The way portraits talk. WAS: Re: Dumbledore's death

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 139377

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...>
wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mimbeltonia" <mimbeltonia at y...> 
> wrote:
> >They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some 
> > counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. 
> > They repeat catchphrases, almost.  

> 
> maybe Dumbledore's portrait will keep repeating that he still trusts 
> Severus Snape ;-) and so should Harry.  As well as other true & 
> trusted phrases.
> 
> colebiancardi

bboyminn:

On one hand I don't believe that living-portraits are mere charactures
of their former selves, although Mrs. Black comes extremely close. But
then she was probably as barmy as a brew's vat when she was alive. If
you look at Phineas Nigellus, you see that he has memories of being a
teacher, although, I concede that he could be reflecting an attitude
rather than real memories. Another clue that they have some depth is
that Phineas seems genuinely concerned about Sirius when he hears that
he is dead, but again, that could simply be a reflection of attitude
rather than genuine concern. Further, the portraits of headmasters are
able to engage in dialog with the current headmaster, they are also
able to carry messages, and to carry out various tasks like finding a
wounded Arthur Weasley and alerting the necessary people. So, they do
have some substance.

Again, I fall back on my old oft-said statement that they are like
actors in a movie. They capture their characters to an extremely
convincing degree, they have knowledge of history and the nature of
the character, but, much like an actor, when they are probed at depth
about a subject, their knowledge falters. 

They have a significant base of knowledge to draw from, but again the
depth and analytical skills simply aren't there.

I absolutely remember reading this, but I have never been able to find
it again. In an interview, JKR said that a piece of the subject of a
portrait is contained in that portrait; a bit of hair or skin or
something similar. That gives the portrait some true essense of the
orginal person, but as we see, essense is not necessarily substance. 

As to the degree of that substance, I think we should NOT use Mrs.
Black as the prime example, like I said, she was probably always a
little dillusional, rather we should use the many other portraits we
see who do have /some/ substance, far more than 'catch phrases' but
who are none the less far short of the real thing.

I'm sure at some point Harry will talk to Dumbledore's protrait. It's
going to be interesting to see the depth displayed by that conversation. 

Not sure if I actually said anything, but there it is.

Steve/bboyminn