[HPforGrownups] Headmaster Portraits (was Re: Dumbledore dead?)

[puduhepa98 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 151739


>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:

<snip>
> 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.

Nikkalmati:
Certainly, DD could have had a portrait of himself prepared while he was  
alive and it would make sense for him to do so.  I don't think that the  portrait 
"magically" hung itself in the headmaster's office.  Probably,  Filtch put it 
up as part of the funeral preparations.  Therefore, the  existence of the 
portrait does not prove anything.  The key factor is that  the portrait has not 
yet begun to behave like the other portraits.  When it  does, I will be more 
inclined to take its presence as an indication the  headmaster is gone.
Nikkalmati


>houyhnhnm:

<snip>
>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.

,<snip>
Nikkalmati:
Yes, Harry has to go on alone or with his close friends to fulfill the  
pattern of PS/CS,  the COS, GOF  and the motif of the "hero's quest",  so DD had to 
be removed for purposes of the plot.  I don't believe DD  will come back just 
to exonerate SS, because that would be too easy.   JKR wants part of Harry's 
journey to be a struggle to understand SS's role  in the struggle against LV.  
However, DD can  return at the end  without taking part in the quest or he 
could have engineered his own  disappearance, not to abandon Harry, but  1. to 
give credibility to SS  with LV;  2. to lure LV out of hiding; 3 to give 
himself free rein in  the hunt for and destruction of the horcruxes or all of the 
above.  In the  latter case, DD has to conceal his existence from Harry (again!) 
because Harry  is surrounded by possible spies and Harry himself cannot for  
sure conceal anything he knows from LV.
 
Nikkalmati (not sure if DD is alive, but thinking that phoenix rising  from 
the flames and other issues raised here in the list must mean something)  :>).









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]