Death, where is thy...? -More Portraits

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 167262

--- "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Barry wrote:
> >
> <snip> Another thing that's been bothering me is death.
> When a W or W  dies, they (all?) move into picture 
> frames and seem to maintain their existence. Does it 
> mean that they all have a picture frame horcrux? Or
> is it that JKR can't really bring herself to kill her
> characters? 
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> ... Ghosts, Snape tells us, are an *imprint* of the 
> person's departed soul. I believe that JKR used the
> term "imprint" in relation to portraits, too.
> 

bboyminn:

I think you have a valid point relative to the use of
'imprint' but I think you are interpreting it too rigidly.
Yes, she used the term 'imprint' twice, but did so in
very different contexts, so they don't have absolutely
and rigidly the same precise meaning. But then, that's
just my opinion.

> Carol continues:
>
> ... First and most important, portraits are not 
> Horcruxes, which can only be created through murder, 
> ... The point of the Horcrux is to keep the (Dark)
> wizard's soul "anchored" to the earth ... So whatever 
> the portraits are, they're not Horcruxes, .... They 
> are not keeping their subjects alive. They are to some
> degree sentient beings or objects,...
> 
> ...
> 
> Which takes us back to the question, what are the 
> portraits, exactly? They're not Horcruxes. They don't
> contain bits of the subject's soul,
> ...
> 
> I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that 
> something like sympathetic magic is involved here. Just 
> as people in certain cultures fear(ed) being 
> photographed because they thought the photograph would
> capture their spirit, both a wizarding photograph (to 
> a small extent) and a wizarding portrait (to a larger 
> extent) seem to to me capture something of the 
> subject's personality or character or spirit--*not*
> the same as his soul, which is the immaterial and 
> immortal essence ... the portraits also seem to capture
> the voice and personality and facial expressions of 
> the subject.
> 

bboyminn:

Once again, I am going to trot out a tired old theory
of mine. I am absolutely sure I read this, but I have
never been able to find it again, so maybe I just
dreamed it. But real or dream, it does explain how
a portrait can magically portray its subject.

What I remember reading (whether real or in a dream) is
that in the final process of animating the portrait,
a piece of the subject is added; ie: hair, skin, blood,
etc.... It is from that bit of the subject that the
portrait draws the essence needed to recreate the 
character and personality of the subject. Remember 
this is magic, and they use of, say, blood could 
very easily have this effect.

The second part is that, by way of analogy, the character
in the portrait is like an actor playing a role. They
can so so very convincingly, but there is a limit to the
depth of what they know and how they can react. Speaking
mostly of the more realized Headmaster portraits here, 
but this still applies to a lesser degree to general
Living Portraits.

They do have an 'essence' to draw on, but it is not
mind, spirit, or soul. It is a script of sorts 
that is drawn from the living tissue added to the 
portrait by the living subject, and brought to life
by the special unique magic that is used to animate
Living Portraits. 

Again, while I'm sure I read this, in many years, no 
one has been able to verify it. Still again, whether
real or a dream, it still make some logical sense as
as a means to explain how the portraits can so 
accurately, yet with such limitations, portray their
subject. The Living Portrait is drawing on a Life
Script contained in the Living Tissue of the portrait's
subject.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn