I have similar thoughts about transfiguration, its complete change of one thing to another, and the fact that there could be ethical issues associated with it. Often I wondered why those poor kittens were vanished, but it ultimately came back to the Bible where man is created to be in a word, superior to all other beings, and none other than man have an immortal soul. Others rightly or wrongly can be considered food.

On another note, in my close read of the books for clues to what transfiguration really is, I found only few instances where the word transformation was used when I anticipated transfiguration. To back up a bit, when I started I anticipated that transfiguration and transformation would be used almost interchangeably - i.e. that during transfiguration, something would be described as being transformed from one thing to another. But interestingly, it is not. As careful as JKR was about her writing and layering, it made me think that perhaps in her world these were in fact two different things.

In almost all circumstances, the world transform is used to describe:
animagi, polyjuice potion, Voldemort, werewolves, veela, metamorphmagi, portkeys, and kelpies. The reference in OTP is also that time transforms the Death Eater's head into a baby head. In each of these references, the transformation seems to indicate that there is some part of the original still left behind. We know for example that polyjuice changes the exterior/body but not one's knowledge. An animagus retains its human thinking and reasoning powers.

However, when transfiguration is mentioned or takes place, JKR often uses the phrase "changes into" or "turns into" and almost never "transforms." Are they different? Can we tell by the exceptions?

The two exceptions: the golden dance floor is "transformed" during the wedding (does the fact that it is still a floor mean it's not transfiguration? weak, I admit) and more interestingly Hermoine "transforms" Ron's face at Shell Cottage before their trip to Diagon Alley in DH. If transfiguration is considered a permanent change, it is astounding that JKR uses transform in the case of rearranging Ron's face as the magical transformation is washed away in Gringott's tunnels. It led me to wonder that if he had been transfigured, and transfiguration is a complete change, then the Thief's Downfall would not have changed him back. What do you think about that?!

JKR has put out some great stuff! Keep the analysis coming, this is really fun!

That was well-written, and also really interesting. I do have to say, I disagree that the desk would really be a big, because you can't create food. That's a definite truth in the series. And wouldn't creating a pig essentially be creating food?
Nicely done, though! :-)

Author's Response: Thank you! The exact quote about food, though, is "You can't make food out of thin air!". So, if we follow my logic, you could make food out of something that already exists. That's why it's so complicated :)

Liked your article. One thing you forgot to mention: When Ron was a tender age of three, Fred turned Ron's teddy bear into a giant spider. Fred was five at the time. This contributed to Ron's fear of spiders. We don't know if the spider turned back into the teddy bear. It is possible one of their parents change it back to a bear.
Tonks was a metamorphagus. She changed her appearance at will. She was born that way. And her son Teddy, could also change his appearance at will. We learn that Tonks could change her hair color and her facial features. Teddy's hair color changed too. Could Tonks and Teddy turn into inanimate objects or just some of their features. And, Professor Slughorn turned himself into a chair. He was still Professor Slugorn, he was disguised as a chair. He wasn't transfigured, was he?

I found this article very interesting and thought I'd chip in my tuppence. I am reminded of book 7, when McGonagall must answer the question posed by the door of Ravenclaw Tower, "Where do vanished objects go?" her answer, "Into nonbeing," is clever and correct, and also conflicts with one of the basic laws of physics; that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, merely changed into something else.
As that statement conflicts with the laws of physics, this is where the subject of Transfiguration makes things interesting. It changes matter. Does what McGonagall said then apply to the subject of Transfiguration? Do the slippers simply go into a state of nonbeing until their owner decides to change them back into bunnies?

What happens to the consciousness of that bunny? What if I transfigure the bunny into a horse? Does the horse retain the memories it had as a bunny?

I don't think that changing one thing into another and leaving it there is ethical. Especially if what you're transfiguring the living thing into happens to be inanimate. But, this also creates the question, what if ti's reversible? What about if I turn something inanimate into something animate?

Questions questions everywhere, and not an answer in sight. Good article though.