Chapter Discussion 22/ talking portraits / Did Snape murder?

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 183277

Jmnabers summarized Chapter 22 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183180>:

<< What, if anything, is achieved in these long months of
camping? >>

A lot of stuff in the earlier books resembled alchemical symbolism
(according to people who know alchemical symbolism, which I don't). I
keep wondering if a long, long camping trip is a known alchemical symbol.

And Carol commented in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183188>:

<< The problem, IMO, is that there aren't enough Horcruxes and
adventures and places to look to fill up a whole school year, a
built-in weakness in the plot structure of DH. >>

So much time that could have been used to answer the fans' questions!
Such as the source of talking portraits, and where James's ancestors
got their money (was one a master burglar with the invisibility cloak?). 

Aussie Hagrid wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183183>:

<< EXTRA QUESTION:
15) Harry would know Dumbledore had the Ring and knowledge of the
cloak. What implications does this have? >>

I don't know what it would imply to Harry, but you reminded me that DD
didn't have the stone, the cloak, and the wand at the same time. He
had the wand and the cloak at the same time, but he gave the cloak
(back) to Harry so he no longer had it when he got the stone. 

When he realized that he had the stone, did he kick himself for not
having kept the cloak? If he had still have the cloak, would he have
grabbed for immortality as Master of Death rather than grabbing for a
chance to see Arianna again? Quite a contrast to the actuality that he
died in the same book where he got the stone... 

I think he had grown tired and lonely and looked forward to death with
the expectation of rest and 'reunion with those who had gone before',
so would not have been tempted to grab for immortality even if he had
all three Hallows in his hands together. 

However, in the moment of realizing that it was the Resurrection
Stone, he may have recalled that he had possessed each of the three
Hallows altho' not all together, out of habit kicked himself for not
having kept the cloak so now he would have all three as he and
Grindelwald had planned, quickly remembered that he didn't want to be
immortal as all his memories of Grindelwald, and Gindelwald and
Arianna and Aberforth, flooded in, and been stirred by those memories
to be so eager to see Arianna again that he forgot the curse on the ring.

Cat McNulty asked in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183185>:

<< Why can paintings/portraits move, talk and interact (they have
sentience), whereas photographs only move but not talk (just amimated
images)? >>

Steve bboyminn replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183187>:

<< I remember reading that JKR said that part of the process of
creating a 'living' portrait require some of the physical
essence of the subject of the portrait - some skin, hair, a
drop of blood. It is from this physical essence of the actual
person that the portrait draws its knowledge of the character. >>

I have a non-JKR theory of the talking portraits. I think there may be
a powerful spell on major institutions in the Potterverse which
creates the portraits at the time of death of a person who has been
intimately associated with or very powerful in the institution. So the
portraits of Headmasters of Hogwarts appear in the Headmaster's
Office. Perhaps portraits of the other Professors appear the corridors
around the classrooms where they taught. Portraits of Healers at St.
Mungo's, or at least Chief Healers, appear there. There may be a
gallery of deceased Ministers for Magic in the Ministry building, and
perhaps other galleries of the department heads. (And Snape's portrait
would have appeared in the Headmaster's Office as Zara thought it did
in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183198>)

Wizarding families that have an old family home, such as Malfoy Manor
or 12 Grimmauld Place, may have portraits of deceased family members
appear on the walls of the old family home. Maybe some of these
portraits are so annoying that surviving family members donate them to
Hogwarts - maybe that is where Sir Caradoc came from, a real-life
wizarding Don Quixote whose descendants couldn't stand him calling
them 'varlets' and challenging them to jousts. I can't recall if there
are minor characters in any of the paintings in the books, like the
little girl (the director's young daughter) handing flowers to the
lady in the painting in the movie.

I very firmly do recall that one of the paintings at Hogwarts shows a
group of monks happily getting drunk. For which I theorize that there
is or was a wizarding monastery (or friary: Harry's POV wouldn't have
distinguished), on whose walls appear portraits of deceased Brothers.
And the abbot would have been pleased to be rid of those Bad Examples
by sending them to Hogwarts. However, I wonder whether they all died
together, maybe from a poisoned keg of wine, or did they die of
peaceful old age in their turns, and each add to a painting that
appeared when the first of the clique died? 

Was the Fat Friar associated with this institution or did he join a
Muggle monastery/friary?

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183192>:

<< Snape would not be concerned about a torn soul if his soul were
torn (as opposed to tarnished) already >>

And Alla replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183193>:

<< But yes, his concern for his soul being torn tells me that his soul
was probably not torned before, otherwise why would he be concerned.>>

And Magpie replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183194>:

<< he could still be concerned for his soul if it had been torn
before. It's not just the first murder that tears it. Presumably every
murder tears it. (snip) Which makes me wonder if you can do anything
to make it whole again or at least heal it. >>

Rowling is a Christian, and therefore believes that even a murderer
can repent and be forgiven (by God). She even has Harry say so,
calling on Voldemort to 'try for a little remorse'. (The word
'remorse' used by Magpie in a part that I snipped, and by Zanooda in a
different post.) 

I suppose that repentance and/or forgiveness mends the torn soul so
that it is whole again. However, how could I know whether the join is
weaker than the original fabric and thus is easier to tear by another
evil deed? Maybe that could go along with a repeat of the sin casting
doubt on the quality of the original repentance... 

Thus, if hypothetical Snape believes (probably with hope but not
confidence) that he has mended the hypothetical tear in his soul by
repentance and subsequent right action, he could fear tearing it a
second time more than he would fear if the same act were a first tear.

Zanooda wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183211>:

<< I'm not sure that every aspiring Death Eater was required to murder
to join. This would turn off some of LV's supporters who liked his
pure-blood ideology, but didn't see LV for what he really was. If some
basically decent and idealistic kid, like Regulus, dreamed to join the
cause, wouldn't it turn him off if the first thing he was asked to do
was to go and murder someone in cold blood? I'm just not sure. >>

To me, not all of LV's voluntary followers and servants were Death
Eaters. One who was too idealistic to commit a murder could associate
with other followers and do other services without/before receiving
the Dark Mark, and be gradually seduced into feeling that murder for
the cause is a good thing and being unwilling to do it is wimpy.
Perhaps recruiters were responsible for determining, and reporting to
LV, when a follower was ready to be made a Death Eater.

Having been marked, the misguided idealist would know that 'you don't
hand in your resignation to LV' unless he doesn't mind being killed by
his former comrades. (Would the recruiter be punished for having
recommended a candidate who still clung to morals, even at cost of
martyrdom?) When assigned to terminate a nuisance, he would be part of
a group sent to kill the victim(s) and therefore further strengthened
in his/her resolve by 1) not wanting to let down the team, 2) not
wanting to look wimpy to the team mates, 3) being afraid of being
punished by the team mates.