Headmaster Portraits (was Re: Dumbledore dead?)

[houyhnhnm102]

No: HPFGUIDX 151690

Leonard:
  
> I think in general, one can certainly have magical 
> portraits of oneself without being dead.  Someone will 
> have to check this, but Gilderoy Lockhart would be my 
> guess as a canonical mention of a living, portraited 
> person if there is one.

houyhnhnm:

******************
He reached forward, picked up Neville Longbottom's copy of _Travels
with Trolls_, and held it up to show his own, winking portrait on the
cover. (CoS6)
...
Shining brightly on the walls by the light of many candles were
countless framed photographs of Lockhart.(CoS7)

******************

I sounds to me like the portraits on the books might have been photos
rather than paintings and we know that living persons can be
photographed.  But why should there be any reason a living person
could not be the subject of a painting as well? In fact, wouldn't the
subject have to be living at the time the painting was created,
whether by magic or by someone wielding a brush? 

At any rate, there is another example.  Sirius thought the reason his
mother's portrait would not come down was because she put a permanent
sticking charm on it.  So she must have been alive not only when the
portrait was created, but also when it was hung.

Leonard:

> I personally think the portrait is evidence only for 
> Dumbledore no longer being Headmaster of Hogwarts.  
> He's not necessarily dead.

houyhnhnm:

I agree.  While I, too, am on the fence with regard to whether or not
Dumbledore is still alive I don't think any of the evidence presented
really *proves* him to be dead.  A wizard as powerfully magical as
Dumbledore, who wished to fake his own death, would surely be able to
make all the necessary details fall into place.

It is more a matter of whether or not it offends against *feeling*
than fact, for Dumbledore still to be alive.  At the time I finished
HBP, I was convinced that Dumbledore was really dead.  I thought it
was another example of harsh truth, of which Rowling fed us so much in
OotP.  We are forced to accept the finality of Dumbledore's death in
the same way we were forced to accept that heroes have darker sides, 
and be all the better for it. 

Now I am starting to wonder.  Perhaps it is necessary for the readers
to be as convinced as Harry that DD is gone, to feel as alone as Harry
does, so that we will be able to empathize with him as he completes
the next stage of his journey.  

Harry will defeat Voldemort without Dumbledore, but DD may be revealed
to be alive.  What purpose would it serve to have DD still be alive? 
It would exonerate Snape in a way that could be accepted by all
readers, and while I'm not certain about whether or not Dumbledore is
alive, I am absolutely certain that he was not treacherously murdered
by Snape.

Beatrice:

> 3.  Gandalf returns... it is always worth looking a 
> patterns of other novels particularly one that has many 
> things in common.

houyhnhnm:

Patterns in other novels do show how a particular plot turn can be
convincing.  That doesn't mean that Rowling has to follow the pattern.

I took some time off from my Potter obsession after HBP and during
that time I reread Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy.  I kept noticing
similarities between Merlin/Arthur and Dumbledore/Harry. For example,
the way Merlin is torn between his personal affection for Arthur and
his need to use him to further "The Plan", the way he conceals truth
and tells Arthur half-truths,  Arthur's anger toward him and the way
he deals with it, all reminded me of Harry and DD.  So, I began to
wonder if it would not make sense for Dumbledore, too, to have a
first, apparent death which turns out to be false.