.” It changes only due to “a great shock ... an emotional upheaval.”

The three most notable patronuses we see in canon are Harry’s, Severus’s, and Tonks’s, and all three match people they have lost in moments of emotional turmoil. These patronuses do represent love (but not necessarily romantic love) in a way, but it is lost love. They are a projection of grief and how that grief impacts the character’s desires, hopes, and reasons for living.

Harry’s patronus is James, representing a connection to the loss of his parents (who were quite literally acting as protective guardians when they died), and also his desire to keep Sirius, a surrogate father and a direct connection to James, alive. His patronus is steeped in grief and his desire for the loving family he never had.

Next we have Severus’s patronus, which represents the loss of Lily. It is an expression of his grief and guilt, and how his reasons for living and surviving become atonement for his role in Lily's death and the fulfillment of her final wish. (I have a lot more to say on this that I'll put in a separate meta.)

Tonks is where things get really interesting, because I believe Tonks's patronus represents both Remus and Sirius. First, her patronus is never explicitly stated to be a wolf, but a “an immense silvery four-legged creature”. Large canines are connected to both Remus, a werewolf, and Sirius, whose animagus form is a grim (We have someone else whose patronus represent a person's animagus form, don't we?). I don't think Tonks had a romantic relationship with Sirius, but it's clear in the text she is grieving over his death at the time her patronus changed, and according to Hermione, "She thinks it was her fault he died" (Again, sounding like anyone else we know?). What I think is that her grief over Sirius compounded the loss of Remus rejecting her, creating the necessary emotional upheaval for her patronus to change (not to forget Remus's own grief impacting his decision to reject her in the first place), and Remus comes to represent Tonks's hope for a future—because he’s still alive and a romantic relationship remains possible. It's okay if you believe her patronus is only representative of Remus, but I feel like there's too many connections to Sirius to ignore (and I love how it gives her patronus a connection to both Harry's and Snape's as well). It represents lost love either way.

It’s clear these sorts of patronuses are based in love, but it is lost love and the subsequent desires and motivations as a result of that grief that create their forms, not the expression of love on its own.

Twin and paired patronuses as symbols of intended or true love

Canon contains zero explicit examples of identical twin or paired patronuses, and the patronuses we do see do not represent true love nor destiny, so this one is fanon.

In regards to two people sharing the same patronus forms, canon only implies these exist based on Snape's and Tonks's forms, and some assumptions on Harry's part. We never see nor hear about Lily's nor Remus's corporeal patronus forms in the books. As I argued above, what I think is canonical is patronuses that represent specific people, but those do not even represent romantic love, let alone "true love" or some sort of intention or fate.

As for romantic couples having male and female versions of the same species, these just straight up do not exist in canon, even by implication. “What about James and Lily?” you ask. Well, we never learn what James’ patronus is from the text of the books. As I mentioned earlier, Harry’s patronus is very clearly James’s animagus form; Harry, Remus, and Dumbledore all state it is Prongs.

The whole “James and Lily have paired patronuses” thing is from JKR (boo, hiss) online and in interviews. Given the nature of HP fandom, I’m not surprised people glommed onto it and expanded from there. But paired patronuses aren't present in the books at all.

Also, yes, if we’re being pedantic about it, stags and does don’t even come from the same species, but I think it’s safe to assume that JKR didn’t know that and as with a lot of things in HP, should have looked it up but didn’t. Accepting for a moment that James’s patronus is a stag, if we look again at what patronuses actually represent, according to the definition in the books, James having a patronus that matches his animagus form would seem to imply that his “hope, happiness, and desire to survive” is a lot more connected to himself and the Marauders than Lily. So basically, if that’s what JKR intended, she fucked up in multiple ways. 

For the record, I think patronuses as symbols of destiny/true love are fun fanon to play with (I’ve used the concept in fics myself). I’m only arguing that it is not canon, but one of those fanon beliefs that is so prevalent that people assume it is. As always, do with this information as you will.

[asymmetrycals]

next gen’s patronuses

i spent literally 2 hours researching animals and their symbolism trying to figure out the perfect ones lol but i think i got it

james: st bernard

albus: little owl

lily: manx cat

rose: adder

hugo: ocicat

roxanne: dolphin

fred: fox terrier

molly: robin 

lucy: vulture

victoire: crow

dominique: fox

louis: black swan

teddy: husky

scorpius: mountain hare

lorcan: hedgehog

lysander: badger

i mainly used the meanings here here and here :)

[once-i-was-hopeful]

Snape’s patronus is a doe because he loves Lily, right? But...why? In what way does a doe represent Lily in Snape’s mind? I think Harry says it’s because her patronus was a doe, but he never saw her patronus and I don’t remember anyone else confirming that.

[legendarcadia]

I didn’t draw for almost six months and now I can’t seem to stop. I’ve gotten a lot of inspiration from my writing and found myself wanting to draw patronuses. I drew Snape’s since his patronus is brought up in chapter 13 of A Light in the Dark.

It seems like things like love and death or other big changes in life can cause a patronus to change. I think if something changes you as a person, your patronus can change. In A Light in the Dark, Severus does not realize the impact Laura has had on him, nor the impact it would have on his patronus. A patronus is part of someone forever so it is interesting to see what happened between Laura and Severus and yet, his patronus was impacted by their relationship.

I often think about if patronuses existed as to what mine might be. Even when reading Harry Potter or watching the movies, I start thinking about what memory I would use to cast one, and I have trouble finding one, most like because of depression, but I hope one day I find a memory that fills me with hope and happiness.

[sneverussape]

death eaters and patronii

today i’m thinking about the claim (by jkr iirc) that death eaters can’t produce patronuses/patronii (i prefer that second term; sounds cooler) because they’re ‘dark wizards’ or some such nonsense. snape was an exception to the rule, she said, because his love for lily was enough to declare him ‘good’.

i vehemently reject that notion (as well as the several related points on it) on principle. 

suspending the fact that death eaters were allied with dementors and ‘had no need’ for a patronus, why wouldn’t they be able to create one for the heck of it? jkr said that it’s ‘complex magic’ but harry as well as the rest of his class managed to do it while they were still in hogwarts. you’re telling me people like wormtail, 1/4 of a group that created an enchanted interactive map when they were teenagers and an unregistered animagus, wouldn’t be able to? skill requirement claim = flawed.

there’s also the argument that they are ‘dark wizards’, but what does this mean? wasn’t it implied durmstrang was a school for ‘dark wizards’ and yet hogwarts was allied with them? is it someone then who is well-versed in the dark arts and is therefore a ‘bad’ person? dumbledore himself was a pro at the dark arts, was also besties with grindelwald, the proto-tom riddle, and yet he could clearly produce one. snape too was a dark wizard, quite obviously, and was not a nice person, yet his doe was an integral part in winning the war. this also excludes people like, say, the black family, who were ‘dark’ wizards, yet tonks was able to produce a patronus, and i sincerely doubt that they themselves were saints. so moral requirement claim = also flawed.

it also doesn’t make sense because ‘light’ wizards are able to cast Unforgivables with seeming ease, as long as they have the full intention to do them. harry himself was able to cast one. it’s bs because it implies then that using these spells for torture or killing by the ‘right’ people is ok, but ‘light’ spells can’t even be cast by ‘dark’ wizards? what harmful things can they actually do with a patronus apart from probably sending lewd messages to each other? (and they would pls i can imagine a doe and a peacock flitting back and forth just to throw obscenities at their recipient’s faces). it’s such a glaring double standard.

with regard to happy memories too, like...i’m sure they’d have them? even if the ‘requirement’ was that they should be ‘pure’ memories, i’m sure even people like lucius would have some, of his wife, or draco, at the very least. (raises the question too of what if your happy memory was causing someone else pain? *cough*sirius*cough* what if it was that, jkr, huh?)

i know it’s fiction but it’s annoying that this type of thinking automatically polarizes certain things and places people in categories of either being fundamentally bad or inherently good with nothing in between, when the truth of it is humans are complex rational beings who are capable of change and whose behaviors are dependent on several factors at a time. i’m not saying the DEs were actually great people, but they were human, and they definitely should have been able to produce a patronus if they had needed to. 

(example of when they could have used a patronus: not all death eaters were killing machines, or had started as such; some were forced into the fold, like draco, so likely wouldn’t have had the same confidence with dementors. they would have needed that spell if only to keep themselves safe, and that’s not a bad thing??)

[mugglenet]

Funko Pop! extends its “Harry Potter” line with designs of four Hogwarts professors’ Patronuses, all of which are available to pre-order before their wider release next month.

[mugglenet]

Funko Pop! extends its “Harry Potter” line with designs of four Hogwarts professors’ Patronuses, all of which are available to pre-order before their wider release next month.

[lynx-tales]

People just really enjoy representing themselves with animals huh