Got a question...

[annemehr]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "a_silmariel" <silmariel at t...>
wrote:
>
> 
> P.S. I've reread FBAWTFT prologue (while waiting for yahoomort to
> decide to eat my post or not). It's like hearing a phantom. If that's
> Albus portrait, it really is convincing that he is alive. I feel that
> the last line has gained weight. To wizards, I will just say: 'draco
> dormiens nunquam titillandus'. But the point is, it is signed. Kind of
> itchy if it's a reproduction, kind of surrealistic for a portrait.
> 
> Silmariel
>

O.o

I'd forgotten about Albus writing that intro.  Jo is *not* allowed to
take that kind of poetic (or literary?) license!  Not to mention, I
thought Constance Vigilance's "DD Lives" arguments very, very
plausible -- it's like looking at one of those optical illusion
pictures where you can see two completely different images in it
(there's a very well-known one where it sometimes looks like a young
woman at a vanity and sometimes looks like a skull).  As far as I can
tell, the whole story makes good sense so far with either the DD Lives
perspective or the DD's Dead perspective.

---

Back to the Thestral patronus... I would think that anyone who might
have that patronus would actually be able to see thestrals -- that the
person would almost have to have that intimate connection with death
before they would ever produce a thestral patronus.  As for sending
messages with one, I believe JKR said DD invented that technique, and
I'd be very surprised if there was anyone in the Order who wouldn't be
able to see it.

And, yeah. If DD's patronus turns out not to actually be a phoenix,
I'll eat all three of my copies of OoP.  Jo did say it flat out in the
World Book Day chat.

Anne