Thoughts on Portraits

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 164919

> ---  "krulwich" <krulwich at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> >
> ...
> > JKR has said in an interview that the Headmaster 
> > Portraits are unique. The Headmasters leave an 
> > imprint of themselves on Hogwarts.
> ...
> > So, after this long winded rant, all I am really 
> > saying is the we need to remember that Headmaster 
> > Portraits are MORE than normal magical portriats. 
> > They have greater dept, but none the less, there is
> > a very real limit to their depth.
> 
> Dov:
> 
> What about the fat lady portrait?  She did more than
> repeat phrases from her life, she even was relied upon
> for memory of something that happened to her picture.
> 

bboyminn:

Well, first and foremost, the Fat Lady isn't NUTS. She is
not as nutty as Mrs. Black or Sir Cadagon, so, not being
nuts, she is able to act more rationally. But she is far
from realized. She is far from being able to engage in
clear rational thinking and analysis.

Yes, she is able to monitor the Passwords to Gryffindor.
She is able to affect certain moods; anger, annoyed,
pleasant, etc.... But what about letting Sirius Black
into the Gryffindor Tower simply because he knew the
password? It seems the whole castle knew about Black
and what his assumed intentions were. What rational 
person would let a murderer in simply because he knew
the correct password? That more than anything shows
the limits of the Fat Lady.

I can't see Phineas Nigellus or Fortescue acting in
such a simplistic fashion as to let a murder have 
access to his target simply because he knew the
password.  

> Dov:
>
> The concept of "leaving an imprint" is from the 
> conversation about ghosts, ...
> 

bboyminn:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80

Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead
people. They seem to be living through their portraits. 
How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry's 
parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them?

JKR-A: "...they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as 
you have probably noticed. The place where you see them
really talk is in Dumbledore's office, primarily; the 
idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses
leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave 
their aura, almost, in the office and they can give 
some counsel to the present occupant...."


So, ghost are mention, but the question and answer are
clearly not about ghosts.


> Dov:
>
> On the other hand, the reverse spell effect did seem 
> to show an imprint of the actual souls of the people 
> involved, since they seemed to act on their own accord,
> and Lily referred to James "wanting to see" Harry.  So
> the concept does exist.
> 
> --Dov

bboyminn:

Ah finally a chance to address this issue. Note that
what Mr. Diggory does to pull a spell from Harry's
wand in the forest at the Quidditch World Cup, is not
exactly the same thing that happened when the Wands
connected in the graveyard. Yes, they are based in
the same magic, but they are far different.

To use the Prior Incantato Charm to pull spells from 
a wand, only brings a faint imprint, sort of a
signature of the spell. Some signature are very 
obvious, for example, a small Dark Mark appears from
the spell that cast a large real Dark Mark. But what
about more abstract spells. What does a Stunning Curse
look like? What does a Jelly-Legs Curse look like? 
What does a vanishing spell look like? 

I don't think we can know. I think someone who is an
expert at interpreting these signatures can probably 
tell from very subtle and abstract clues, but it 
definitely takes an expert. Some people ask, why didn't 
we see this spell or that spell in the graveyard, and 
I say, we did, it's just that Harry didn't have the 
skill to interpret them.

Now, what happened when the wands connected is far 
more powerful. I agree the expressions of the AK 
curse, showed the Person who was killed and that 
person was very fully realized. They had foreknowledge,
they could analyse the events they faced, they could
plot and plan and execute. 

But we can't guarantee that this is what we would see 
when we performed the Prior Incantato Spell. Certainly
if we could get Snape's wand and performed the spell,
we would get an image of Dumbledore after we cleared 
out all the other spells that had been performed 
between then and now. But would it be Dumbledore, or 
would it simply be a faint whispy image of him?

The Brother Wand affect was much more powerful and
therefore much more realized than the Prior Incantato
Spell. So, I don't think we can bring Dumbledore back
to life, even for a few moment, using that spell. 

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn