Snape & Harry
Zara
zgirnius at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 10 13:52:07 UTC 2008
No: HPFGUIDX 183198
> > Montavilla47:
> >
> > Yes, that would have been nice and satisfying for this reader, at
> least. But, in the books, it didn't happen.
>
> Pippin:
> It would have created a monster plot-hole if it had. Portrait!Snape
> would have been somewhere about the castle during the interval between
> his death and Harry's victory, and there'd have to be some explanation
> of what he'd been doing, which could only be anticlimactic.
Zara:
In my Potterverse, Snape did get a portrait immediately. By which I
mean, that I imagined he had one on my first read-through of DH (just
as I suppose the dead were buried, the school's damage was repaired,
Kingsley did some actual useful Minister-type things, etc. Rowling's
post-book explanation makes no sense to me. The castle knew the game he
was playing, he discussed it extensively in the Headmaster's office, so
it had no reason to assume Snape had not been planning to return when
he was murdered hours later, nor did it have reason to think he was not
gone on the school's business.
I presumed we did not see the portrait because it was, like Albus's in
the hours following *his* death, sleeping. I would not have minded
hearing Harry noticed a portrait in that final scene that was not
cheering, because it was still asleep. <g> Not that I hugely missed it,
because I assumed it was there.
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive