Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1051 to #1100

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:34 pm

haymoni - Oct 7, 2005 3:02 pm (#1051 of 2969)

That is an excellent observation about the diary and Harry's connection to it.

I wondered how Harry might know if he has the right cup - he's only seen it once - perhaps his "Voldy Sense" will start tingling when he sees it.

I still wonder how he is going to destroy the Horcruxes.

Accio Book 7!

hawick girl - Oct 7, 2005 6:08 pm (#1052 of 2969)
Edited Oct 7, 2005 7:35 pm

"Voldie Sense" that is great

Harry stops and hesitates "Hmmm, my Voldie Sense is telling me I'm getting close."

Also, it was stated earlier that someone thought that the diary was nicked from someone (probably Myrtle) I think not, it had T.M. Riddle on the front, and Ron recognizes his name and connects it to the award for special services. Also, when Ginny throws it into the stall. It hit Myrtle and she made the flood. If it had been hers she would have recognized it. No?

DM Havox - Oct 8, 2005 6:32 am (#1053 of 2969)

That is what I thought as well because it was purchased in a shop outside of London, and we know TR's orphanage was in London so...

Choices - Oct 8, 2005 8:07 am (#1054 of 2969)
Edited Oct 8, 2005 9:09 am

We are plainly told that Lucius Malfoy slipped it into Ginny's cauldron at Flourish and Blotts when they are getting their books for Hogwarts. She had it (I almost said she possessed it, but it was more the other way around - LOL) in her possession until she got too afraid of it and tried to dispose of it in Myrtle's bathroom. Of course, TM is right - Tom Riddle must have originally purchased it at a Muggle shop near the orphanage.

Steve Newton - Oct 8, 2005 9:50 am (#1055 of 2969)

It's also possible that he stole it from someone who had originally purchased it at a Muggle shop. Or removed it from a body. A cherished keepsake, sort of.

hawick girl - Oct 8, 2005 1:45 pm (#1056 of 2969)
Edited Oct 8, 2005 2:46 pm

What I mean is that "T.M. Riddle" is embossed on the cover and that Myrtle should recognize it if it was hers. "Why that is Mine! Who took it and how did it get here??" I would guess she would have said, or something like it. (or maybe moaned it)

Also, why would he steal something that was Muggle-related. He who loves magical history and believes that he belongs in that history.

In an aside, it seems that it would take a lot more work to steal a book, erase all of the previous owner's writings (although Voldie seems like he would like to read that sort of stuff), have it personalized, them make it into a memory trap. As opposed to just ordering a personalized book while on summer break and making it a memory trap. You know--Ockham's Razor and all of that.

Choices - Oct 8, 2005 4:10 pm (#1057 of 2969)

Well, either Tom bought it or stole it - which ever he did he had his name embossed on the cover.

hawick girl - "What I mean is that "T.M. Riddle" is embossed on the cover and that Myrtle should recognize it if it was hers"

Since it is clearly marked T.M. Riddle, why would it belong to Myrtle?

hawick girl - Oct 8, 2005 4:32 pm (#1058 of 2969)
Edited Oct 8, 2005 5:37 pm

Choices it was mentioned that if it was stolen it would have been most appropriate or fitting that it be stolen from the victim of the supposed Horcrux I.e. Myrtle

and if it was stolen from her she ought to know if it was hers or not

Steve Newton - Oct 8, 2005 4:34 pm (#1059 of 2969)

Embossing would seem to be pretty easy to come by.

hawick girl - Oct 8, 2005 4:43 pm (#1060 of 2969)
Edited Oct 8, 2005 5:49 pm

I see your point, that it would take a charm or something (easy), but the rest stands, why a Muggle artifact and waste his 'precious' time on such a common thing to steal from someone else

Would Voldie make a memory trap out of a "used" book? He doesn't seem like that kind of guy. I would like to know everyone's ideas.

My real interest is what happens to an object when it gets horcruxed does it 'change' or is it the same. I mean the feel (emotional and physical) the look etc. Probably not useful, cause we just found out about them and don't know their qualities and stuff.

DM Havox - Oct 8, 2005 7:27 pm (#1061 of 2969)

I see the diary as solely Riddles because it was created to guide someone else into opening the chamber and because it was his way of claiming responsibility for the first time the chamber was opened. Also, if the diary belonged to someone else, why were there no entries from that person. the thieving part aside, this was his way to say I am the Heir of Slytherin. I doubt LV would want anyone besides himself even remotely tied to it.

vickilh42 - Oct 8, 2005 7:54 pm (#1062 of 2969)
Edited Oct 8, 2005 8:56 pm

An idea as to how Tom acquired the Diary:

It was received as a "gift" of sorts from the orphanage when he left for Hogwarts the first time---similar to how a retiree is given a gold watch. It's intended to be a nice gift, but it often looked upon with distain by the recipient. He would've found it amusing to use a Muggle gift given by a Muggle authority to use as a legacy to complete SS work to rid the school of Muggle-borns.

Tom's disregard for the gift of the Diary is similar to Lucius' disregard for the Diary when it was "gifted" to him by Tom. Neither had the foresight to recognize its intended value--Tom didn't not have the emotional maturity to recognize it as a well-meaning, supportive, "loving" gift. It's ironic that later, as a Horcrux, the gift given as an act of love(even if a small one), was to be used to kill.

Verbina - Oct 8, 2005 8:13 pm (#1063 of 2969)
Edited by Oct 8, 2005 9:24 pm

I have toyed with the idea that the diary belonged to a victim at one time...perhaps Myrtle. And the idea does have some merit actually.

We know he liked to take things from people he victimized, even in the orphanage. He stole the cup and locket from Smith...whom he killed. He stole the ring from Morfin whom he framed for murder. Each is a trophy of his successes.

As for the cover, that could be easily changed since we saw Harry do it in a very short time with his potions book in HBP.

I have a difficult time though thinking of Tom, a very private and secretive person, buying a Muggle diary which could easily be read by anyone. Especially when he could have gotten a non-readable diary from Flourish and Blotts or any other magical bookseller. (I am sure they must have them out there.)

But consider this...the earliest time that the diary Horcrux could have been made was in the school year after the death of Myrtle. Over that summer (according to timelines) Tom sought out and killed his father and grandparents. What if the diary actually belonged to his father, Tom Riddle? I could see a young Tom Riddle, curious about his father, stealing the diary of the man who left his mother. That would explain the Muggle bookstore stamp and would still fit the name on the cover and the fact that LV likes to steal things from victims. Possible?

Ydnam96 - Oct 8, 2005 9:29 pm (#1064 of 2969)

Verbina, I like that idea. It works...

Soul Search - Oct 9, 2005 7:10 am (#1065 of 2969)
Edited Oct 9, 2005 8:16 am

I like the idea too. It fits.

Except, the diary was embossed "T.M. Riddle." Do we know Tom Riddle Senior's middle initial?

Choices - Oct 9, 2005 8:33 am (#1066 of 2969)
Edited Oct 9, 2005 9:36 am

Marvolo was Tom's grandfather - I don't think we are ever told what Tom's father's middle name was.

We also have to remember that Tom did not get the diary to actually write down his thoughts or whatever. The diary was left blank for a reason - it was simply a means of communication between Tom and the person into whose possession the diary fell. Tom used it to draw that person into his 16 year old world of 50 years ago, to open the Chamber of Secrets again, and for him to begin the process of possessing them so he might grow stronger.

Another thought - I still am not certain that Tom can claim killing Myrtle. We have to remember that Tom was more or less bound up in the diary. He was weak, but growing stronger as he took over Ginny more and more. Knowing so little about the creation of a Horcrux, are we sure that setting a Basilisk on someone qualifies as "murder" - at least one that would split the soul? Did Tom even set the Basilisk on her, or was the Basilisk merely exiting from the tunnel and happened to look at Myrtle? Was it just an unfortunate, accidental meeting? Would memory Tom be able to create a Horcrux? After all, he was just a memory, not a real living person, even though he was "living" through Ginny. I don't pretend to know - I am just asking questions.

I Am Used Vlad - Oct 9, 2005 9:13 am (#1067 of 2969)
Edited Oct 9, 2005 10:26 am

I know JKR has said that Dumbledore's guesses about the Horcruxes are not that far off, or something like that, but lets face it, if the unknown Horcrux turns out to be just some mundane relic from one of founders, it will make for boring reading. Here are the things that I think are most likely.

Vlad's List of Most Plausible Surprise Horcrux Candidates

1. An object from Godric's Hollow, now under the Dursleys' creaky stair.
2. Snape
3. The Sorting Hat
4. Pettigrew
5. Harry's scar

RoseMorninStar - Oct 9, 2005 10:19 am (#1068 of 2969)

I am Used Vlad. That is a very interesting screen name. The photo is very unusual too. Is there an interesting story behind them?

The Horcruxes. The fact that one of the Horcruxes was able to 'come to life' and begin to drain the life out of another... does anyone think that any of the other Horcruxes could do the same? Or, was that only possible because Voldemort 'proper' did not have a body at the time? Was it a separate spell that allowed Tom to come out of the diary? I would think not because it was Dumbledore's biggest clue that the diary was most likely not just an enchanted book but something much more sinister.

I am not quite sure if it matters where the diary came from. It was most likely Tom's first Horcrux and he may not have come up with the grand scheme of the 'heirlooms' until he came across the Peverell ring of Marvolo Gaunt, which was supposed to be 'proof' of lineage to Salazar Slytherin. Whether we count Myrtle or not... by the time Voldemort had the Marvolo ring, he had killed 3 people. His father, Tom Riddle, and both of his paternal grandparents.

Although, I must say, Verbina brings up a good scenario about the diary possibly belonging to the senior Tom Riddle.

Hogs Head - Oct 9, 2005 11:49 am (#1069 of 2969)
Edited Oct 9, 2005 12:52 pm

Other wild ideas about things that might make plausible (or semi-plausible) but surprise Horcruxes could include:

10. The Flying Motorbike or the Ford Anglia (certainly not both)
9. Something Yet Lurking Under Malfoy's Floors
8. One of the trinkets from (or still at) the orphanage
7. Riddle's Award for Special Contribution to Hogwarts
6. Dumbledore himself (in the odd but interesting theory where DD was hexed by Voldy without DD's own knowledge or retained memory during Voldy's visit in DD's office recalled (in part) in the Pensieve with Harry)
5. Some Neville or Frank or Alice Longbottom artifact (such as whatever the Longbottoms might have been concealing from the DEs who attacked their memories)
4. Something in the collapsed tunnel
3. Something in the Real Prime Minister's Office
2. Something hidden behind that unopened door in the MoM
- and my most disturbing wild idea -
1. Ginny her ownself (perhaps now retaining the spirit fragment formerly encased in the diary -- (I know, I know, DD said it was destroyed))

P.S., Vlad's photo is silent screen star Buster Keaton. My favorite Keaton film is The General -- where he is using an old train as a comic prop.

Verbina - Oct 9, 2005 1:57 pm (#1070 of 2969)

The diary seems to be very unique. The Ring was a Peverell artifact and very likely imbued with some kind of magical power on it's own. Smith tells Tom that the cup and the locket both have magical properties of their own. Nagini...well Nagini doesn't strike me as being a typical snake.

Meanwhile the diary was of Muggle origin and was created not only to house the soul of 16 year old Tom but to be a tool to opening the chamber...basically, he created a weapon against Hogwarts!

Hmmmmmm..... how about this as a scenario.

Tom obtains the diary from goodness knows where.

He begins working with the diary, giving it magical properties making it unreadable to anyone that is not supposed to read it. His aim is make a tool to be used in the future for opening the chamber.

The diary is complete yet he realizes it cannot be used by anyone to open the chamber as of yet. To open the chamber requires that the person be a Parseltongue, which is rare. The holder of the diary would have to be a descendant of Slytherin and a Parseltongue, which is unlikely. Or he would have to take further steps to make it possible.

He studies a bit on various topics trying to find a way to make it work and somewhere along the way he discovers Horcruxes. That would fit his needs if he were to put a bit of his own soul within the diary to essentially possess the holder of the diary, making it possible for them to open the chamber.

Tom also likes the idea of protecting his own self through the Horcruxes but he is unsure of the possibility of making more than one.

Tom gets information from Slughorn on Horcruxes and discovers not only how to do it, but that he could in all reality make more than one.

Okay...guess I just talked myself into the "LV got how to make them from Slughorn's mind" theory there didn't I?

I Am Used Vlad - Oct 9, 2005 2:42 pm (#1071 of 2969)
Edited Oct 9, 2005 3:45 pm

RoseMorninStar, my screen name is an anagram of my real name. It has no meaning.

Hogs Head, I was trying to think of things that would be good plot twists, make for entertaining reading, tie up loose ends and seem to have been hinted at, or some combination thereof.

Take, for instance, an object under the creaky stair. The stair has been mentioned several times, so it could be important. It would give Petunia a chance to use magic quite late in the book, which probably would make for good reading. Also, when we first meet Harry, other than seeing him briefly as a baby, he is under the Dursleys' stairs.

Choices - Oct 9, 2005 4:15 pm (#1072 of 2969)

I think part of the anagram is David - Right? One of my favorite names. :-)

Hogs Head - Oct 9, 2005 8:33 pm (#1073 of 2969)

Vlad -- I thought your list was interesting. I was just joining you in brainstorming.

hawick girl - Oct 9, 2005 8:53 pm (#1074 of 2969)
Edited Oct 9, 2005 9:57 pm

I agree the origins of the diary don’t matter much. I like the idea that it was a ‘going away’ present from the orphanage. Voldie seems like an unappreciative fella.

Verbina says in Verbina, "Horcruxes" #1070, 9 Oct 2005 2:57 pm that the new opener has to be a descendent of Slytherin, but question that. Voldie is the last Heir of Slytherin, so it would have to be his descendent as well. (Which brings up another side issue of why he never sought to have children, or that there wasn’t a Pansy Parkinson-like girl hanging around him either but nevertheless.) We *think* that he has never had children. I think that DD said so. I agree that the rest seems plausible as so many others are too. I am an adherent of one until I read of another one just as likely and am swayed. : )

I can’t see why a Horcrux would be hidden under the creaky step. If there was something there, it was put there years ago. (This is blowing my mind!) It would be totally ironic that the most un-magical people in Britain would end up with the final Horcrux. I keep trying to disagree with this Idea, but it won’t go. Also in the cabinet under the stairs, weren’t there spiders and other nasty stuff (I loaned my book out to a friend at work & I wish that I had it back.)

Maybe there is another point of view on it; maybe under the Creaky Step is where the anti-Voldie protection stems from. A DD thing. Only thing wrong with that idea is that DD never saw inside the house to our knowledge.

Thought :Maybe on the day of the rebound AK when major characters are unaccounted for they were setting up the Dursley house. Just a thought.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 9, 2005 9:05 pm (#1075 of 2969)
Edited Oct 9, 2005 10:06 pm

LOL!! That would be a kicker! To have a Horcrux hidden in the Dursley household!! LOL

JKR has said that Voldemort has no children (she was horrified that anyone should even think it) From a 2004 interview: Harry: Has Voldemort any children? JK Rowling replies -> No. Voldemort as a father... now that's not a nice thought.

We have to keep in mind that the only reason Tom Riddle decided to make the diary is because he opened the chamber of secrets at Hogwarts when he was a student but when he wanted to stay at Hogwarts for the summer holiday he was unable to because of the 'danger' from the monster. So... what does Tom Riddle do? He frames poor young Hagrid for the 'monster' attacks and opening the chamber of secrets... he is off the hook (and gets to stay at Hogwarts for summer vacation? we never do find that out). But he decides to make the diary so that the Chamber can be opened at another time a time when he cannot be connected to the mayhem & murders that take place. Perhaps that is even why he wanted a job at Hogwarts...to plant the diary or to set his plan in motion. It's not as if he would still be sent back to the orphanage if he got kicked out of school or if it closed.

hawick girl - Oct 9, 2005 9:18 pm (#1076 of 2969)
Edited Oct 9, 2005 10:19 pm

but with him in 'residence' (even if not a student anymore) while these things occur would point the finger at him especially with the Transfiguration teacher or Headmaster, DD (respectively), keeping a close eye on him

Verbina - Oct 9, 2005 9:29 pm (#1077 of 2969)
Edited by Oct 9, 2005 10:40 pm

He would be under suspicion since he would be there in the school both times it was opened. Not the only one but he would be on the suspicious list.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I said that once the diary was ready, Riddle realized that there was a problem. Even with the diary in their possession, a person would have to be a descendant of Slytherin with the Parseltongue ability to open the Chamber entrance in the bathroom. And the chances of that were extremely thin. He had to seek out a different way to make the diary work for him in the way he wanted. Making it a Horcrux would make it work as the soul piece within would possess the diary holder and make them capable of opening the chamber without being of the Slytherin bloodline. It was the only way to make the diary serve its purpose.

Though a thought occurred to me...at the time the Chamber was opened by Tom, he wasn't the last remaining heir of Slytherin. Morfin was still alive. In fact, Morfin lived a few years beyond the deaths of the Riddles. So until Morfin died, Voldemort could not claim to be the last heir of Slytherin. Of course, the likelihood of Morfin finding a woman to marry and fathering children is almost as remote as Voldemort fathering children himself.

hawick girl - Oct 9, 2005 10:41 pm (#1078 of 2969)

I thought that DD said that Voldie was the Last Heir of Slytherin. It could have been in the movie, or I could be wrong. I loaned my book to a friend and If there could be someone to check please? CoS 17 or 18. Thanks

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 10, 2005 5:16 am (#1079 of 2969)

Verbina wrote on Oct 6, 2005 in message #1042

Troels said "I had better try to retrace my steps, and start out anew by asking, ‘Stronger than what?’ "

I am thinking it is stronger than the other souls in a non-physical sense. Perhaps I can explain...

The soul started out as whole and over time, has been ripped into 6 different parts. Dumbledore said "without that, he has no self at all" which leads me to think that it is more than just a piece of his soul. Within it is all the twisted mindset of Voldemort that makes him Voldemort, the stuff he cannot exist without.

To which RoseMorninStar answered on Oct 6, 2005 in message #1044

Verbina, I struggle with the same idea/concept. I am not sure that it makes any difference as far as the stories go...we really cannot know unless JKR tells us or there is something in the final book to back up the idea of whether various soul fragments have more substance than other soul fragments. This could be an important point, and it could be totally meaningless. It's all up to JKR.

I think there are so many variables involved in this that it is difficult to answer the question unequivocally at all.

The first question I would look at is whether the soul-fragment that is encased in a Horcrux can, theoretically if nothing else, serve just as well to inhabit a body, providing it with memories and a sense of self, as the soul that has never been encased?

As I read Dumbledore's (and others') various descriptions of what happened when Tom Riddle came out of the diary, I think the answer to that question is yes, which makes it necessary, when comparing the soul-parts, to specify on which terms one does the comparison.

If we compare the encased soul-fragment residing in a Horcrux, then that is certainly weaker than the soul that inhabits the body. We can, I believe, all agree about that.

On the other hand; if we compare two parts of the soul in similar circumstances, then the picture becomes more muddy, IMO.

It may require some very special circumstances to allow the soul-fragment to ‘break free’ of its encasement (I do believe it does that the diary was probably a unique thing in the history of wizard kind just as Harry's survival of the Avada Kedavra is unique), but if it is possible to achieve it, then it makes sense to try to compare the two fragments of the soul on what appears to be an equal basis.

Let us do a gedanken-experiment, and assume that there was a body available that could be inhabited by either Voldemort's soul-fragment from the diary, or by his spectral soul from Albania.

In what ways would this reincarnated Voldemort differ depending on which part of his soul that inhabited it?

First I think we can assume that the diary soul-fragment would only recall events until the time when it was made, while the spectral soul would have a continuous recollection of what Lord Voldemort was.

Secondly the diary soul-fragment might be less mutilated than the spectral soul since it was split off from the soul at a time when the soul had suffered far less damage.

But which would be the stronger? Personally I am not willing to jump off the fence on that one (I've got my section of the fence cushion-charmed and with a basket of sandwiches and Firewhiskey, I have no reason to come down )

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 10, 2005 5:29 am (#1080 of 2969)

Verbina wrote on Oct 9, 2005 in message #1077

Though a thought occurred to me...at the time the Chamber was opened by Tom, he wasn't the last remaining heir of Slytherin. Morfin was still alive. In fact, Morfin lived a few years beyond the deaths of the Riddles. So until Morfin died, Voldemort could not claim to be the last heir of Slytherin. Of course, the likelihood of Morfin finding a woman to marry and fathering children is almost as remote as Voldemort fathering children himself.

I've been down that road as well, Verbina, but we won't catch him there.

What Tom Riddle actually says is, ‘I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself, through my mother's side’ and ‘Let's match the powers of Lord Voldemort, heir of Salazar Slytherin, against famous Harry Potter, and the best weapons Dumbledore can give him.’ (both from CoS ch. 17 ‘The Heir of Slytherin’)

The information about being the last descendant of Salazar Slytherin comes from Dumbledore, who is obviously speaking to Harry fifty years later, many years after Morfin's death. And Dumbledore does use the present tense, ‘Lord Voldemort who is the last remaining descendant of Salazar Slytherin’ ...

I'll be the first to (or possibly the second, after Jo herself) to admit and point to the continuation errors in the books, but I also find it particularly gratifying to think that I've spotted one, only to find that the error was mine

Regards,

Troels

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 10, 2005 5:56 am (#1081 of 2969)
Edited Oct 10, 2005 7:38 am

I think we should start an I Am Used Vlad thread.

I think that if Big V had designs on becoming immortal, an heir wouldn't be necessary, but Horcruxes would. I know, I know, you're thinking he wanted someone to continue SS's noble work, but reading between the lines, I think he set it up so only he, himself could do it. That is why it struck him so strangely that Harry was able to open it. Perhaps another hint that Harry can be a Horcrux. That would also explain why he wanted back into HW so badly.

Verbina, Morfin didn't have to look outside his own home, judging by the practices of the family. Ewwwww, I can't believe I just typed that!

Edit: Wow, this thread is moving quickly! I like the idea of something under the squeaky stairs. A while back there was speculation regarding this and someone suggested Petunia had a wand under it. I think something along those lines is more plausible. I just can't see Big V going to 4PD and hiding something so valuable there. After all, he did seem to take them more seriously after the diary.

I think there are so many variables involved in this that it is difficult to answer the question unequivocally at all.

Troels, The first question I would look at is whether the soul-fragment that is encased in a Horcrux can, theoretically if nothing else, serve just as well to inhabit a body, providing it with memories and a sense of self, as the soul that has never been encased?

As I read Dumbledore's (and others') various descriptions of what happened when Tom Riddle came out of the diary, I think the answer to that question is yes, which makes it necessary, when comparing the soul-parts, to specify on which terms one does the comparison.

Troels, my take on the diary was that special enchantments (for lack of a better term) allowed the Horcrux to interact with a living being. As a result of Ginny's outpouring, TR was able to capitalize on that. If he had other similar enchantments set on the subsequent Horcruxes (which he would have been wise to do), I think they could have acted in a similar manner, though it would have been difficult to try and get a locket to interact with a person.

If the diary Tom would have been released, JKR says the present-day Big V would have been much stronger, which I interpret as the idea that TR and Big V (vapor) could have somehow meshed. I am still scratching my head as to whether a torn soul could fuse itself back together without remorse or repent - perhaps that would be because TR stole Ginny's soul. Either way, it would have provided a body for Big V.

As far as DD's comment regarding Big V being SS's last remaining descendant, I have yet to see a book with this correction in it. All of the books I have picked up (even in the book stores lately) still say ancestor. What am I missing?

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 10, 2005 6:50 am (#1082 of 2969)
Edited Oct 10, 2005 7:51 am

Verbina wrote on Oct 9, 2005 in message #1070

The diary seems to be very unique.

[snip ‘the other Horcruxes are magical’]

Meanwhile the diary was of Muggle origin and was created not only to house the soul of 16 year old Tom but to be a tool to opening the chamber...basically, he created a weapon against Hogwarts!

That it, if I may say so, a very astute observation

We should also recall Dumbledore's explanation to Harry

‘The diary wasn't that special.’

‘The diary, as you have said yourself, was proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin. I am sure that Voldemort considered it of stupendous importance.’

(Harry and Dumbledore, HBP ch. 23 ‘Horcruxes’)

The importance of the diary, according to Dumbledore, was, in other words, that it contained the proof of Voldemort's descent from Salazar Slytherin. As I understand this, the proof whereof Dumbledore speaks is the memories that Tom stored in the diary: the memories of how Tom opened the Chamber of Secrets and directed the basilisk he found there.

The point of their discussion is that Tom chose objects that were significant for him to use for Horcruxes, and that, IMO, means that the memories, the ‘proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin’, pre-existed Voldemort's choice to use the diary as a Horcrux (this being the reason for him to use the diary as Horcrux).

Tom obtains the diary from goodness knows where.

He begins working with the diary, giving it magical properties [...]

the diary is complete yet he realizes it cannot be used by anyone to open the chamber as of yet. To open the chamber requires that the person be a Parseltongue, which is rare. [...]

he studies a bit on various topics trying to find a way to make it work and somewhere along the way he discovers Horcruxes. [...]

Tom also likes the idea of protecting his own self through the Horcruxes but he is unsure of the possibility of making more than one.

Tom gets information from Slughorn on Horcruxes and discovers not only how to do it, but that he could in all reality make more than one.

I like this scenario. I don't think it matters whether he discovered about Horcruxes, and, after researching that subject, realised what it might do to his diary, or whether he discovered Horcruxes while specifically researching ways to ‘improve’ his diary. As he describes it himself in CoS, the diary was intended ‘to lead another in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work.’ This, to me at least, doesn't sound quite like what happened with Ginny, so I suspect that his initial idea when he first created the diary was that he would help someone to skip all the tedious research, but that this ‘another’ would have to be willing and a Parselmouth.

Given a bit of uncertainty here, I don't think we need Tom to get more information from Slughorn than what we see.

Okay...guess I just talked myself into the "LV got how to make them from Slughorn's mind" theory there didn't I?

I really hate it when that happens when I talk myself into supporting an idea I don't like ... (I always hope that someone will talk me out of the notion very quickly, otherwise I might start believing it, and that is something that should be avoided )

It happened to me back before OotP, when I started out on Dumbledore's infamous ‘gleam of something like triumph’ and ended up just short of making a very unpleasant conclusion: that Voldemort would be vanquished by the ‘power of love’ clearly a sloppy sentiment, far too saccharine for the cynical realism of the Potter books ...

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 10, 2005 7:06 am (#1083 of 2969)

HungarianHorntail11 wrote on Oct 10, 2005 in message #1081

Troels, my take on the diary was that special enchantments (for lack of a better term) allowed the Horcrux to interact with a living being. As a result of Ginny's outpouring, TR was able to capitalize on that. If he had other similar enchantments set on the subsequent Horcruxes (which he would have been wise to do), I think they could have acted in a similar manner, though it would have been difficult to try and get a locket to interact with a person.

That's pretty much how I see it as well, though I'm not sure that there isn't some component that cannot be easily reproduced something that transcends the intentional enchantments on the diary (I'm reminded of Golpalott's Third Law ).

If that is so, then Riddle might not have been able to reproduce the effect on his subsequent Horcruxes, and he might even have been unaware of this potential.

If, on the other hand, this potential is deliberate, or even if Tom knows about it, the scenario you describe would, IMO, follow naturally.

If the diary Tom would have been released, JKR says the present-day Big V would have been much stronger, which I interpret as the idea that TR and Big V (vapor) could have somehow meshed. I am still scratching my head as to whether a torn soul could fuse itself back together without remorse or repent - perhaps that would be because TR stole Ginny's soul. Either way, it would have provided a body for Big V.

I can't really help there, being stuck at the same place

The key in that statement is, IMO, that it would strengthen present-day Voldemort. This can only, IMO, mean that the spectral soul would be involved in some way, and the merging seems, I agree, the most likely scenario.

As far as DD's comment regarding Big V being SS's last remaining descendant, I have yet to see a book with this correction in it. All of the books I have picked up (even in the book stores lately) still say ancestor. What am I missing?

I've wondered about this myself (not that I've made a habit of checking). I can only assume that it's the result of sloppy publishers, since Rowling's meaning and intention is made very clear, both on her website and elsewhere.

Regards,

Troels

Soul Search - Oct 10, 2005 7:27 am (#1084 of 2969)
Edited Oct 10, 2005 8:31 am

Dumbledore says that Tom Riddle used "trophy" objects and "important" deaths to create the Horcruxes. I think we have a reasonable handle on the "trophy" objects, but reconciling the "important" deaths has presented some difficulties, at least for me. "Important" deaths don't seem to match up with the acquisition of the "trophy" objects and any reasonable timeline.

The origins of the physical diary book could be useful for establishing the Horcruxes objects, deaths, and timeframe.

I don't see Tom Riddle going into a Muggle shop and actually buying a diary. Maybe steal it, but not just buy it.

I like the idea that he found it at Riddle Senior's. It would be just a wand flick to erase any entries. It would also be a wand flick to emboss his own name in it, so he could take credit for all the work to open the Chamber. In this case, the year of the diary would have been before he opened the chamber?

The diary could also have been part of the "special award" he got for getting Hagrid blamed for Aragog killing Myrtle. Was the year of the diary (and do we know) compatible with this idea? Specifically, was the year after the Chamber was opened? I think all we know is "fifty years ago" from SS.

I like the idea that Tom Riddle first became aware of Horcruxes while he was researching how to make the diary do what he wanted. The Hogwarts library could have had more information on Horcruxes when he was there; I somehow have it that Dumbledore was the one that had the information removed, probably to the RoR Storeroom.

As an aside, I had a thought about the Room of Requirement. My first vision was that the magic created the rooms, sort of like the expanded back seat of the Ford or Moody's trunk. But, how about if the door to the room just acts like a portal (vanishing cabinets) to a room that already physically exists in the Hogwarts castle. That would mean any of the RoR rooms could be accessed directly if their actual location could be found.

Verbina - Oct 10, 2005 9:04 am (#1085 of 2969)

Troels - I know what you mean about talking yourself into a theory. I have done it many times but normally, not as I am typing! That threw me a bit there. LOL

Soul Search - I have also been puzzling over the deaths. Voldemort used important deaths in the making of his Horcruxes. (I believe Dumbledore said this.) But the one that has me stuck the worst is Myrtle. How exactly was she important and was her death planned or accidental? This is my theory on it...shoot holes at it if you wish.

I theorize that Tom had been to the Chamber several times before the death of Myrtle. He was there sort of "testing the waters" seeing what he could make the basilisk do. And he was moving closer and closer to causing a death. Finally, he brought the basilisk out of the chamber to kill someone. Perhaps he had someone in mind, perhaps he didn't. But he intended to have someone die and to see what would happen, like the cold curious young man he was. When he got out of the chamber, Myrtle was there. So even if she was not the intended target of the basilisk, Voldemort had intended to kill someone with the basilisk in his control. Of course, we can't say what sort of interaction there was between Myrtle and Tom either. We know so little about her, from what house she was in to how old she was at the time of her death. And am I nutty or did it say somewhere that she was of Muggle birth? Anyway, it is possible that she was to Tom, the perfect example of the worst type of Muggle. So he would have felt no remorse for her death save for that is almost caused the school to close.

If intention of death and action towards it with no remorse following the death is what is needed for it to be considered a murder to make a Horcrux...that seems to be the only way it would work.

Oh and Myrtle, if she is of Muggle birth, would have been an important death to Voldemort. She would have been the death that came about as a result of his years of work in locating the chamber, proof that he was an heir of Slytherin and that he was determined to carry out the wishes of Slytherin I.e. no Muggle born students at Hogwarts.

That's the only way it seems to be able to work in the case of Myrtle anyway.

I Am Used Vlad - Oct 10, 2005 11:30 am (#1086 of 2969)

I think we should start an I Am Used Vlad thread. HungarianHorntail11

Excellent idea.

Hogs Head, I was not criticizing your list, only explaining how I narrowed it down to my personal top five.

hawick girl - Oct 10, 2005 11:32 am (#1087 of 2969)

Also she is his 'first' murder, I think in serial killers' minds, it is the first that is the most crucial. He did it, he liked it, and he got away with it. I think that all of the reasons given by Verbina 1085 is plausible.

JILL HUBER - Oct 10, 2005 1:32 pm (#1088 of 2969)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Salazar Slytherin say he built it to purify the school or whatever and only the TRUE HEIR would be able to re-open it. With this said, the logical path would be to ask the question, "when did Slytherin leave the school?". My guess would be that it was a long time ago because all evidence seems to indicate that the other founders were still alive. If the founders were still alive, then they, along with every other magical person would know of the legend of the possible Chamber of Secrets. Given these circumstances, many heirs of Slytherin were alive between the time Salazar Slytherin left and the time Voldemort(Tom Riddle) attended Hogwarts. Any number of heirs could have opened the chamber. This goes back to the whole idea of the true heir. Following this reasoning, Voldemort was, indeed, the true heir of Slytherin. There is more to being the true heir than just speaking Parseltongue. Only the true heir would seek out the chamber as Riddle did. Only the true heir would go to great lengths to see the chamber re-opened numerous times. Yes, you are all probably saying that Harry was able to open the chamber, but I don't think that has much to do with the reasoning. Harry only sought out the chamber to save Ginny and protect the school, he never would have sought it out on his own. That is the distinction, also, it is the distinction between what makes someone a good or bad wizard...choice. Harry could have done whatever he wanted down there if Riddle wasn't there already, he chose not to and never would have even considered it. Not trying to get off topic, but it makes perfect sense to me that the diary served a dual purpose.

Just because it had brains didn't mean the diary was a bad choice of Horcrux. I think Voldemort did that with several items. What better idea than creating an item like the diary a Horcrux, he knew it would be protected because of its importance to his closest followers like Lucius Malfoy. Anywho, that is all I have on this one...

My first real marathon post, might just give old Troels a run for his money with that one! JK

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 10, 2005 1:32 pm (#1089 of 2969)
Edited Oct 10, 2005 2:39 pm

I've wondered about this myself (not that I've made a habit of checking).

Troels, I have, every time I visit a bookstore and I see HP books, I search the end of CoS for that dreaded mistake and wonder if I am hallucinating. (I know it seems basic, but I had an Org. Chem. professor once told me I get all of the difficult things and mess up on the easy ones. )

I can only assume that it's the result of sloppy publishers, since Rowling's meaning and intention is made very clear, both on her website and elsewhere.

Can someone kindly provide a link? I have looked through Rumors, Stinky fish, etc., and still cannot find JKR's statement on this.

Edit: I would like to add that it makes perfect sense to me that Big V stole the diary from the senior Riddle house.

I don't know when SS would have expected one of his line to attend HW since he left the school on bad terms. The fact that TR attended HW had to have come about from someone who did not know the history of SS, which Marvolo seemed to know all too well. Surely that monkey pride would have prevented any of his 'offspring' to attend.

vickilh42 - Oct 10, 2005 6:21 pm (#1090 of 2969)

Horntail, here's the quote you asked for. I used QuickQuotes and searched "ancestor". It brought the quote right up!

From the Scholastic Interview 10/16/2000:

Question: Harry Potter for grownups again! Is Voldemort the last remaining ancestor of Slytherin, or the last remaining descendent of Slytherin? J.K. Rowling responds: Ah, you spotted the deliberate error. Yes, it should read "descendent." That's been changed in subsequent editions. (Keep hold of the "ancestor" one, maybe it'll be valuable one day!)

_____ I'm not sure what JKR meant by "deliberate"?! Maybe on the part of her editors... they intentionally changed it thinking JKR had made an error?

Hogs Head - Oct 10, 2005 7:08 pm (#1091 of 2969)

I think JKR was joking about the "deliberate" error. That's what I always say to our proof reading team when they catch a typo, "I meant to do that, just to see if you were watching."

Vlad -- thanks. We are both on the same page.

DM Havox - Oct 10, 2005 7:36 pm (#1092 of 2969)

As to the Last Slytherin, It has been stated several times that most pureblood wizards intermarried between all the families; in example Serious explaining to Harry how he is distantly related to Tonks, Molly and Arthur Weasley and the Malfoy's. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some wizard family somewhere with a tiny bit of SS's bloodline in them. LV is a direct descendant of SS. Not sure who in the books said it but, if your only going to marry pureblood wizards, doesn’t leave you with a lot of options. As to him being the only wizard in the WW with a little Slytherin in him? Don't forget how many of Sirius' relatives were blasted off the family tree for marrying Muggles? Who is to say there isn't one along the Slytherin line as well? Just one of those things that could go either way until a certain writer we all know and love lays down the wizarding law and ends it.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 10, 2005 8:20 pm (#1093 of 2969)

OH! My book says 'ancestor' in it!

It is interesting to note that it says that only the 'true heir' of Slytherin would be able to open the chamber of secrets and then Dumbledore goes on to say that only a 'true Gryffindor' would pull [Godric's sword] out of the hat. Quite interesting indeed.

Verbina - Oct 10, 2005 9:23 pm (#1094 of 2969)

And that, RoseMorninStar, was the main reason behind the Heir of Gryffindor Theory I was part of on another HP forum. Or at least one of the main reasons. Still go back to it occasionally myself.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 10, 2005 11:32 pm (#1095 of 2969)
Edited Oct 11, 2005 12:36 am

Soul Search wrote on Oct 10, 2005 in message #1084

Dumbledore says that Tom Riddle used "trophy" objects and "important" deaths to create the Horcruxes. I think we have a reasonable handle on the "trophy" objects, but reconciling the "important" deaths has presented some difficulties, at least for me. "Important" deaths don't seem to match up with the acquisition of the "trophy" objects and any reasonable timeline.

You and me both

I am not convinced that we know all the deaths or at least know enough about them to be able to identify them. To some extent it depends on how long after the wizard has killed someone the Horcrux can be created: for how long does the soul-fragment remain both viable and separate?

Though I am uncomfortable allowing a long period for that, I can also see how it would solve at least some of our problems if Tom could have used the murder of his father to create his first Horcrux (the diary), and then proceeded with other Horcruxes later (the next would, I imagine, have been created using the murder of Hepzibah Smith).

Apart from that, I have no suggestions as to which deaths he used until the murder of Frank Bryce in GoF. I would guess that one or more of these deaths occurred during the decade between Hokey's and Dumbledore's memories the decade when he ‘travelled far and wide ... sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind’ as Dumbledore describes it in CoS.

It would follow an old pattern in the tradition of evil magic that Voldemort sought out old masters, learned from them what he could and then killed them. Such a behaviour might account for one or two more important killings during this period, but we would have no idea whatsoever as to who the victims might be.

The killings might, after all, have been important to Tom Marvolo Riddle without being important to the plot of the Harry Potter books.

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 10, 2005 11:49 pm (#1096 of 2969)

HungarianHorntail11 wrote on Oct 10, 2005 in message #1089

Edit: I would like to add that it makes perfect sense to me that Big V stole the diary from the senior Riddle house.

Hmm ... ‘On the first page he could just make out the name 'T. M. Riddle' in smudged ink.’ (CoS ch. 13 ‘The Very Secret Diary’)

This would mean that either Voldemort put his own name (initials and name) on the first page, or else his father also had a middle name starting with ‘M’ ...

On the balance I am still more comfortable with Tom going out into Muggle London to buy the diary himself considering the use to which he intended to put it, I can easily imagine that he (if he were to buy it himself) would go to a place where he wasn't likely to be traced.

Regarding the ancestor/descendant thing, I was thinking of Jo's statement in the ‘Rumours’ section:

Voldemort is Harry's real father/grandfather/close relative of some description

No, no, no, no, no. You lot have been watching much too much Star Wars. James is DEFINITELY Harry's father. Doesn't everybody Harry meets say ‘you look just like your father’? And hasn't Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify this means that Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin.

EXT: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In particular, of course, what Dumbledore has said

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 11, 2005 12:00 am (#1097 of 2969)

Verbina wrote on Oct 10, 2005 in message #1085

[...] the one that has me stuck the worst is Myrtle. How exactly was she important and was her death planned or accidental?

If we accept the relative datings on face-value, then Tom killed his grandparents before Myrtle died, and Dumbledore would certainly not have overlooked Myrtle's death when he later described Hepzibah's death, ‘Voldemort had committed another murder; whether it was his first since he killed the Riddles, I do not know, but I think it was.’ (HBP ch. 20 ‘Lord Voldemort's Request’). This would mean that Myrtle is not counted against Tom in the way of e.g. the Riddles or Hepzibah.

You might also insist that Jo used ‘the summer of his sixteenth year’ erroneously (in the mathematical sense[1]) so that Tom killed the Riddles during the summer following his opening of the Chamber, but in that case you would have these three fresh murders, that were far more significant to him, to use.

Either way I think that Myrtle's death was never used to create a Horcrux.

Regards,

Troels

[1] British people that I have asked haven't been able to agree which use is normal in British colloquial, so I tend to use the mathematically correct interpretation myself, while noting that the other reading is possible cumbersome, but that's what one gets with these imprecisions.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 11, 2005 12:55 am (#1098 of 2969)

JILL HUBER wrote on Oct 10, 2005 in message #1088

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Salazar Slytherin say he built it to purify the school or whatever and only the TRUE HEIR would be able to re-open it.

‘Slytherin, according to the legend, sealed the Chamber of Secrets so that none would be able to open it until his own true heir arrived at the school. The heir alone would be able to unseal the Chamber of Secrets, unleash the horror within, and use it to purge the school of all who were unworthy to study magic.’ [...]

‘[...] believed to be some sort of monster, which the heir of Slytherin alone can control,’ said Professor Binns in his dry, reedy voice.

(Professor Binns, CoS ch. 9 ‘The Writing on the Wall’)

So, yes. This is how Binns relates the legend. Normally this person is referred to in the titular ‘the heir of Slytherin’ or ‘the Heir’, but I think the ‘true’ bit is implied.

[...] Any number of heirs could have opened the chamber. This goes back to the whole idea of the true heir. Following this reasoning, Voldemort was, indeed, the true heir of Slytherin. There is more to being the true heir than just speaking Parseltongue. Only the true heir would seek out the chamber as Riddle did. Only the true heir would go to great lengths to see the chamber re-opened numerous times.

Since you put this on the terms of the true heir making a conscious choice to follow in his ancestor's footsteps, how can anyone disagree

But it fits also what I have thought myself, though there's some interesting questions remaining regarding the Gaunt. Tom thought that he and Harry were ‘Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself’, but was this because the Gaunts didn't attend Hogwarts? Or was it because he hadn't yet discovered that the Gaunts were Parselmouths (which would support the mathematically incorrect reading of ‘sixteenth year’).

Slytherin left Hogwarts in anger, and his descendants, the Gaunts, were fiercely proud of their descent it is not, IMO, unthinkable that they would have shunned the school that had ‘humiliated’ their great ancestor by refusing to support his policy.

Yes, you are all probably saying that Harry was able to open the chamber, but I don't think that has much to do with the reasoning. [...] That is the distinction, also, it is the distinction between what makes someone a good or bad wizard...choice. [...]

One might wonder if the true test was to control the basilisk. Was it enough to be a Parselmouth, or would Harry, had he tried before Tom could get to it, have failed in this because he wasn't (and never could be) ‘Slytherin's true heir’?

As I said above putting things on the terms of being determined by a conscious choice is very convincing in Potterverse and I agree entirely with this.

Not trying to get off topic, but it makes perfect sense to me that the diary served a dual purpose.

Just because it had brains didn't mean the diary was a bad choice of Horcrux.

Certainly ...

I think Voldemort did that with several items. [...]

You think he made more dual-purpose Horcruxes?

The evidence is split on that, I think

On one hand we have the Ring and the Locket which were both hid away (though at least the Slytherin Locket and the Hufflepuff Cup were said to have other powers, Voldemort did not intend to use these powers as such, and I'd hesitate to attribute any other purpose to them than the Horcrux). On the other hand Nagini certainly serves other services, though she, it can be argued, isn't a typical Horcrux, and as such we cannot extrapolate from her example.

My first real marathon post, might just give old Troels a run for his money with that one! JK

Just in case anybody wondered ... I'm using my HTML editor where I have created a macro to do the quoting parts (writing up all this in the small editing box from WX would be too tedious ).

Regards,

Troels

Bocefus - Oct 11, 2005 2:06 am (#1099 of 2969)

Just a thought: Since LV was possessing Nagini when she bit Arthur in OoP it is feasible that Arthur may some insight, etc... to LV's thoughts. That is of course if he had been as careless as he (LV) had been when he had attacked baby Harry.

vickilh42 - Oct 11, 2005 5:24 am (#1100 of 2969)

With the discussion about linking "significant deaths" with Horcrux creation, I had a thought about another "death". Dumbledore is said to have "defeated" Grindelwald--which, I concede, does not indicate a death, but since no one in the WW makes references to the great Dark Wizard after his 1945 defeat, maybe it can be assumed that he is indeed dead. Perhaps history(FW&W cards, too) has tried not to allocate "blame" by not specifically stating he was killed by Dumbledore. We fans even skirt the issue of referring to Harry's "destiny" of being a "killer/murderer" and try desperately to phrase it without applying a morality to it. Or perhaps, after his defeat at the hands of Dumbledore, someone else killed him?

So, to the point I'm trying to get to, might JKR have intentionally mislead us about Dumbledore's role with Grindelwald? Diary Riddle spoke of his own intentions to become the greatest sorcerer in the world and so the mortal Riddle would have thought Grindelwald to be his greatest threat/enemy.

We have Ernie Macmillan’s suggestion that Voldemort's attempt on baby Harry was because he perceived him to be a new Dark Wizard and a threat. So maybe Voldemort, in his youth, had a role in "defeating" Grindelwald. Voldemort's statement to Dumbledore in OOP p814 "You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore. Above such brutality, are you?" And then Dumbledore's response, "We both know that there are other ways of destroying a man, Tom", have always intrigued me. Is it just allusion to the multitude of curses each is aware of or is a reference to specific " destroying" or "defeating" of a man?

Voldemort does not taunt Dumbledore by referring to the "defeat" of the Grindelwald. I would have thought Voldemort would've used this to provoke Dumbledore into action or overconfidence. I guess this is what led me to consider what actually happened to Grindelwald. It is interesting to track Dumbledore thru history--- Transfiguration teacher, defeats Grindelwald, and then continues to teach at Hogwarts without the anymore reference--not even from Hermione and her research, about Dumbledore's role in the defeat of Grindelwald.

So my thought is that if there is/are more significant deaths that could be linked to Horcrux creation, Grindelwald's would have been significant to Voldemort.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:51 pm

RoseMorninStar - Oct 11, 2005 6:41 am (#1101 of 2969)
Edited Oct 11, 2005 7:53 am

Grindelwald is indeed dead, according to JKR in her interviews. Vicki, you are correct in stating however, that he was 'defeated' and it never says that Dumbledore 'killed' him. I think that is because the defeat/death was caused in an indirect way, just as I think that Harry's defeat/vanquishment of Voldemort will be in an indirect way. As I described it in another thread, it would sort of be like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. She killed one witch when the house fell on her...although Dorothy herself was totally unaware of what she had done and had in no way intentionally caused the death. In the death of the second witch, she threw a bucket of water on the scarecrow to put out the fire, it hit the witch and she melted. Another witch vanquished/defeated...an with no malicious killing on Dorothy's part.

Vicki... I do think that Grindelwald would have had some influence on the young Tom Riddle...even if it were in an indirect way. Grindelwald was defeated in the same year that Tom Riddle graduated from Hogwarts (1945), so I would imagine there was much talk about it at that time. I have a hunch that Grindelwald only created one Horcrux. And that Tom Riddle saw that as a mistake on Grindelwald's part. It is said that Dumbledore was 'fierce' about the subject of Horcruxes not being taught/mentioned at Hogwarts. I think that Dumbledore destroyed Grindelwald's Horcrux and then..... who knows what became of Grindelwald? Some fate worse than death? Ah...with a soul so destroyed... one wonders what would become of a 'soul' or nearly soul-less soul. When Dumbledore destroyed the one Horcrux of Grindelwald, Voldemort saw that as a weakness. He wanted to be 'greater' than Grindelwald... who had been the greatest Dark Lord.

Troels, I don't know if you misunderstood our earlier conversation but we were discussing a part of CoS which has an error in it. It says that Tom Riddle was the last ancestor of Slytherin rather than the last descendent. What I found interesting...is in that same conversation (about Voldemort being the heir of Slytherin) Dumbledore mentions to Harry that only a true Gryffindor could have pulled [Godric Gryffindor's] sword out of the hat. Harry had been wondering if he was the heir of Slytherin because he was also a Parselmouth and that the sorting hat had said he would be great in Slytherin. Then, of course, comes the famous speech about how our 'choices' make us who we are.

The reason I find it interesting is because I have wondered if Harry is in some way a 'heir' of Gryffindor. If not in blood, perhaps in spirit? I have a funny feeling that Dumbledore is related to Gryffindor. There have been conflicting comments about it in JKR's interviews. In one interview, when asked, she says, 'Maybe he is Wink

' But in another (which, in my opinion, the interviewer screwed up the question by their own assumptions) The interviewer asked about Harry's parents/grandparents... and JKR said that there was nothing exceptional about them (and I think, by the way the conversation was going JKR meant that there was nothing exceptional about their deaths) but the interviewer assumes she meant nothing exceptional about his ancestry. And the interviewer says, 'So, that shuts down the heir of Gryffindor theories.' and JKR says, [Pause] yeah,...well, yeah.

A confusing exchange of ideas if you ask me. We know Dumbledore is not Harry's grandfather... but I cannot help wonder (even if it is a stretch) if Dumbledore might not be a great uncle or some other relative. Or, if Dumbledore (& Aberforth) are the last of the house of Gryffindor, if they feel Harry might be the 'spiritual' heir to the house of Gryffindor. I just feel there is a strong connection of some sort between Dumbledore and Harry that we have not been told. I am not sure what that connection is, we can only speculate.
Edited to add: OH, yeah...almost forgot... In regards to the killings/deaths associated with Tom/Voldemort. We cannot forget that he not only killed his father, but his paternal Grandparents as well. So, even if we do not count Myrtle, Voldemort had at least 3 deaths 'under his belt' by the time he murdered Hepzibah Smith (#4?). So... diary, ring, locket, cup.

Verbina - Oct 11, 2005 8:48 am (#1102 of 2969)

Troels- Well, in the 16th year, that is where you and I differ. I take it to be as I first read it, that the summer of his 16th year means the summer when he was 16. Perhaps I am in error in this but in most books I have read with similar wording that is what they meant. So in my theorizing, Myrtle would have to be one of the deaths. So I think on this we have to agree to disagree perhaps.

RoseMorninStar - You made a very good point about the possibility of Dumbledore and Aberforth being the last of the Gryffindor line. One I hadn't thought of. And as far as we know, neither Dumbledore nor Aberforth has children to carry on the name. So a spiritual heir may be what he is looking for and who better than a strong wizard child whose parents are dead and who has no other relatives save for those that are cruel to him. Sort of like adopting into the line kind of thing. But that would go elsewhere around here I fear.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 11, 2005 12:40 pm (#1103 of 2969)

vickilh42 and Troels, thanks for the quotes! They were very helpful and I can now stop checking CoS in every bookstore from now on.

Troels, very interesting about the macro. Does it allow you to choose several posts at once?

Ana Cis - Oct 11, 2005 8:05 pm (#1104 of 2969)
Edited by Oct 11, 2005 9:06 pm

Rose - "Vicki... I do think that Grindelwald would have had some influence on the young Tom Riddle...even if it were in an indirect way. Grindelwald was defeated in the same year that Tom Riddle graduated from Hogwarts (1945), so I would imagine there was much talk about it at that time. I have a hunch that Grindelwald only created one Horcrux. And that Tom Riddle saw that as a mistake on Grindelwald's part. It is said that Dumbledore was 'fierce' about the subject of Horcruxes not being taught/mentioned at Hogwarts. I think that Dumbledore destroyed Grindelwald's Horcrux and then..... who knows what became of Grindelwald? Some fate worse than death? Ah...with a soul so destroyed... one wonders what would become of a 'soul' or nearly soul-less soul. When Dumbledore destroyed the one Horcrux of Grindelwald, Voldemort saw that as a weakness. He wanted to be 'greater' than Grindelwald... who had been the greatest Dark Lord."

I wonder if Voldemort found some of Grindelwald's diaries, notes, letter, or even textbooks that may have referenced Horcruxes. He may have even met him. I remember JKR being asked if there was any connection between Grindelwald and Voldemort; I believe she refused to comment on it. This may have been mentioned on a previous thread that I haven't seen.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 11, 2005 8:14 pm (#1105 of 2969)

Ana Cis, yes, I think there is some connection between Voldemort and Grindelwald...but it could be a BIG connection or the tiniest thread. I could be that Tom Riddle did come across some information about Grindelwald (or even met him somehow). OR...if Grindelwald went to Hogwarts in his day... maybe he left something in the room of requirement? Tom Riddle got his information from somewhere or someone. It seems like he was smart and a good study. It's too bad he didn't put his efforts to better use. But then...I guess we wouldn't have a good story then, would we?!!

Verbina - Oct 11, 2005 8:38 pm (#1106 of 2969)

I like the Grindelwald - Voldemort connection of him seeing Grindelwald's mistakes. I imagine that Tom would see Grindelwald's power and want to be the same way.

But for Tom to know that Grindelwald had only one Horcrux and decide that this was his error...that would mean he would have asked Slughorn about multiple Horcruxes before then. How would that work?

RoseMorninStar - Oct 11, 2005 9:01 pm (#1107 of 2969)

Verbina, that is a great question and I am probably not the person to ask because I am not great with numbers or timelines, but I will give it a go.

I can guess, that Dumbledore may have found and destroyed Grindelwald’s Horcrux before he defeated Grindelwald. Maybe even a year or more before. We do not know how Tom Riddle originally found out about Horcruxes. He may have made one, and then heard about Grindelwald’s Horcrux being destroyed (or perhaps used Legilimency on Dumbledore?) and then maybe Grindelwald was defeated... and Tom began to wonder how he could do it better?

It's just a thought. I have a feeling, from JKR's interviews, that there is some type of connection. But what?

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 11, 2005 11:47 pm (#1108 of 2969)
Edited Oct 12, 2005 1:28 am

Gah! so much to keep up with ...

First a couple of short (for me ) comments:

Verbina, my position regarding Myrtle is that it doesn't matter what you think regarding the ‘summer of his sixteenth year’ thing (I have no way of telling what Rowling could mean, and in that situation I, being very mathematically inclined, will automatically assume the mathematically correct interpretation). If you think Tom went to Little Hangleton after Myrtle's death, then you have him killing the three people there, and still, some time afterwards (in the Slughorn memory) not know how to create a Horcrux.

As for whether Myrtle's death could have been used at all, I tend to doubt it. Tom might be morally responsible for her death, but he never made a choice to kill her (I still think that making things be the result of a conscious choice is a strong argument in Potterverse it shows who people really are) it just happened. And then there is, of course, the objection that the actual killing was done by the basilisk, which is also a thinking creature.

vickilh42, RoseMorninStar and others, regarding Grindelwald. I was about to propose him earlier as a candidate for a significant death for Voldemort, but I'd be most comfortable to disregard him I think he is completely unimportant to the plot precisely because we are given the year AD of his defeat this, to my mind, disconnects him from the story-line of the books. The dating of the books is no more sure than we can't even know if Tom Riddle had even started at Hogwarts at that point (at the extreme end Tom might not even have been born when Grindelwald was defeated).

Not that this necessarily matters with respect to whether Tom, if Grindelwald lived, could have sought him out later and killed him, but we know now that the significance of his defeat was to connect the events of the magical world to the Muggle world. The Muggles ended a long and bloody war in 1945, and so did the wizards (that Grindelwald is in Switzerland doesn't really stop it from sounding German, does it). I don't think that there is anything else to Grindelwald.

And HungarianHorntail11, my macro does only quote one post at a time, but it's still much easier than having to format everything to HTML by hand (basically it is just to make it easier for me to port the stuff to my editor).

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 12, 2005 12:21 am (#1109 of 2969)

RoseMorninStar wrote on Oct 11, 2005 in message #1101

[...]

Troels, I don't know if you misunderstood our earlier conversation but we were discussing a part of CoS which has an error in it. It says that Tom Riddle was the last ancestor of Slytherin rather than the last descendent.

Yes. What Rowling has called ‘the deliberate error’ (as I have understood it the phrase used by British teachers where a Danish teacher would say, ‘I just wanted to see if you were awake’ after a student pointed out a mistake ) I merely tried to point out the evidence that ‘ancestor’ is indeed an error and that ‘descendant’ is intended.

[...] Then, of course, comes the famous speech about how our 'choices' make us who we are.

Actually, though the difference has become unimportant with the latest interviews, what Dumbledore said was that it showed what we truly are the causality being the other way around (our choices reflecting rather than making what we truly are, according to Dumbledore's statement). Rowling has recently also propounded the reverse causality, so the difference probably isn't important, though (just me nitpicking sorry )

The reason I find it interesting is because I have wondered if Harry is in some way a 'heir' of Gryffindor. If not in blood, perhaps in spirit?

Well, he is, isn't he?

I mean, it doesn't really matter if there is any significance to it, or if it will ever be mentioned at all in the books (beyond Dumbledore's statement in CoS, as you mentioned in the part I snipped), but Harry is, and will always be, a ‘true Gryffindor’ and hence a true heir in spirit to Godric Gryffindor. Harry epitomizes the virtues that are the hallmarks of Gryffindor House, and which, according to the Sorting Hat, was precisely what Godric Gryffindor himself valued above anything else.

I have a funny feeling that Dumbledore is related to Gryffindor.

So have I, to be honest My biggest problem is that I really feel that I shouldn't wonder about it at all. Harry is, as was Dumbledore, an heir in spirit to Godric Gryffindor, but that is something they have chosen! Voldemort emphasizes the bloodline, ‘I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself’, and in general every aspect of the preoccupation with bloodlines is portrayed as negative. It would, I feel, somehow detract from this message if the blood-line of some of the good guys is suddenly shown as being significant (we can get back to why Lily's love got translated into blood later), or even just as singling them out. It doesn't matter if Dumbledore and Harry are descended from Godric Gryffindor, IMO: there are probably hundreds of purebloods, half-bloods and squibs who are so descended.

[snipping reference to post-HBP TLC/MN interview EXT: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A confusing exchange of ideas if you ask me.

Yes, I agree. The evidence that went before this did not in any way ‘shut down the Heir of Gryffindor [theories]’ not by a long stretch. But it doesn't really matter if Melissa's logic escaped her right then, does it, because Jo's escaped her as well, and she agreed to the conclusion. So the conclusion is right, even if the deduction of it was wrong kind of like getting the right result in maths, but by the wrong method (you wouldn't pass in that way in Denmark, though )

[...] I just feel there is a strong connection of some sort between Dumbledore and Harry that we have not been told. I am not sure what that connection is, we can only speculate.

Well, I think that connection is unrelated to any blood relationship. Yes, they are probably related somewhere (we all are, according to the biologists), but not, IMO, in a significant way. The connection, to be significant in the stories, should be one of choice, of them choosing each other, and them making similar choices at similar points in life.
Edited to add: OH, yeah...almost forgot... In regards to the killings/deaths associated with Tom/Voldemort. We cannot forget that he not only killed his father, but his paternal Grandparents as well. So, even if we do not count Myrtle, Voldemort had at least 3 deaths 'under his belt' by the time he murdered Hepzibah Smith (#4?). So... diary, ring, locket, cup.

My point, exactly we don't need Myrtle at all (who does, really )

I don't think that Tom had created two Horcruxes when he visited Hepzibah there was only the red glint that to me suggests only one Horcrux, but though I am very uncomfortable about allowing very long periods between the killing and the encasing, I am beginning to accept that this is the only way I can get things to fit together, so if two years, why not, then, ten years also?

Regards,

Troels

Soul Search - Oct 12, 2005 5:12 am (#1110 of 2969)
Edited Oct 12, 2005 7:20 am

I like the connection between Grindelwald and Tom Riddle. But, I think it is unlikely that Tom met or learned at Grindelwald's knee. More likely, Tom Riddle learned from Grindelwald's example. After all, Tom was at Hogwarts after Grindelwald's "defeat," it would have been in all the papers, and Dumbledore was also at Hogwarts then. I wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore described the adventure, mentioning that he first destroyed Grindelwald's single Horcrux before "defeating" him. This could have alerted Tom Riddle to the existence of Horcruxes and even suggested the multiple Horcrux concept to him. Thus, Tom Riddle learned of Horcruxes from Dumbledore. Tom Riddle showing an interest in Horcruxes could also have been why Dumbledore had all information on Horcruxes removed from the Hogwarts library.

I am about ready to give up on finding cannon to associate "important" deaths and a timeframe with Voldemort's Horcruxes. Knowing who and when could help with what and where, but we will have to do without details.

I am still making the assumption that we have seen all the objects and all the hiding places; that is, it is too late to introduce anything new in book 7. My focus will be what, where, and the clues Harry has to find and identify Voldemort's Horcruxes.

Harry has four Horcruxes to identify, find, and destroy.

Nagini is a given and always with Voldemort. No problem (for us).

The locket is identified. Lots of clues for #12, Kreacher, Mundungus, etc. Harry will figure this out.

The Cup is identified. Where clues might include Hepzibah Smith's residence or the Hepzibah Smith/Zacharias Smith/Hufflepuff connection. Known timing might suggest Borgin & Burkes.

The Ravenclaw object is not known. Good candidates include the tiara, the necklace, or something under whatever is blocking that passage the twins mentioned in PoA. Where clues would be Hogwarts.

Any more cannon to narrow things down? Ideas for whats and wheres? Clues for Harry?

Do we have a good summary and timeline for Burkes? We know he was alive when Dumbledore interviewed him, but we haven't seen him since. Tom Riddle knew that Burkes cheated Merope over the locket and he could have been a candidate "important" murder for the locket Horcrux. (I assume Hepzibah went for the Cup, although not why she could have been "important.")

Mattew Bates - Oct 12, 2005 9:47 am (#1111 of 2969)

... I am very uncomfortable about allowing very long periods between the killing and the encasing, I am beginning to accept that this is the only way I can get things to fit together, so if two years, why not, then, ten years also?

Troels, I think that length of time would vary. How long does a soul take to heal from murder? I would think that would depend on the amount of remorse the person feels for it. For most, it might take years. For a particularly remorseless individual like Voldy, the in-body shelf life of soul fragments may be nearly indefinite.

haymoni - Oct 12, 2005 10:01 am (#1112 of 2969)

I had posted this for whatever reason in "The Cave" Chapter Thread, but I think it relates to the topic at hand:

I think we need a better explanation as to how a Horcrux is created.

I mean Dumbledore's explanation was OK, but the odds of hunting down a special person to murder & having the trinket available are probably slim & none.

"OK now - just hold still while I AK you and put a bit of myself into this pretty ring here."

I still think whomever he murdered to make the Horcrux was incidental.

He may have had a "special" murder and then murdered someone else once he had the trinket available.

He murdered so many people. I can't believe that the Horcruxes were made with the first 7 murders he committed.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 12, 2005 12:31 pm (#1113 of 2969)
Edited Oct 12, 2005 2:38 pm

in general every aspect of the preoccupation with bloodlines is portrayed as negative.

Troels, that is the best argument yet that I've read regarding the Gryffindor/DD/Harry bloodline theory and I agree.

I mean Dumbledore's explanation was OK, but the odds of hunting down a special person to murder & having the trinket available are probably slim & none.

haymoni, why did you come to the conclusion of slim and none? I question this because Big V had a strong desire to accomplish his evil deeds. Where there's a will, there's a way and Big V definitely had the will.

My take on the soul-splitting/Horcrux method is that with every murder, a bit of your soul rips then departs. If you perform a spell before the murder, the soul bit doesn't depart from this existence, rather, it is anchored here in an object and, hence, anchors the original or 'base soul' here to earth until all of the ties are released. To me, it would make sense of the Harry Horcrux idea. If Big V performed his spell en route to Harry's room and encountered another death (Lily's), Horcrux spell in place, the next thing he aimed his wand at was Harry who would now become the container or Horcrux. If Lily had not been killed, Big V would have AK'd Harry and subsequently pointed his wand at the object/container to become the Horcrux.

One more thought that Troels sparked which I have not yet researched to either affirm or debunk regarding the red glint in TR's eyes; I am wondering (aka reaching) if the number of times TR's eyes glint red correlates with the number of murders or Horcruxes to that point in time.

Fire away!

EDIT: haymoni, for what it's worth, I think Big V knew what a Horcrux was and contemplated making more than one. To me it would make sense that he picked Slughorn's brain in an effort to find out if anyone had ever made more than one. I don't know why he thought Slughorn would know - perhaps he was the most accessible professor in TR's eyes. Whether or not his idea of making more than one came about as a result of Grindelwald’s defeat is anyone's guess at this point.

His travels and associations with the "worst of our kind" could have been his search for how to create a Horcrux and then how to create multiples. Once he learned how to do this, he looked for things to hold his soul-bits and decided to use his souvenirs.

That makes a lot of sense and I think that is on the right track. I also agree with the line of thinking that has been mentioned with regard to an immortal body as well as soul.

haymoni - Oct 12, 2005 12:44 pm (#1114 of 2969)

Did he collect the mementos first and then find people to murder?

Did he murder people and think, "Wow, that was really something. I've killed my father AND my grandparents. I should mark this moment with something special."

He could have carried the ring or the cup or the locket around with him. When he found somebody that he really wanted out of the way, he could have created the Horcrux then.

Did he get the ring from Morfin, kill the Riddles, wear the ring when he was talking to Slughorn and THEN make it a Horcrux?

If he already knew about Horcruxes, why would he ask Slughorn about them? If he DID know about them already and he had already turned the ring into one, it would be wise to be wearing it in case he was ever killed.

It just seems to me that he was already a "collector" when he was a small child. He may have collected a number of items, stashing them away some place. He was trying to find out about Horcruxes, but he might not have found out exactly how to do it until he left Hogwarts.

His travels and associations with the "worst of our kind" could have been his search for how to create a Horcrux and then how to create multiples. Once he learned how to do this, he looked for things to hold his soul-bits and decided to use his souvenirs.

Mattew Bates - Oct 12, 2005 1:23 pm (#1115 of 2969)
Edited Oct 12, 2005 2:25 pm

My take on the soul-splitting/Horcrux method is that with every murder, a bit of your soul rips then departs.

HungarianHorntail11, I'm afraid I have issues with this idea, especially if you're saying that any murder permanently lessens the soul. If this were the case, I think many of the Death Eaters would look as inhuman as Voldemort. Horcruxes are horrible, I think, because they alone permanently reduce the soul.

As redemption is an often-discussed topic (especially on Snape threads), any theory must allow for redemption. It seems to me that, at the core of redemption, an anti-hero or former villain can overcome a spotty past and come away whole, if somewhat scarred. I see that wholeness extending to the soul. If this is the case, then any soul fragment created by murder will stay in the in the body, unless a Horcrux is made. In my eyes, seeking redemption is the process of healing the damage done to your soul by the evils you've committed. If you do not seek redemption, your soul does not heal - but it all stays on one place, in case you have a change of heart.

Someone like Voldy, who has murdered often and never feels remorse or regret, has a very shredded soul from which he can choose to create Horcruxes. I see his quest for a seven-part soul as one in which his soul, however fragmented, tattered, or torn, is stored in seven bodies/containers. The way I see it, killing Frank Bryce was only necessary to create a Horcrux insofar as it made a fresh, easier-to-isolate tear in his confetti soul.

JILL HUBER - Oct 12, 2005 1:43 pm (#1116 of 2969)

Just a thought, is it possible that the true defeat for Grindelwald was the prospect of mortality, just as some of you have assumed? If that is true, here is my theory of his connection with little Voldy. I think that the idea of Dumbledore defeating Grindelwald by destroying his Horcruxes is a great thought. Dumbledore is always talking about there being worse things than death. So maybe Voldemort did what so many have done in the world of dark and evil forces...in order for apprentice become master, apprentice must kill master. I think when Voldy left the school, Grindelwald (I like to say uncle Grindy, like Voldy Very Happy

) was still alive and in hiding or seclusion. I think Voldemort sought him out and killed him after learning from him. JK Rowling has confirmed Grindelwald’s death, but not WHEN he died. Very important distinction as we know DEAR JO is very careful about her words. I also agree with Troels that if Voldy did kill Grindelwald, this would definitely be "Horcrux-worthy".

As far as Troels' mention of Rowling relating wizarding and Muggle events, maybe we need to look at the speculation possibly surrounding both. I have read and seen on the History Channel that there were some questions as to whether it was really Hitler's charred and dead body found outside his infamous bunker. For well into the 1970's, people were still searching for Hitler, extremists and conspiracy theorists, yes, but still. Also, after Hitler's death, there was still Japan...they didn't fall for nearly another year. Again, Rowling has been asked the question in several interviews about the relationship between the 2 "worlds", but she said in the last interview that, someone I am sure will bust out the exact text in a few posts, that there is a correlation, not necessarily exact.

Also, in regards to Dumbledore and finding the Horcrux in the cave and drinking the stuff that upset him and weakened him, also about the Mirror of Erised...we don't know what it was. Rowling said "no comment" about the Mirror. Is it plausible that this has more to do with what happened with Grindelwald and Dumbledore's past? I think something happened to make Dumbledore as Rowling described without an equal or anyone to confide in...Maybe he is guarding himself about something from the past. I think it relates back to guilt over Grindelwald, Voldemort or both...

I think there has to be a reason why there are so many secrets about a character like Dumbledore, I mean, what do we really know about him...thoughts?

Man, the posts are getting longer and longer!

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 12, 2005 1:56 pm (#1117 of 2969)

That depends upon what your idea of redemption is, Mattew. No matter how sorry someone is for murdering, the victim remains dead. A murderer can repent, however I don't think will ever be the same. It seems as though some of the people on this forum have resigned themselves to the idea that the soul will heal or 'mend' with a turnaround in the person's behavior (for lack of a better word). What if it changes a person enough and that's all there is to it? No mending, per se, just better choices in the future and what remains of the soul stays intact.

If this were the case, I think many of the Death Eaters would look as inhuman as Voldemort.

That was discussed (sorry, I can't remember which thread) and it seems to make sense that Big V's search for an immortal body is what may have caused his snakelike appearance.

hawick girl - Oct 12, 2005 4:36 pm (#1118 of 2969)
Edited Oct 12, 2005 5:43 pm

Also, after Hitler's death, there was still Japan...they didn't fall for nearly another year.

Hitler's suicide was on April 30, 1945 (Wikipedia) and Japan's Emperor Hirohito's agreement to surrender on August 15, 1945 (Wikipedia). Not 'nearly another year', it was about 3 months give or take some.

Edit: I just searched Wikipedia for Horcrux and it came back with a great summary of it in HP with related literary uses in other places. Horcrux

Verbina - Oct 12, 2005 5:17 pm (#1119 of 2969)

To go back to the discussion of the time frame between death and Horcrux...if (and I stress if) Voldemort made the diary from the death of Myrtle, he had approximately 6 months or even less. Myrtle’s death was near the end of the school term and the conversation with Slughorn was in the following school year. Even if you don't count Myrtle’s death then there is still a gap of about 3 months minimum between the deaths of the Riddles to the conversation with Slughorn. So we can safely say that the Horcrux need not be made immediately giving him plenty of time to find the right item to use.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 12, 2005 9:14 pm (#1120 of 2969)
Edited Oct 12, 2005 10:21 pm

Quote from Mattew Bates: I think that length of time would vary. How long does a soul take to heal from murder? I would think that would depend on the amount of remorse the person feels for it. For most, it might take years. For a particularly remorseless individual like Voldy, the in-body shelf life of soul fragments may be nearly indefinite.

Very insightful, and I agree (although I had to laugh at the 'in-body shelf life'.) :

Quote from Troels: vickilh42, RoseMorninStar and others, regarding Grindelwald. I was about to propose him earlier as a candidate for a significant death for Voldemort, but I'd be most comfortable to disregard him I think he is completely unimportant to the plot precisely because we are given the year AD of his defeat this, to my mind, disconnects him from the story-line of the books. The dating of the books is no more sure than we can't even know if Tom Riddle had even started at Hogwarts at that point (at the extreme end Tom might not even have been born when Grindelwald was defeated).

I am sorry Troels, but I am not sure I follow your point (in the above comment). I do not think that Voldemort/Tom Riddle had anything to do with the death of Grindelwald. I DO however, think he got some ideas from the reign and subsequent defeat (by Dumbledore) of Grindelwald. We know, by the chocolate frog cards, that Grindelwald was defeated in 1945. We don't know exactly when... but sometime that year. When JKR was asked about any correlation to the year 1945 and real history she says that it 'amuses' her to make allusions to events that are happening in the Muggle world at the same time they are happening in the wizarding world. (Now, that does not necessarily mean that there are direct correlations). We know that Tom Riddle was at Hogwarts the same years as Hagrid, and that 1943 was the year of the opening of the Chamber of Secrets. So, we DO know that Tom was at Hogwarts the year Grindelwald was defeated, and that it was in his last year.

I personally do not think that Dumbledore would have discussed this at length with the students. And I certainly don't think he would have discussed Horcruxes (he was adamant about that) but I do think he may have given a 'Cedric' type speech about unity and making good choices.

JKR will not answer questions as to whether or not Grindelwald is important (to the end of the plot/story, and in the interview she is asked if he (Grindelwald) has any connection to---(and the interviewer is cut-off) and JKR says, "I have no comment to make on that subject." So I am guessing that he IS important in some way.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 12, 2005 11:33 pm (#1121 of 2969)

Mattew Bates wrote on Oct 12, 2005 in message #1111 regarding the period a ripped-off soul-fragment is available for use in a Horcrux:

I think that length of time would vary. How long does a soul take to heal from murder? I would think that would depend on the amount of remorse the person feels for it. For most, it might take years. For a particularly remorseless individual like Voldy, the in-body shelf life of soul fragments may be nearly indefinite.

You put my uneasiness to rest ... thanks!

Anyone who would be willing to consider creating a Horcrux will probably take a considerable time to heal; or just for the rip to heal enough to make it impossible to seal off the soul-fragment in a Horcrux.

I think that for Voldemort the limit might not be determined by healing, but possibly by the time it would take before the soul-fragment shriveled into something useless ... though possibly I am overly judgmental of him.

Also his first was a triple murder, which might have produced an even longer-lived soul-fragment (or soul-fragments I have no opinion as to whether the triple murder produced one large juicy soul-fragment or three smaller ones).

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 13, 2005 12:33 am (#1122 of 2969)
Edited Oct 13, 2005 1:35 am

HungarianHorntail11 wrote on Oct 12, 2005 in message #1113

in general every aspect of the preoccupation with bloodlines is portrayed as negative.

Troels, that is the best argument yet that I've read regarding the Gryffindor/DD/Harry bloodline theory and I agree.

Thank you

It is often difficult when one tries to argue based on the moral message of the books as one is liable to project one's own morals onto the books. In this case, however, I think that Rowling's ‘message’ is so well documented that I am confident about using it as an argument (though, as I implied, the message is somewhat questioned by the fact that Dumbledore could utilise the blood-connection between Lily and Petunia for Harry's protection, though I think that this conflict is likely to originate in the ideas of blood-magic that arose in a society where blood was not only important, but all-important).

My take on the soul-splitting/Horcrux method is that with every murder, a bit of your soul rips then departs. If you perform a spell before the murder, the soul bit doesn't depart from this existence, rather, it is anchored here in an object and, hence, anchors the original or 'base soul' here to earth until all of the ties are released.

Mattew Bates responded on Oct 12, 2005 in message #1115

HungarianHorntail11, I'm afraid I have issues with this idea, especially if you're saying that any murder permanently lessens the soul. If this were the case, I think many of the Death Eaters would look as inhuman as Voldemort. Horcruxes are horrible, I think, because they alone permanently reduce the soul.

I am certainly with you on this, Mattew. Though I don't think HungarianHorntail11's idea necessarily needs the spell to be performed before the killing (I think Slughorn strongly implies that the spell is subsequent to the killing when he says, ‘The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion --’), but in the main, I agree that the self-mutilation must be curable, as you say.

As redemption is an often-discussed topic (especially on Snape threads), any theory must allow for redemption.

Well, I wouldn't take the wishes of Snape's advocates as a guide on what allow for, but I think there are stronger forces compelling us to allow for redemption

Rowling's stated religious views and practices to a side, Dumbledore has always stood as the moral exponent in Potterverse (‘Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness’ EXT: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and Dumbledore most certainly does believe in redemption in second chances (and though he may not always be right, he can certainly hold out some shining successes: e.g. that James Potter: from bully to Defender of Good because he was given a second chance).

It seems to me that, at the core of redemption, an anti-hero or former villain can overcome a spotty past and come away whole, if somewhat scarred.

I am inevitably thinking of Tolkien, when the discussion takes this route in one of his letters he wrote, ‘In this case the cause (not the 'hero') was triumphant, because by the exercise of pity, mercy, and forgiveness of injury, a situation was produced in which all was redressed and disaster averted.’ (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien letter #192) and elsewhere he described Gollum's near-redemption and how it would have affected the story had Sam not clumsily destroyed that chance.

Moving on with the actual topic here

I see that wholeness extending to the soul.

I agree entirely. The soul is what ‘passes on’ to ‘the other side of the veil’ and traditionally it is in this afterlife that we are supposedly judged and receive our rewards, so redemption must logically affect also (if not primarily or solely) that soul which shall be the recipient of the reward or punishment.

If this is the case, then any soul fragment created by murder will stay in the in the body, unless a Horcrux is made. In my eyes, seeking redemption is the process of healing the damage done to your soul by the evils you've committed. If you do not seek redemption, your soul does not heal - but it all stays on one place, in case you have a change of heart.

I agree in general, though I have to think a bit more about the details. I have imagined that the torn soul-fragment in time would shrivel if there was no healing whatsoever, but that might not be necessary (though, could we imagine that further acts of extreme evil could cause such a shrivelling? As I said, I have to think this over some more ...)

Someone like Voldy, who has murdered often and never feels remorse or regret, has a very shredded soul from which he can choose to create Horcruxes. [...] The way I see it, killing Frank Bryce was only necessary to create a Horcrux insofar as it made a fresh, easier-to-isolate tear in his confetti soul.

I think this might be where I have some slight problems with he details of this. In particular because of Dumbledore's phrases about the seven-part soul, ‘the seventh part of his soul’ suggests ‘seventh and last’.

Admittedly, we don't know if the details have ever been planned at the level of mechanical consistency that we'd like to see, so it's not certain that it is possible to make sense of it at this level, but that's another question.

By the way; how would you imagine that Voldemort managed to keep his ‘confetti soul’ ( I love that phrase, thanks) together for the years he led his spectral existence (now, there is a state that I am grateful to Jo for giving us a proper phrase for )? One might imagine that the various fragments of his soul would separate once they were no longer contained in the same body.

Regards,

Troels

Mattew Bates - Oct 13, 2005 9:53 am (#1123 of 2969)
Edited Oct 13, 2005 10:54 am

That depends upon what your idea of redemption is, Mattew. No matter how sorry someone is for murdering, the victim remains dead. A murderer can repent, however I don't think will ever be the same. It seems as though some of the people on this forum have resigned themselves to the idea that the soul will heal or 'mend' with a turnaround in the person's behavior (for lack of a better word). What if it changes a person enough and that's all there is to it?

HungarianHorntail11, if bodily wounds are bad enough, they scab up, itch while healing, and scar. The skin is whole, but it never looks quite the same. A badly broken leg can heal badly, leaving a limp. If the wounds are bad enough, even if you heal and are bodily whole, you are changed by your wounds and your healing. I see wounds to the soul in the same light. Also, I think a better word is "heart" - the behavior must follow an internal decision to heal.

By the way; how would you imagine that Voldemort managed to keep his ‘confetti soul’ ( I love that phrase, thanks) together for the years he led his spectral existence (now, there is a state that I am grateful to Jo for giving us a proper phrase for )? One might imagine that the various fragments of his soul would separate once they were no longer contained in the same body.

Troels, that is a very good point. Off the cuff, I'd have to say that some cohesion was provided by the Horcruxes - without them, his soul would not have stuck around at all. Also, he still had the face of his old body while on the back of Quirrell's head, so his soul contained some residual memory of his old body. Perhaps the memory of his body was enough to keep him together. Perhaps a strong willpower or sense of identity helped him through the spectral time. Or, just maybe, if he hadn't occasionally possessed forest creatures (giving him a chance to regroup), his soul would have scattered and drifted.

... and it seems to make sense that Big V's search for an immortal body is what may have caused his snakelike appearance.

HungarianHorntail11, whatever caused his snakelike appearance, it was attached to his soul, not his body - it followed him to Quirrell. That is what makes me think his appearance has more to do with Horcruxes than other immortality research.

hawick girl - Oct 13, 2005 10:05 am (#1124 of 2969)

Troels said in previous post: (though, as I implied, the message is somewhat questioned by the fact that Dumbledore could utilise the blood-connection between Lily and Petunia for Harry's protection, though I think that this conflict is likely to originate in the ideas of blood-magic that arose in a society where blood was not only important, but all-important)

It was Muggle blood that protects him now. In a society such as this, would such 'blood purists' find even more reason to hate/malign Harry. Another strike against him type of thing. Couldn't this be the negative aspect. That some would think that him being protected by 'Muggle blood' would further 'dirty' him?

Here is a mental puzzle:

Let's say that Snape was in the same situation, how would he respond to the Muggle protection of his father's brother or sister? With him trying to 'get in' with the purist Slytherins, I think that if they knew he would be out doubly--as a half-blood, and as protected by Muggle blood. I'm trying to say that his protection could be seen in a negative way.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 13, 2005 11:14 am (#1125 of 2969)
Edited Oct 13, 2005 12:21 pm

Dumbledore most certainly does believe in redemption in second chances

Keep in mind that he also holds Harry, who is whole in the real sense, in the utmost esteem and has put all of his faith in it with regard to the defeat of Big V.

It seems to me that, at the core of redemption, an anti-hero or former villain can overcome a spotty past and come away whole, if somewhat scarred.

if bodily wounds are bad enough, they scab up, itch while healing, and scar. The skin is whole, but it never looks quite the same. A badly broken leg can heal badly, leaving a limp. If the wounds are bad enough, even if you heal and are bodily whole, you are changed by your wounds and your healing. I see wounds to the soul in the same light. Also, I think a better word is "heart" - the behavior must follow an internal decision to heal.

Matthew, I rather liken it to the loss of a limb. This leaves the person intact for the most part, but something must be lost when a heinous crime is committed, otherwise there would be little difference between persons who have killed and those who haven't other than a scar, as you put it.

Mattew Bates - Oct 13, 2005 4:44 pm (#1126 of 2969)
Edited Oct 13, 2005 5:52 pm

HungarianHorntail11, please do not minimize what I have said to simply "a scar." I was speaking in general terms about all spiritual damage & healing. The magnitude of murder, in a bodily metaphor, is more like shattered bones, third degree burns over much of the body, or spinal cord injuries. Some broken bones will never heal properly, and scar tissue loses sensation in the nerve endings. Whether it is freedom of motion or simply the sensation in your skin, something is still lost.

Still, you have found the weakness of my metaphor. Bodily healing is a process that, once treated, occurs so long as we do not hinder it. Spiritual healing requires much more effort, and a great many of the "walking wounded" will not put forth the effort to heal. (For the few that will, their permanent spiritual limp awaits.)

As far as amputation, I think that is a better body/soul metaphor for the creation of a Horcrux - that's how permanent it is, and that's how much your soul is damaged by the process. Please remember that the creation of a Horcrux is supposed to be the worst thing you can do to your soul - it goes a step beyond murder, and makes the damage the murder has done to your soul permanent.

Verbina - Oct 31, 2007 7:01 am (#1127 of 2969)
Edited by Oct 13, 2005 10:03 pm

So, the soul, if left alone...even in an uncaring body like Voldy's, would it heal at all? I am gathering from your statements that it would be no. I am not 100% sure of this though. It is possible that given time, the tear within a soul could heal. As memory fades etc etc. Though I have to admit with Voldy it is a difficult thing to think of.

I have been pondering the deaths and noticed that many of us talk as if Voldemort killed many, many, many people. Yet it occurred to me...what if he didn't kill them all? I noted that when a person was killed by Voldemort, people talking about it would say so and so was "killed by Voldemort". Almost as if to prove or show that the deceased was somehow important to Voldemort. Most deaths talked about though are not said that way. Which leads me to think that Voldemort had the Death Eaters commit most of the killings. And to be honest, he strikes me as the type, that once fully established as Voldemort with his followers, he would leave most of the killing to others. We have talked many times about the death of Myrtle and if Voldemort could be counted as the killer when she was actually killed by the basilisk. This would be a similar situation...Voldemort would not be held accountable for the deaths incurred by the Death Eaters, even if on his orders. I only say this because we may be thinking the number of deaths to be in the hundreds when they may actually be under 20.

As per the Grindelwald conversation, I would like to point out that Tom was known for finding out things very fast and knowing things he shouldn't. We suspect that he would simply pick the other person's mind. Dumbledore at the time was the Transfiguration teacher and so a disappearance by him at a time that Grindelwald was about would be suspicious in Tom's mind. So all it would take for him to find out what Dumbledore was doing was to ask another teacher and dip into their thoughts.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 13, 2005 10:46 pm (#1128 of 2969)
Edited Oct 13, 2005 11:50 pm

I think the point being made earlier is that the healing of a soul is similar in some ways but different in other ways, to the healing of the body. Whereas the body requires physical healing, the soul requires spiritual healing. I would think that that spiritual healing would require remorse & repentance (at the least). Then the healing process would begin. I would think the more remorseful, repentant a person is... and to some extent how much a person can atone or repair the wrong (which, in the case of murder would be about nil) would determine how well a soul could heal. I am not saying that someone who committed a murder soul could never heal, I am just saying it would be more difficult and less complete than something that a person could make reparations for. And of course, the reason a Horcrux is so horrific is because there is absolutely no chance of healing. And intentionally so.

Verbina, I agree... I think Voldemort let his followers do most of the 'dirty work' (killing) but I think that he is still held somewhat responsible (but that does not excuse those who did carry out his orders)for the deaths he ordered. Another interesting question would be how accountable/damaging it would be to a person's soul who committed murder under duress... at the cost of their own life (if they do not do as they are told), in battle/war, under the influence of a 'curse' or, if we are to make parallels, under the influence of propaganda, such as in Hitler's Germany, etc... It's a tough call.

I too think Tom learned a great deal through Legilimency.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 14, 2005 7:52 am (#1129 of 2969)
Edited Oct 14, 2005 9:48 am

please do not minimize what I have said to simply "a scar."

Mattew, it is funny how you can make such a statement, yet disregard my main point. Yet, inasmuch as you didn't respond to it, your following comment seems to be gravitating towards it. (For the few that will, their permanent spiritual limp awaits.) It almost seems as though you're adjusting your standpoint. This is from your post I responded to:

It seems to me that, at the core of redemption, an anti-hero or former villain can overcome a spotty past and come away whole, if somewhat scarred. I see that wholeness extending to the soul.

It is not a weakness in your metaphor, rather, something so horrible cannot be done, having the only difference between a "whole" person (which in my terms is someone who hasn't murdered anyone) versus someone who has murdered, resulting in the murderer being "somewhat scarred". For this reason, I completely disagree with your statement. If you are still unsure as to what my point is, recheck my earlier post regarding DD's high esteem for Harry.

My reference to loss of limb was to an unintended loss, as in the unintended remorse of someone committing murder, rather than an amputation. I think you may have misunderstood the context in which I meant it.

And before I forget, heart is a better word.

EDIT: Troels, the quote you suggested leaves some wiggle room: ‘The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion --’),

The key word, is "intent". If Big V says to himself, 'I'm going to kill James and catch that torn soul fragment, not allowing it to depart, and encapsulate it in a box,' then a spell must be in place to keep it from departing. The very idea that the soul fragments has not been given nearly enough consideration.

Mattew Bates - Oct 14, 2005 11:45 am (#1130 of 2969)
Edited Oct 14, 2005 12:46 pm

sigh*

HungarianHorntail11, I focused my response on what you put in bold type as a response to my statements, as I (mis)understood that to be your main point. I was not intentionally disregarding it. Actually, I didn't respond to it because I agree with it, and you phrased it as a response to what Troels has written.

It almost seems as though you're adjusting your standpoint.

I am clarifying my standpoint - your clarification of your ideas forces me to clarify mine (I see this as a good thing). I give ground if I realize I can't properly defend it. But I think there is middle ground between some of our ideas, or I would simply "agree to disagree."

It is not a weakness in your metaphor, rather, something so horrible cannot be done, having the only difference between a "whole" person (which in my terms is someone who has not murdered anyone) versus someone who has murdered, resulting in the murderer being "somewhat scarred".

This, I think, is the core of our disagreement. I'm using a broader definition of "whole" than you are - someone who has a currently untorn soul in just one body. In my understanding, there are only two ways to not be whole: One has murdered, has a soul fragment in their body, and has not finished (or not attempted) spiritual healing; or one has murdered and created a Horcrux from the soul fragment, making healing impossible. I still hold that even murderers, who can never fully atone for what they have done, can still find a level of redemption where their soul can be, once again, classified as "whole." I'm trying to allow for gray area between the black of Horcruxes, and the white of Unscarred.

And, the reason I used the phrase "somewhat scarred" is because of varying degrees of murder. American law allows for murder one (premeditated), murder two (intent to kill/injure while under emotional duress), and murder three (manslaughter, accidental death due to actions of the killer). Hypothetical: Suppose Snape had not been nearby to heal Malfoy after Harry cast Sectumsempra on him. If Malfoy had died, then Harry would have been guilty of murder two. That would have certainly damaged his soul. That damage would have been more severe than if Harry had cast Reducto on a stall door Malfoy took cover behind, and the shrapnel had killed Malfoy; but less severe than if Harry had known what Sectumsempra did and went looking for Malfoy solely to cast it on him (not likely, yes, but this is hypothetical). No matter the way, Harry would have the heart to seek redemption, and would be whole after the process was done. Not as spiritually fit as before, but whole in a way that Voldemort can never be again. To sum up: unscarred > whole, but scarred > spiritually damaged, seeking redemption > murderer > created Horcrux

To address your main point: In the same way that a person who must use a cane is bodily whole, but still limited by their injury, a person who has committed murder but sought redemption is spiritually limited by their injury. Who would Dumbledore trust more to make a "soul sprint" - Harry, or the (hypothetical) Redeemed!Harry? Both have a whole spirit, but one has limited capabilities. The smart money is on Unscarred!Harry. On this, at least, we can agree.

So, the soul, if left alone ... even in an uncaring body like Voldy's, would it heal at all? I am gathering from your statements that it would be no.

Verbina, that's the gist of it, yes. I don't think memory fading is enough to heal the wound, but perhaps enough to make the creation of a Horcrux difficult.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 14, 2005 3:05 pm (#1131 of 2969)

I give ground if I realize I can't properly defend it. But I think there is middle ground between some of our ideas, or I would simply "agree to disagree."

Ditto. I will admit if I am wrong.

This, I think, is the core of our disagreement. I'm using a broader definition of "whole" than you are -

Okay, okay, I'll bend on that. Yes, my position with regard to "whole" is someone who murdered vs. someone who has not - quite cut and dry. I classified them differently from you. But think about it, it goes along with my idea of "losing" part of the soul permanently, hence the murderer cannot be whole again, just healed. I can't see someone who has killed to be seen in the same light as someone who has not - that was the distinction I was trying to make. It seems as though we do agree:

The smart money is on Unscarred!Harry. On this, at least, we can agree.

As I stated before, I think DD also sees the value in such a person. I wonder if some of the somber undertone of DD isn't because he knows that Harry will have to commit murder because of Big V.

Verbina - Oct 14, 2005 9:40 pm (#1132 of 2969)

Interesting discussion I must say. But I am not so sure that the soul, once torn, would immediately depart. I am sure that those in the last conflict with Voldemort that were forced to kill to save the lives of others have a diminished soul. I do believe they would have a scarred soul but not a diminished one. Also the Death Eaters, while not a very nice group, do not strike me as people with diminished souls. Badly torn and scarred yes, but not diminished in anyway. So I can't really agree with the idea of the soul piece that is torn leaving the body after the tear.

Also, I find it interesting that all references to Horcruxes define it as a horrible thing. Slughorn says it is a horrible thing to do to the soul. But...no mention of the murder itself. I am not saying that murder is condoned but it strikes me that the making of a Horcrux from a murder is considered to be worse than the murder itself. So the actual tearing of the soul is horrible but the removal of that piece, preventing any naturally occurring healing, is considered to be even worse. Just a feeling I get from the statements about them in the books.

As for if Voldemort would be accountable for the deaths the Death Eaters caused, he would be...morally. But with the soul tearing...I am not so sure the results would be the same. As I said, we have debated a great deal over the death of Myrtle. It was not at the hands of Voldemort but the basilisk brought it about, under orders from Voldemort. Because of this detail, some people here think Myrtle’s death could not have been used to make a Horcrux. So it would follow that the murders committed by the Death Eaters under L.V’s orders would not effect L.V’s soul. I am wondering what the definition in the WW is of murder. Perhaps that would help clarify this.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 14, 2005 10:05 pm (#1133 of 2969)
Edited Oct 14, 2005 11:16 pm

Verbina, I took it to mean that to make a Horcrux was so evil, so vile, so taboo because it does mean that one would have to commit murder. Not only would they have to commit a murder, but be unrepentant enough to have no intention of allowing the vile act to be atoned (or have remorse) for. Think of Professor Slughorn's response when Tom Riddle asks about creating more than one Horcrux. He was appalled by someone even thinking of creating more than one because it would mean taking more than one life. Slughorn says that you split your soul by

"an act of evil--the supreme act of evil. By committing murder..... ... "

and when Tom Riddle asks;

"What I don't understand, though--just out of curiosity--I mean, would one Horcrux be much use? Can you only split your soul once? Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger to have your soul in more pieces, I mean, for instance, isn't seven the most powerfully magic number, wouldn't seven---?"

"Merlin's beard, Tom!" yelped Slughorn. "Seven! Isn't it bad enough to think of killing one person? And in any case...bad enough to divide the soul...but to rip it into seven pieces..." Slughorn looked deeply troubled now: He was gazing at Riddle as thought he had never seen him plainly before...

I do think that there are different degrees of killing. Murder is by far the worst, in so much as murder requires premeditation, malice, and intent. A person could kill someone and it can be an act of self-defense or accidental which I don't think are as accountable as murder. Then you get into the murky area of deaths caused by preventable accidents...like drunk driving, where there may not have been premeditation, intent or maliciousness, but there is negligence.

Verbina - Oct 14, 2005 11:01 pm (#1134 of 2969)

(Still haven't figured out the italics...slow I know so bear with me.)

"Seven! Isn't it bad enough to think of killing one person? And in any case...bad enough to divide the soul...but to rip it into seven pieces..."

This part of the quote is what caught my attention actually. Murder alone is a horrible crime. And to do it seven times is seven times as horrible. But then to make the soul irreparable (is that a word?) by taking the soul apart...this only makes it even more horrible.

To make a Horcrux would mean several things all at once - 1) a total lack of respect for human life to commit murder in the first place 2)a lack of respect for your own soul to commit the murder and then to capitalize on the wound the soul receives and 3) the conscience decision to not allow for remorse or atonement for the murder. In other words, to kill another human with no regard for your soul and with no feelings of remorse at all for the death.

And I agree that accidental and self-defense would not be considered murder. And legally and morally the killing of another human on the orders of another makes the killer and the person who ordered it just as guilty. But with the souls...that is the sticky part. Would the soul adhere to the laws of the Wizarding World as to what is or is not murder? Personally, I think that, soul splitting wise, if he ordered the basilisk to kill Myrtle, then he would have committed murder. So he would be responsible for the murders committed by the Death Eaters on his orders. So the numbers of the tears to his soul would be massive. I was merely pointing out that for those that don't think Myrtle counts, then the Death Eaters murders would not count either. Playing devils advocate I guess! LOL

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 15, 2005 4:47 am (#1135 of 2969)
Edited Oct 15, 2005 5:47 am

As I've stated before, (with the risk of sounding redundant) I think you do end up with a diminished soul because you've sent one from earth by way of a murder. JKR has made a point of presenting Harry as whole and I take that literally.

Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger to have your soul in more pieces,

I caught that bit off your post, RoseMorninStar. Isn't it funny how TR thinks he will be stronger having his soul in more pieces? A good show of discord, as opposed to harmony.

Verbina, there is a good "How To" thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which has helpful information. But for the time being, < I > to begin a section with italics and < / I > to end it. (Do not include the spaces, I had to, otherwise it wouldn't show up, you'd just see italicized print.) Also, you can substitute b for bold.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:56 pm

Choices - Oct 15, 2005 7:58 am (#1136 of 2969)

HH - "Isn't it funny how TR thinks he will be stronger having his soul in more pieces?"

Yes, it is. Tom obviously has a strange definition of "stronger". He may think he is stronger in terms of immortality, but he is not physically, mentally or spiritually stronger as a result of splitting his soul in 7 parts. Just the opposite, I would think.

Muggle born - Oct 15, 2005 9:07 am (#1137 of 2969)

Do we know who the person was who created a Horcrux in the first place? I wonder if it was Dumbledore

Choices - Oct 15, 2005 4:14 pm (#1138 of 2969)

I don't know Muggle born, but it would sure be interesting to know how Horcruxes (in the magical world) came into being..... .who was the Horcrux pioneer?

RoseMorninStar - Oct 15, 2005 8:54 pm (#1139 of 2969)

I don't think Dumbledore had anything to do with creating a Horcrux. JKR says he is the epitome of goodness and Horcruxes are the worst of the worst dark magic. That just doesn't fit. I do wonder however, if perhaps Grindelwald was one of the first. Maybe that is why it is not mentioned in many books. And perhaps that is the connection between Voldemort and Grindlewald. JKR did not say that there was a connection ... but she was evasive about it. From a July 2005 interview:

• ES: Our other ‘Ask Jo’ question (the one about James and Lily’s sacrifices), was from Maria Vlasiou, who is 25, of the Netherlands. And then the third is from Helen Poole, 18, from Thirsk, Yorkshire - also one of the ‘Plot Thickens’ fan book authors. It’s the one about Grindelwald, which I’m sure you’ve been gearing up for us to ask.
• JKR: Uh huh.
• ES: Clearly -
• JKR: Come on then, remind me. Is he dead?
• ES: Yeah, is he dead?
• JKR: Yeah, he is.
• ES: Is he important?
• JKR: [regretful] Ohhh...
• ES: You don’t have to answer but can you give us some back-story on him?
• JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald" HMM: ]. He said, ‘Is it coincidence that he died in 1945,’ and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on.
• ES: Does he have any connection to --
• JKR: I have no comment to make on that subject.
[Laughter.]
• MA: Do they feed each other, the Muggle and wizarding wars?
• JKR: Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Mm.
• MA: You've gone very quiet.
[All laugh; JKR maniacally.]
• MA: We like when you get very quiet, it means
• ES: You’re clearly hiding something.

Verbina, when I want italics, I only have to put an I and one space at the front of the word/line that I want italicized. If I only want one word in italics, that is the only word on the line. If I want a whole paragraph italicized, I only have to have the I on the first line and it stays italicized until there is a paragraph/line break.

hawick girl - Oct 16, 2005 12:06 am (#1140 of 2969)
Edited Oct 16, 2005 1:07 am

I agree that DD is the most unlikely one to be a Horcrux pioneer, and most likely Grindelwald was the latest pioneer (prior to Voldie), but the actual first Horcrux-er, I don't think that we have enough info on the whole phenomenon of Horcruxes to say with any authority.

Do I make sense?

Sleep deprivation does bad things Wink

DM Havox - Oct 16, 2005 9:13 am (#1141 of 2969)

The Grindelwald connection may work the same way the Nicholas Flamel connection did in SS. I can Imagine HG spending time in the library looking up Grindelwald and finding the link there? I know its story line rehash but, just a thought

vickilh42 - Oct 16, 2005 11:19 am (#1142 of 2969)
Edited Oct 16, 2005 12:19 pm

In my rereads of HBP, I found a couple of things that me struck as "Horcrux-related". I'm not suggesting that they will be helpful to discerning the Horcruxes, but I found them curious just the same.

p377 As Harry is searching for a bezoar as "suggested" by the HBP, he locates "half a dozen shriveled brown objects, looking more like dried up kidneys than real stones".(I was reminded of the 6 pieces of Voldemort's soul...aka " half a dozen shriveled brown objects". I'm not saying that the soul bits would have a physical appearance, just that I enjoyed considering the analogy. "Kidney" are a part of the human body and so I was reminded of Voldemort separating the 6 soul bits from his body.)

p402 As Madam Pomfrey returns to Ron's bedside in the hospital after his poisoning, she reminds his visitors, "No more than six visitors at a time!" George points out that, "Hagrid makes six." (I was reminded of the theories about people as Horcruxes-- such as Harry and Dumbledore. So, here's canon that maybe "Hagrid makes six" as in the 6th Horcrux. Smile

Sorry to have a led the thread off the serious track of Horcruxes. I just found myself enjoying the tangent they provided!

imprint of a departed soul - Oct 17, 2005 4:55 am (#1143 of 2969)

I don't think Harry is a Horcrux. Voldemort intended to kill Harry, it doesn't make sense for Voldemort to have put a portion of his soul into an intended murder victim.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 17, 2005 5:28 am (#1144 of 2969)

imprint of a departed soul, those of us who do believe he is a Horcrux believe it was done by Big V unintentionally. You can do a search on this topic to further clarify the various theories.

Paulus Maximus - Oct 17, 2005 7:27 am (#1145 of 2969)
Edited Oct 17, 2005 8:29 am

But can Horcruxes be made unintentionally? You can't commit murder unintentionally (if it's unintentional, it isn't murder), and you must commit murder to make a Horcrux...

Besides, if Harry is a Horcrux, he'll never vanquish Voldemort. Not unless he can survive whatever damage will need to be done to him to destroy the piece of Voldemort's soul in him...

Choices - Oct 17, 2005 7:38 am (#1146 of 2969)

I agree - the idea of making an unintentional Horcrux is just not logical. I don't believe it can be done.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 17, 2005 8:51 am (#1147 of 2969)
Edited Oct 17, 2005 9:58 am

Sorry folks, but I disagree. Horcruxes are the invention of JKR and as the 'creator' she gets to make up the rules as she wishes. So, perhaps Harry is a Horcrux and perhaps he isn't. That is up to Jo.

For those of us who think it is a possibility, we do not think that the murders are unintentional. Voldemort murdered enough people to create many Horcruxes. (His father-Tom Riddle, his paternal Grandfather and Grandmother, Hepzibah Smith, James and Lily Potter, Frank Bryce, Susan Bones grandparents, Dorcas Meadows, Bertha Jorkins, Myrtle-indirectly via the Basilisk, and Cedric Diggory (via Wormtail on Voldemort's orders). So, even if we do not count Myrtle and Cedric, that is at least 11 murders. Each time a murder is committed his soul is 'torn in two'. We do not know if the Horcrux 'spell' and container or whatever it takes has to be considered in advance, at the time of the murder or if it can be done later. Assuming no 'healing' of the soul has taken place, we can assume that it can be created at a later date from circumstantial evidence in the timeline-but we cannot know for sure.

So, if it takes a murder, which splits the soul, Voldemort had plenty of those. Voldemort had intended to create a Horcrux the night he killed the Potters. He had intended to create one with Harry's death. But Harry did not die. But his parents did die... at the hands of Voldemort. So, there were at least 2 'fresh' soul divisions in Voldemort that night. If Voldemort had 'preplanned' his Horcrux and readied his container, which is possible, since we do not know the 'rules', a Horcrux could have been made that night.

As I have said before, things definitely did NOT go as Voldemort planned the night he attempted to kill Harry. Maybe more than one thing went wrong. Perhaps when the AK curse rebounded, if Voldemort had 'pre-planned' the 'Harry' Horcrux, the intended Horcrux spell (or whatever it takes) did not embed where it was supposed to. If that is what happened (and I know that is a big IF) I think it could not penetrate Harry and left it's mark on Harry's skin. On his forehead. If this is the case, I don't think Voldemort has/had any idea that is what occurred. That is, until he realized in OotP that Harry has some connections with him...is able to 'pick-up' on things that Voldemort senses... things that he and Nagini can see... Perhaps there is a container out there that Voldemort thinks is a Horcrux, but it is not. I don't know how one could tell unless it is destroyed. Maybe that is why Voldemort wanted Harry dead in the past and now he wants him left 'for himself'. I think he suspects something and doesn't know what will happen when/if he kills Harry.

To conclude, maybe Harry is or is not a Horcrux. But for those of us who think it is a possibility, I think that is how it could have occurred.

Aurora Gubbins - Oct 17, 2005 9:24 am (#1148 of 2969)

Does anyone else think that one of the Horcruxes is the shield that Tom was awarded for services to the school? It is trophy indeed, if seen from his point of view he did a great service to the school in opening the chamber and releasing the monster within, and in killing a Muggle. JM2K Aurora xx

Madame Pomfrey - Oct 17, 2005 10:03 am (#1149 of 2969)
Edited Oct 17, 2005 11:07 am

Very good explanation, Rose. I can see how Harry might be a Horcrux. My problem with that theory is the prophecy. Harry has been marked by Voldemort as his equal, giving him the power to vanquish him. Dumbledore has said that all Horcruxes must be destroyed prior to killing Voldemort/seventh Horcrux. If Harry is a Horcrux he will have to be destroyed before Voldemort, this leaves us with no "chosen one. "We already know that it doesn't necessarily have to be Harry to destroy the Horcruxes because Dumbledore destroyed one, however, Harry is the chosen one destined to kill Voldemort and therefore has to remain alive to accomplish this. On the other hand, if Harry's scar is the Horcrux he might be able to destroy the scar without destroying himself. I can’t really see that happening. Look how much damage the ring and the diary obtained after their Horcruxes were destroyed.

Aurora, I have thought about Tom Riddles award too. Hasn’t the trophy room been mentioned a number of times? I’m currently doing a reread of the series and am taking all kind of notes.

haymoni - Oct 17, 2005 11:57 am (#1150 of 2969)

I just find it odd that if there was a Horcrux sitting there at Hogwarts, why wouldn't Voldy have told Quirrell to get it?

Hogs Head - Oct 17, 2005 2:23 pm (#1151 of 2969)

Haymoni, I'm not sure a Horcrux in hand (other than the diary itself, which is sui generis, or one of a kind perhaps) would have done Voldy any good. As I read it, they are like tethers holding him in this world, but not like "pills" he can swallow to get a new body or regenerate. Not like "extra lives" in a video game. It is more like a piece of the original soul that must also be killed before the original soul can die.

hawick girl - Oct 17, 2005 4:27 pm (#1152 of 2969)
Edited Oct 17, 2005 5:29 pm

I agree, Hogs Head. Voldie thinks that they are in the best places and completely safe (aside from the Diary which he knows about). Little does he know about RAB, DD and HP's knowledge and intentions. Why would he want them to see the light of day where they could get mishandled (ala Malfoy), lost, or broken.

I think that there has been a slight contradiction in the theory about the scar Horcrux. It is whether the Horcrux is in the Scar or in Him and the resulting consequences. If his goodness protected him from the soul-fragment of Voldie's and it was lodged in his skin I.e. the scar, and is therefore 'outside' of him, how can this give him a closer connection to Voldie? If we are trying to make him a Horcrux then I could see a closer connection (although there are a lot of problems due to his ability to hurt Voldie when is possessed w/o his hurting when observing Voldie), but if we make his scar the Horcrux then the connection is outside of HP and his perceptions. I feel that the point of making his scar the Horcrux is that we really don't want Harry to get killed, but maybe that is what it will take, a sacrifice by a 17 year old to get the rest of them of their duffs.

What I really think is that Horcruxes and Harry's scar and connection to Voldie are two entirely different phenomena.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 17, 2005 10:48 pm (#1153 of 2969)
Edited Oct 17, 2005 11:55 pm

Madame Pomfrey, I have a theory on how it could work if Harry's scar is a Horcrux, but it is only a theory and I realize it is not perfect.

First of all, I do not think Harry himself is a Horcrux because then he would be sort of possessed, like the diary. And Harry is not possessed. I think Ginny made that perfectly clear when she questioned him about blank stretches of time that he doesn't remember.

So, IF Harry's scar is a Horcrux, I could see Harry meeting up with Voldemort for the final 'showdown' but Harry does not think he is ready because he thinks he has one more Horcrux yet to find and destroy. Harry battles and gets all 'noble' (as Ginny would say) and decides to do the best he can to 'vanquish' Voldemort, but Voldemort uses the AK curse on Harry. But because of some reason...whether it is something special Dumbledore set into motion, or some special protection or reaction between their wands or SOMETHING, the curse hits Harry in his scar, destroying the last Horcrux, and then the curse rebounds and hits Voldemort. Much the same way it did when Harry was a baby. That way, Harry will live, and not have to directly kill Voldemort, which I don't think JKR will have Harry do. I think Harry will somehow 'vanquish' Voldemort without directly 'murdering' him. I also, for some reason, think that when Dumbledore 'defeated' the Dark Lord Grindelwald, Dumbledore did not kill him directly, but that he died none-the-less, and was 'vanquished'.

As I said, I realize this is not a perfect theory, but who knows what JKR will come up with in the last book. There are so many factors involved that we cannot predict, because, like the Horcruxes and the Unforgivable curses, they are her own invention and we cannot predict with any accuracy exactly how they work. JKR has said that Harry's scar has given Harry a 'magical window into Voldemort's mind' and that the shape of the scar was not the most important thing about the scar. So there is much to think about.

It is fun to speculate!

rambkowalczyk - Oct 18, 2005 5:43 am (#1154 of 2969)

I think any type of killing will split the soul. This is what made Crouch Sr. decision to use Unforgivables on the Death Eaters so controversial. We know police officers and soldiers go through a lot of guilt if they kill someone in the line of duty so we can conclude that even in the magical world killing is also not good for the killer.

We are told that the soul must remain whole. Most major religions show a desire for all souls to reunite with a "greater one" at some point in time. It is as though the natural order of the universe is to unite all souls into something that is more than a some of its parts.

How does a soul split? Or is murder the only way to do it? Actually Slughorn says any act of evil will do so? So how is evil defined? Excuse the circular argument here, but evil should be defined as anything that prevents this ultimate harmony. (or anything that splits the soul).

What I am trying to say is that there are two components to any evil act. One is that (in murder for instance) you are shattering the illusion that the world is a safe and comfortable place, you make it impossible for people to trust each other--you make it fearful for souls to unite. The other component is that you hurt yourself, your soul gets split--you isolate yourself from others to protect yourself from further hurt. Isolation isn't good for the soul.

Tom since he was a baby has chosen to isolate himself thinking to protect himself from being hurt when in fact he is denying himself sustenance.

Harry as a normal human at times isolates himself (as in OOP) and at other times reaches out or lets others reach out to him.

Ordinary people who accidently commit murder have two types of healing that they must do. First they must mend the breach in their own soul by acknowledging the full truth about what they have done, and resolve to take steps not to repeat this mistake. Second they have to heal the pain in other people that their murder has caused--they need to reconcile with the world at large.

Ok that's enough philosophy for now.

Madame Pomfrey - Oct 18, 2005 6:33 am (#1155 of 2969)
Edited Oct 18, 2005 7:38 am

Ooh... I love it Rose! I have been thinking of ways Harry could vanquish Voldemort without raising his wand and the best I could come up with is something to do with Amortentia. Jo said that there is something special about Harry's scar and the very last word of book 7 is supposed to be "scar”. It makes sense. Brilliant, I think you may be right!

Choices - Oct 18, 2005 8:16 am (#1156 of 2969)

Ramb - "How does a soul split? Or is murder the only way to do it? Actually Slughorn says any act of evil will do so?"

Actually, when asked how to make a Horcrux by Tom, what Slughorn says is..... "By an act of evil---the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart." So, it is not just any act of evil, it is only murder that rips the soul apart - the supreme act of evil.

haymoni - Oct 18, 2005 8:47 am (#1157 of 2969)

I see what you are saying about the Horcruxes - as long as one exists you are alive - a being of some sort.

It's up to you to find a body. You don't have to locate a Horcrux and do something to it to regenerate yourself. The fact that the Horcrux exists in the first place is enough to keep you alive.

Voldy is never going to have to go back and find his Horcruxes - he just has to know that they exist. His thinking is that people usually make one - nobody would think that he made seven.

Why doesn't he just keep making them as he kills people off - just to be sure? How is Harry going to know if Voldy made more than 7?

Verbina - Oct 18, 2005 9:15 am (#1158 of 2969)

Personally, I don't think he can make any more. I have a few reasons for this thinking. 1) he hasn't attempted as far as we know to make more 2) what soul he has left in his body is a small, twisted scarred thing now and 3) his snake-like appearance.

I have a theory that part of a witch/wizard is animalistic in nature. This part is what dictates what Animagus form you will have if you take the steps to become Animagus. So...McGonagall has cat like qualities, Sirius had dog like qualities etc etc. This ties into Horcruxes in this way - when the soul is diminished due to the making of a Horcrux, the body takes on one of the animal like qualities. So with Tom, it was the reddish glint in his eyes. As Tom made more Horcruxes, the more of is soul he lost and the more his body "reverted" to the animal qualities.

Dumbledore also said that without that last bit that is within his body, Voldemort will lose himself. As if that last soul piece is pure concentrated Voldemort. To divide that piece up even more...I believe he runs the risk of losing what little "humanity" (if you can call it that) he has left.

As for the theory of Harry's Scar being an accidental Horcrux...it could happen. I don't personally subscribe to the idea but it is definitely possible.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 18, 2005 9:29 am (#1159 of 2969)

Yes, you've got it, haymoni! The only problem for Big V is that he has no "connection" with his Horcruxes, so if they are being destroyed, he has no way of knowing (I.e., he doesn't feel any sense of loss - no pun intended ).

First of all, I do not think Harry himself is a Horcrux because then he would be sort of possessed, like the diary

RoseMorninStar, the diary was enchanted which is what enabled it to interact with the outside world. I believe the scar was the entry point.

If we are trying to make him a Horcrux then I could see a closer connection (although there are a lot of problems due to his ability to hurt Voldie when is possessed w/o his hurting when observing Voldie),

hawick girl

Actually, your answer is in your writing - Big V was possessing Harry whereas Harry was not possessing Big V, just observing, or reading his thoughts without needing eye contact. Kind of like some extra perceptive Legilimency.

If the Horcrux was contained in his scar, then he couldn't do these things. IMHO

The diary wasn't destroyed, it was just scarred. You could still write in it. The stone on the ring was cracked, but still wearable. As loosely knit as this seems, Harry has ended up in the hospital wing more than once with some near-death experiences. Having a Horcrux removed in the manner of an AK being cast at him (either by Big V, or by Harry himself) should release it. Wow, as I am typing this, I'm thinking, this seems too predictable. Perhaps the glint in DD's eye may play out in Harry turning the wand on himself, thus destroying both the final Horcrux and Big V because he has Harry's blood and Harry has sacrificed himself.

haymoni - Oct 18, 2005 9:47 am (#1160 of 2969)

I don't think Dumbledore would have a "glint" over that! It's too depressing!

If Dumbledore thinks Nagini was the final Horcrux and Voldy was able to make it in his Ugly Baby form from the murder of Frank Bryce, was Bertha Jorkins used for a Horcrux?

Did Voldy kill her or did Wormtail? What would have been used to hold the soul bit? Could they have left it at the Riddle House?

RoseMorninStar - Oct 18, 2005 12:20 pm (#1161 of 2969)
Edited Oct 18, 2005 1:23 pm

I do not think that Harry is a Horcrux or possessed by Voldemort. Here is the entry in the Lexicon on possession:

possession

no incantation given

Dark Magical effect of one person's spirit inhabiting or taking over the body of another.

The only examples of Possession are the actions of Voldemort, the greatest Dark Wizard of the age. He used this horrible form of intrusion on snakes and small animals while hiding out in the wilds of Albania without a body of his own.

He possessed Quirrell in order to monitor and control him. In this particular case, Voldemort's face appeared protruding from the back of Quirrell's head (PS17).

Tom Riddle's memory form, freed from its diary by life energy from Ginny Weasley, inhabited the little girl off and on, forcing her to kill roosters, write on the wall, and so on. She talked about it later and said that there were long periods of time when she couldn't remember what had happened to her (OP23).

During the climactic battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort, the Dark Lord possessed Harry, trying to make Dumbledore have to choose to kill Harry in order to defeat Voldemort. Harry remembered the love of his mother and friends and the feelings of love drove Voldemort out of him (OP36).

Perhaps IF Harry's scar is an accidental Horcrux, it was driven out of his body by the love of his mother/friends-thereby having nowhere else to go but left it's mark upon his skin. JKR has said that Harry's scar gives Harry, 'a magical window into Voldemort's mind'.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 18, 2005 2:42 pm (#1162 of 2969)
Edited Oct 18, 2005 3:57 pm

I do not think that Harry is a Horcrux or possessed by Voldemort

During the climactic battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort, the Dark Lord possessed Harry

RoseMorninStar

That possession is what I was referring to in my previous post.

hawick girl - Oct 18, 2005 8:17 pm (#1163 of 2969)
Edited Oct 18, 2005 9:20 pm

A while back, someone basically said that we know nothing of the nature of Horcruxes because they were creations of JKR. Yes, but I think that the legitimacy of this series depends on the 'logic' involved. If the nature of Horcruxes, or the nature of making Horcruxes for that matter, is not logical (assuming with info from book 7), how can any part of this series be considered complete?

by complete I mean obvious, logical, educational,

I don't know what do you guys think?

Verbina - Oct 19, 2005 1:16 pm (#1164 of 2969)

From the standpoint of an amateur writer, I agree with what you are saying. Any author has to have things happen in their books within the confines of the "rules of the universe". In example, no one in the real world can simply float away without some kind of external thing like a hot air balloon to make it happen. Because the Wizarding World is part of the "real" world, the same rules apply...no one in the wizarding world can simply float without a broom or without someone else causing you to float.

And even though JKR has created a different "universe" with the Wizarding World, rules do still apply. Of course, JKR had to make some or all the rules herself. And she has to abide by them otherwise the stories would be Riddikulus.

Here is an example I was told once to explain this. Pretend there is a story about a woman that issues curses. But she can only issue three curses and then the fourth is actually a blessing. If suddenly she issues five curses in a row with no explanation or logical reasoning for it to be possible, the story has ventured into the silly and the ability of the reader to suspend disbelief is greatly diminished. (For those that don't know what I mean by suspend disbelief, look around this forum. We know that HP is not real yet we find it necessary and enjoyable to discuss the characters as if they are real and that we know them. That is the suspension of disbelief and the biggest goal of any aspiring author)

Whew> Didn't mean to lecture there. Sorry about all that!

timrew - Oct 19, 2005 2:28 pm (#1165 of 2969)
Edited Oct 19, 2005 3:28 pm

If Voldemort’s intention was to kill baby Harry, then why would he be turned into a Horcrux? It doesn't make sense.

haymoni - Oct 19, 2005 3:30 pm (#1166 of 2969)

HP not real?????

Viola Intonada - Oct 19, 2005 7:34 pm (#1167 of 2969)

Don't panic, haymoni, I'm sure Verbina didn't mean it that way......

I have to jump on the Harry is a Horcrux bandwagon. I'm really bothered at how often Harry has resorted to unforgivable curses. I think it was the bit of soul from Voldy urging him to do it. Another event that makes me think he is a Horcrux is the scene in GoF when "Moody" is teaching the students to defend against the "Imperius" curse. Harry is the only one who could fight it. There was a "little voice" in Harry's head telling him not to listen. This isn't the only time we hear this little voice advising Harry. Where is this little voice coming from? I think it is more than just Harry's subconscious.

I think that Lily was able to make it so that Harry became a Horcrux, this being her ultimate sacrifice. I believe it has to do with her eyes. She was probably adept at Legilimens and was able to pull the spell to the front of Voldy's mind so that when he killed her, Harry became the Horcrux. We now know that spells are cast more with the mind than with the words.

I have many, many more reasons believing this, but I won't bore you with them. I haven't read all 1166 previous posts so I'm not sure how much all of this has already been hashed over. I think that Harry being a Horcrux makes everything fit together better.

I also wonder if the Sorting Hat is a Horcrux. Seeing how much personality it seems to have (like Riddle's diary) then again, the Weasley's car developed a "brain" without being a Horcrux.

Verbina - Oct 19, 2005 7:57 pm (#1168 of 2969)

Viola - I have to say, completely off topic, I love your picture. My daughter's boyfriend plays the violin and we really enjoy going to his concerts.

Haymoni - No!! I didn't mean it wasn't real. I meant that to the poor people who aren't fans of HP don't think it is real. We know better though. ;-)

My main issue with an accidental Horcrux is the accidental part. Because it is considered to be a vile thing, it doesn't seem likely that it is something that someone could do by accident. I can understand though with what almost seems like another voice "talking" to Harry. But that would also seem to indicate mental contact, similar in my mind to a possession. And we know that Voldemort can't possess Harry for long without incurring pain on himself.

His use of unforgiveable curses...well...I hate to say this but I chalk that up to Harry being a teenager and not truly understanding the effect it would have on himself to do such a thing. He was deeply remorseful after he cursed Draco in the bathroom. He wasn't so much when he was going after Snape but...at that moment, he truly hated Snape for what he had done.

And his ability to fend off the Imperius Curse...that could also be something he inherited from his mother or father. They are known as powerful people in the WW and so it would make sense that some of their abilities passed on to Harry. Harry also has a very strong will which we have seen time and again. Those two things combined I think make it possible for Harry to fend off an Imperius curse.

The trouble of course with Harry or his scar being a Horcrux is the connection to Voldemort and the times like while taking a test, when he suddenly recalls the answer as if someone in his head told it to him.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 19, 2005 8:45 pm (#1169 of 2969)
Edited Oct 19, 2005 9:46 pm

Timrew, I have said this before, but at the risk of becoming annoying I will say it again. IF Harry's scar is a Horcrux, I think it would not have been intentionally made so by Voldemort. And IF it is one, I don't think Voldemort realized that it might be the case until the end of OotP.

Many things went wrong the night he attempted to kill Harry. IF Voldemort had intended to make a Horcrux with Harry's death that night, but Harry did not die, Voldemort could not use the 'soul fragment' from the murder of Harry to create a Horcrux... but he had murdered at least two other people that night. James and Lily. So... IF Voldemort had 'prepared' a Horcrux to be used that night, and in his greed, overconfidence, & haste to kill Harry (but Harry did not die) perhaps one of the soul fragments from the other deaths was misdirected into an unsuspecting baby Harry instead of the intended object.

So perhaps Voldemort thinks there is a Horcrux out there that is not really a Horcrux. (IF he accidentally made Harry one). We cannot know how Horcruxes really work since they are the invention of JKR and we have nothing to base the 'rules' of Horcrux making upon at this point. JKR alone gets to make up the rules about Horcruxes.

Mrs Brisbee - Oct 20, 2005 4:01 am (#1170 of 2969)
Edited Oct 20, 2005 5:02 am

Many things went wrong the night he attempted to kill Harry. IF Voldemort had intended to make a Horcrux with Harry's death that night, but Harry did not die, Voldemort could not use the 'soul fragment' from the murder of Harry to create a Horcrux... but he had murdered at least two other people that night. James and Lily. So... IF Voldemort had 'prepared' a Horcrux to be used that night, and in his greed, overconfidence, & haste to kill Harry (but Harry did not die) perhaps one of the soul fragments from the other deaths was misdirected into an unsuspecting baby Harry instead of the intended object. --RoseMorninStar

I'm on the "Accidental Horcrux" bandwagon too. We've gone through six of the promised seven books, and so far Horcruxes have been the only thing offered that might explain how a bit of Voldemort could have got into Harry. Rowling might spring something completely different on us at the last minute, but I think that would be violating some sort of writer's code for fair play.

So since we know that it is possible for bits of soul to rip from the main soul, and for these soulbits to be stored elsewhere, then I think that goes a long way toward explaining Harry's scar and how he got a bit of Voldemort in him. RoseMorninStar is right, a lot of things didn't go how they were expected to go that night. I'm thinking that the bit of soul that is stuck to Harry was the piece torn from Voldemort when he tried to kill Harry. Because it unexpectedly ended up being attempted murder rather than murder in Harry's case, Voldy's soulbit wasn't torn completely off. Maybe that is why Harry and Voldemort have that odd connection, because the soulbit was never completely severed and isolated, like in Voldemort's other, intentional, Horcruxes.

Steve Newton - Oct 20, 2005 5:02 am (#1171 of 2969)

The 'Voice Inside' thread might be relevant to this discussion.

Paulus Maximus - Oct 20, 2005 7:32 am (#1172 of 2969)

So... if Harry, or any part of him, is a Horcrux... how will that Horcrux be destroyed without killing Harry?

hawick girl - Oct 20, 2005 11:46 am (#1173 of 2969)
Edited Oct 20, 2005 12:49 pm

Horcruxes may not explain the connection between Harry and Voldie. Couldn't Harry's observing be a power of his like being a 'receiver' similarly to the WWN. Like he could receive from many people, but with the happenings with the Failed AK, he is 'set' to Voldie. Otherwise why would anyone have to learn Occlumency (sp?) Harry has some success with Legilimens (sp?) he sees stuff from Snape. He never really tried to develop it.

I don't see what you (Mrs. Brisbee) are trying say with this:

Because it unexpectedly ended up being attempted murder rather than murder in Harry's case, Voldy's soulbit wasn't torn completely off. Maybe that is why Harry and Voldemort have that odd connection, because the soulbit was never completely severed and isolated, like in Voldemort's other, intentional, Horcruxes.

My thoughts were that when the ultimate evil (murder) takes place the soul splits. To me that means that w/o the death, the soulbit is intact, that the moment of death is when the separation of the soul happens (although there other deaths in close proximity--spatial and temporal--that would allow for many pieces to be 'free' in Voldie) Can soulbits be shared/stretched between two people and over a distance small or long (one is in Great Britain and the other is in Albania).

I wonder what Harry has for memories of the night of the Failed AK? Could he put them in the pensieve and see what happened, who was there what spells were made, etc.

rambkowalczyk - Oct 20, 2005 12:08 pm (#1174 of 2969)

Actually, when asked how to make a Horcrux by Tom, what Slughorn says is..... "By an act of evil---the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart." So, it is not just any act of evil, it is only murder that rips the soul apart - the supreme act of evil. Choices

I could nitpick a little here. One could read that statement and not conclude that murder is the only way. To step briefly into religion here two other acts that might qualify would be adultery and apostasy (abandoning one's beliefs or denying one's religion) but stepping back into the real world of Harry Potter the latter two ideas seem irrelevant.

But staying within the real world of Harry Potter, what about the other two of the Unforgivable Curses: The Imperious and Crucio curses. Do they split the soul or just make a nasty cut. And what about that nebulous term Dark Arts? Do they injure the soul?

I kind of assumed that Harry's scar could be a Horcrux although an accidental one. If Voldemort was going to use Harry's death to make a Horcrux would that mean he brought the "container" to Godric's Hollow and left it there. If that is the case then when Harry goes to Godric's Hollow he might find an unusual object that he will think is a Horcrux.

When the AK curse bounced off of Harry and hit Voldemort perhaps not only did a piece of soul go into the container that he brought but another one went into Harry's Scar. Voldemort did commit two murders that night.

Choices - Oct 20, 2005 5:09 pm (#1175 of 2969)

Ramb - "When the AK curse bounced off of Harry and hit Voldemort perhaps not only did a piece of soul go into the container that he brought but another one went into Harry's Scar. Voldemort did commit two murders that night."

I just don't see how that can happen. When a murder is committed, the soul rips apart, but I don't think it emerges from the person on it's own. It remains inside and does not enter the chosen "container" until the person says the incantation. The soul piece may be extracted much like a memory is taken from the mind and placed in a Pensieve. Perhaps the wand tip is placed on the chest over the heart, or to the head, and sucks out the piece of soul and places it in the chosen container. If the soul just came out on it's own, there would be no chance of it healing through remorse and repentance. I think the piece of soul can only be brought out by the saying of the incantation - it has to be done purposefully and can't happen accidentally.

Mrs Brisbee - Oct 20, 2005 5:28 pm (#1176 of 2969)

hawick girl: I don't see what you (Mrs. Brisbee) are trying say with this:

Because it unexpectedly ended up being attempted murder rather than murder in Harry's case, Voldy's soulbit wasn't torn completely off. Maybe that is why Harry and Voldemort have that odd connection, because the soulbit was never completely severed and isolated, like in Voldemort's other, intentional, Horcruxes.

I'm incoherent half the time. I know. It's lack of sleep.

I suppose it comes down to when you figure the soul splits in murder, and if the unusual circumstances at Godric's Hollow had an effect on Voldy's soul. Does the soul tear during the act of murder, or only after the attacker realizes-- Success!-- they have killed their mark? Voldemort did hit Harry with the Avada Kedavra curse, and had every reason to think in that instance that he had succeeded. I assume the act of trying to kill a one-year-old child is sufficiently evil to cause damage to the soul, but it is true that only Rowling can answer whether or not such an act does so in her world.

Can soulbits be shared/stretched between two people and over a distance small or long (one is in Great Britain and the other is in Albania).

Rowling hasn't given us enough information to know what soulbits can do. Harry does have a window into Voldemort's mind which operates at a distance. Harry's scar can act as a Voldemort-proximity detector, and a Voldemort-is-increasing-in-power detector. Or could, before Voldy decided he needed to do Occlumency fulltime. When Harry had visions in OotP, he felt like he became Voldemort. In GoF, before the rebirthing, his visions were from outside Voldy's body, like he could get there but not get in. It seems like a very profound connection is happening to me.

Viola Intonada - Oct 20, 2005 6:13 pm (#1177 of 2969)

Thanks! Verbina, and nice cover up story for Haymoni...

As far as the argument against Harry being a Horcrux because Voldy can't possess him now: Even though Voldy can't possess Harry now, I don't think that it necessarily means that Harry doesn't have a bit of Voldy's soul. I look at it like a ball of dough, divide it in half, bake one half and leave the other half. They started out the same, but have been through different experiences so that they are significantly changed from the original shape. Make sense? So now Voldy can't stand his bit of soul in Harry because it has been changed due to Harry's influence on it.

I think that Harry's being a Horcrux was not intended by Voldy, but I do think that it was intentional on Lily's part. I think that she was able to use Legilimens on Voldy so that her death was the act required for the making of the Horcrux and Harry was the Horcrux. I'm curious if someone in the wizarding world could commit suicide using the AK curse. Maybe it was the transfer of Voldy's soul into Harry that caused the curse to bounce.

rambkowalczyk - Oct 20, 2005 6:38 pm (#1178 of 2969)

When a murder is committed, the soul rips apart, but I don't think it emerges from the person on it's own. Choices

true. What I'm thinking is the AK curse kills by ripping the soul from the body. Voldemorts soul (what's left in his body) is weaker and might be prone to staying split. So when the AK curse backfired it not only ripped the soul out but it stayed in the pieces it became because of Voldemorts two previous murders.

Verbina - Oct 20, 2005 8:33 pm (#1179 of 2969)

Interesting things to ponder. There is one thing though rambkowalczyk. If the soul piece remained within Voldemort yet did not in some way reattach itself to the main soul piece, why did he kill Frank Bryce? He would have no need kill again if the soul was still torn apart. That's why I think that the making of a Horcrux has to be done in a set amount of time.

My personal take on the soul ripping is that the soul, once torn, does not leave the body willingly. The "instinct" (if you will) of the soul is to heal itself so the soul piece would remain. Of course in the case of Voldy, we know that he had no feelings of remorse over the murders he committed so any healing that the soul would have accomplished would have been weak at best. He was then forced to kill again to re-tear the soul to make Nagini a Horcrux. Which...if you think about it would explain the death of Frank! I have puzzled over the significance of the deaths to Voldemort. But could never quite understand how killing a Muggle like Frank would be important enough. But if he killed Frank, not to rip the soul but to re-tear an already previous tear...then the Horcrux of Nagini could have been from the death of James or Lily then later "re-enforced" with the death of Frank.

And as far as I can tell the only plausible way for the accidental Horcrux theory to work (with the information we do have, which is little) would be if someone was able to pull the spell of the creation of a Horcrux to the forefront of Voldemort's mind, such as Lily pulling the thought forward. The only problem I see with this is that we have to assume that Lily was able to do that and that she was willing to risk so much. After all, she is making her son, or at least part of him, a Horcrux for the most vile wizard to come along in many years. That is a danger I am not so sure that she, as a mother, would be willing to do.

Though I could be totally wrong in all this as well.

JILL HUBER - Oct 21, 2005 9:36 am (#1180 of 2969)

I was just re-reading HBP and I noticed something quite relevant to our discussion here. We have been talking about whose deaths were used as Horcruxes and we were trying to figure out who has been killed by Voldy. In the WILL AND WON'T chapter Harry asks Dumbledore what Inferi were and Dumbledore explained and said Voldy killed enough to have a whole army of them. He has apparently killed much more than we want to think about if he has a whole army of Inferi, which further complicates the search for Horcruxes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:04 pm

Paulus Maximus - Oct 21, 2005 11:21 am (#1181 of 2969)
Edited Oct 21, 2005 12:21 pm

Of course, maybe only a few people (relatively speaking) died literally at Voldemort's hands. I'm sure that for every person whom Voldemort killed personally, a hundred were killed on his orders. That's what Sirius said, at least.

Speaking of which, I do not believe that Imperius and Crucio are as severe as AK. Slughorn said that murder was the ultimate act of evil and mentioned nothing about enslavement or brutal torture. However, I stand by my belief that those who use Imperius to commit murder are as guilty as those who actually do the deed. (More so, in fact, since those who do the deed are powerless to do otherwise.)

Blots - Oct 21, 2005 11:42 am (#1182 of 2969)

Opinion seems overwhelmingly against LV intentionally having made a Horcrux of Harry Potter. Yet, if LV took the prophecy seriously, he would have had reason to seek the extra reassurance of first making him a Horcrux and then killing him afterwards.

The reason for this is straightforward. HP might have powers unsuspected. However, once a Horcrux, it would be impossible for HP to fulfill the prophecy as Voldemort heard it. So long as the foe was alive and a Horcrux, the foe would be unable to vanquish him. The foe himself would bind Voldemort’s soul to the earth and render him impervious to true death. If the foe were dead, he would not be a threat.

Therefore, I believe that LV killed James Potter in order to split his soul. He then made HP a Horcrux. This is the true source of the scar. Before he completed all that was needed to fully separate his mind from this fragment of soul, Lily broke down whatever barriers Voldemort had erected to keep her out. This distracted and confused him, and he attempted to kill Harry at once. However, Lily leapt over Harry and took the AK curse herself.

I am unclear whether Voldemort was then dispatched, because the curse rebounded on him, as LV and Dumbledore both describe it, or whether Harry himself, now possessed of LV’s power, was able to use his mother’s wand to dispatch Voldemort. The latter is unlikely, due to the purity of heart Harry is said to have. I mention it, because it is consistent with other apparently ‘instinctive’ responses he has displayed. Harry drove the tooth of the Basilisk into the diary, and he leapt upon Quirrell without knowing why. A one year old would have been able to raise a wand, and, connected to LV’s mind, he could have had the power as well. Once again, my first guess is that the curse rebounded due to the power of Lily's sacrifice, just as described.

hawick girl - Oct 21, 2005 12:06 pm (#1183 of 2969)

Why? Why make him a Horcrux them kill him? So his thoughts would go something like 'Hey, this kid is supposed to kill me? Hmmm, I wonder if I made him into a Horcrux, then killed him so if I fail in my kill, he still is a Horcrux.' In GoF, faux Moody said that there is no counter curse and no blocking of AK, and that the only person to ever survive was sitting in front of him. Why would Voldie make an insurance policy against what has always been and has been since a sure bet?

Paulus Maximus - Oct 21, 2005 3:41 pm (#1184 of 2969)
Edited Oct 21, 2005 4:44 pm

Because the prophecy referred to "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord". Not just "one", but "THE one", which could be interpreted to mean that no other would be able to do that.

Voldemort didn't need to worry about anyone else trying to kill him, because he knew that it would take a special power that only one person had. And what better way to prevent that one person from killing him than to make him a Horcrux?

As long as Harry lived, Voldemort could never die. If Harry died, then nobody would be left to vanquish Voldemort. (And as for Voldemort losing a Horcrux... well, consider how lightly he treated the Diary...) It's a win-win situation for Voldemort.

The only problem I have with this theory is that it is dangerous to make a living object a Horcrux, and even if Voldemort was ignorant of that fact (or desperate enough to make Harry a Horcrux anyway), there must be unforeseen complications.

rambkowalczyk - Oct 21, 2005 4:29 pm (#1185 of 2969)

Blots, If Voldemort deliberately made Harry a Horcrux he did so on the assumption that Harry would fear death as much as he did and would never think of killing himself to save the wizarding world.

why did he kill Frank Bryce? --Verbina

Just because he didn't want any nosy Muggles creeping around the place.

Hogs Head - Oct 21, 2005 5:08 pm (#1186 of 2969)
Edited Oct 21, 2005 6:10 pm

I may be the fool after Book 7 is released (which I will enjoy even if it makes me the class dunce) but I'm going to go online as being in the "Harry is not a Horcrux and his scar is not a Horcrux" camp. Sorry, it just doesn't persuade me. Dumbledore, dead or alive now (and I'm in the possibly alive camp for what its worth) knew all the things we are noodling about but never hinted to Harry that the scar might be a Horcrux or that Harry himself might be. Rather, he guessed Nagini.

While DD's Nagini surmise might be wrong, since it was couched as a guess, I think No. 6 (with Voldy Redivivus himself housing No. 7) will turn out in that event (I.e., if its not Nagini) to be something a little more startling that Harry and/or his scar.

Yet, if the scar does turn out to be Horcrux No. 6, I have little doubt that our Harry would be willing to sacrifice himself to allow Voldy to go `gentle into that good night' (apologies to Dylan Thomas), and yet, by that mere willingness, the victor without being called upon to fulfill that sacrifice.

HungarianHorntail11 - Oct 21, 2005 5:45 pm (#1187 of 2969)

Gone for just a short time and I can't keep up.

My take on Harry's strange connection with Big V is the nature of a Horcrux in a living object rather than a nonliving one.

Hogs Head, not trying to change your mind or anything, but DD did say his errors were big ones. What if he erred in guessing that the Horcrux Big V has in a living thing is not in Nagini, but Harry?

Perhaps the wand tip is placed on the chest over the heart, or to the head, and sucks out the piece of soul and places it in the chosen container.

Choices

Or the mouth (like a Dementor).

The problem is, as it's been mentioned so many times, that the Horcrux has been left quite vague with respect to how it really works.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 21, 2005 6:40 pm (#1188 of 2969)
Edited Oct 21, 2005 7:42 pm

I think Nagini may very well be the 'last' Horcrux. I think that is why Nagini and Voldemort have an 'unusually' strong connection, as Dumbledore noticed.

I do not think Voldemort intentionally tried to make Harry a Horcrux because he too often has tried to kill Harry and I think he was genuinely surprised and taken aback when he could not kill him (especially in GoF). IF Harry's scar is a Horcrux, it is unintentional.

If we go back to the beginning of the story and add what we now know, and look at the facts logically~ Harry was AK'd as a baby and did not die due to his mother's love & protection (and the curse that hit him and rebounded gave him the scar?). So, the AK curse rebounded and hit Voldemort. But it did not kill Voldemort either because of his Horcrux(es). One of the basic questions I have about this is why would these actions have given Harry any special powers? I can't imagine a Avada Kedavra curse would in any way transfer powers from one person to another.

JKR and Dumbledore have both said that the night Voldemort tried to kill Harry he was somehow given more than just a scar. JKR has said that there is more to the scar than it's shape and that it gives Harry a 'window into the mind of Voldemort'. Dumbledore has said Voldemort transferred powers to Harry that night.

So, my question is, how can this be? I think Voldemort was trying to do something else the night he killed Harry. Perhaps he was so overconfident that he was trying to do two things at once. Overconfidence/arrogance often leads to the fall of the evil. Could he have prepared to make a Horcrux at the same time? That certainly would fall into the category of 'transferring power'. Was Voldemort trying to do something else? For example, perhaps he was trying to give an object special powers (like the enchantment of the diary). Whatever happened that night did not go as planned.

I could see if the AK curse was unable to enter Harry due to Lily's love why it might have left a scar, but not why it transferred power. If that is all there was to it...I cannot imagine why JKR has been so coy about it...and why Harry's power/awareness of Voldemort has changed so much over the years, from 'prickles' of his scar to horrific pain to actual feeling Voldemort's emotions to being able to 'see' through the eyes of the snake, Nagini. Now, if that is not some clue, I don't know what is. How else would Harry be able to have such an intimate connection to a snake he has never even met? The only connection is through Voldemort. Harry does not have connections with other snakes. I think there is such a strong connection because they share something in common. That something of course, is Voldemort.

Verbina - Oct 21, 2005 8:53 pm (#1189 of 2969)

rambkowalczyk - When I asked why Voldemort killed Frank Bryce, yes, your response is right. Just because the Muggle was nosing around. But...Voldemort has a thing for symbolism. The person he kills to create a Horcrux has to mean something to him, has to be important to him. I know DD says this somewhere. So to kill a Muggle for no other reason than he was nosing around and use that death to make a Horcrux? Just doesn't fit with the rest of the known Horcrux deaths.

I also have a problem with the idea that Voldemort made Harry into a Horcrux to guarantee that he would not be able to destroy Voldemort without killing himself first. If as suggested, he did this so that he could kill Harry, this doesn't add up for the following reasons.

If Voldemort made Harry into a Horcrux then killed him, he would be destroying his own soul piece.

He would not just destroy a soul piece but his sixth. Considering he wanted to have 7 soul bits out there, this would also be defeating his purpose since I don't think he can dare make another one without doing damage to what little bit of soul he has left.

Voldemort loves to mentally torture people. We saw this when he told Harry that his mother didn't need to die. True or not, the statement haunted Harry. I simply cannot imagine him not saying something by way of a clue that Harry is a Horcrux.

The only way I could see it working is if it were by accident...but since it is such a nasty thing, creating a Horcrux, I don't think that the spell to create one would be a simple thing, thus easier to do by accident. Not saying it is impossible...just not adding up in my mind.

Madame Pomfrey - Oct 22, 2005 5:08 am (#1190 of 2969)
Edited Oct 22, 2005 6:11 am

If Harry's scar is an accidental Horcrux, I can see Voldemorts demise as also accidental as Rose has suggested{firing an AK at Harry not knowing his scar is the 6th Horcrux, it backfiring, therefore, killing him.)I can see all this coming about, probably with Harry's intention of sacrificing himself for the life of a friend. I can even see Voldemort not being aware of the scar Horcrux, mistakenly thinking this bit of soul is tucked away in some other vessel. But... for the life of me I cannot see how Harry's blood comes into play - "the glint in Dumbledore's eye."

rambkowalczyk - Oct 22, 2005 6:04 am (#1191 of 2969)

I tend to think that if Harry's scar is a Horcrux, it was most likely accidental for all the reasons that Verbina uses in post 1189.

So to kill a Muggle for no other reason than he was nosing around and use that death to make a Horcrux? Just doesn't fit with the rest of the known Horcrux deaths--Verbina

I am not so certain that Nagini is a Horcrux. This could be one of Dumbledore's spectacular mistakes.

vickilh42 - Oct 22, 2005 7:25 am (#1192 of 2969)
Edited Oct 22, 2005 8:26 am

RMS paraphrased JKR: " ... there is more to the scar than it's shape and that it gives Harry a 'window into the mind of Voldemort' "

The saying "The eyes are the windows to the soul" came to my mind.

Also, JKR has said that Harry's having Lily's eyes is important and that we will find out something important about her in BK 7. I wonder how they will play out.

I'm also considering how "eye contact" is usual important with Legilimency as well as Snape's line of "time and space matter" in magic.

Lastly, Dumbledore analysis of Voldemort's special influence over Nagini and that this is his reason to speculate that it's a Horcrux, could be also be used to support "Harry has a Horcrux"--due to his and Voldemort's "connections". JKR may have been telling us to generalize Dumbledore's analysis to Harry!

RoseMorninStar - Oct 22, 2005 3:10 pm (#1193 of 2969)
Edited Oct 22, 2005 4:14 pm

Vicki, Here are a couple of excerpts from JKR's interviews that may be of interest... __________________________________________________

Hi, I really like the books and we already learned a lot about Harry’s father and I was wondering ‘Are we going to learn a lot about his mother?’ JKR: Yeah, you will. It’s ---- yet again ---- you won’t find out ---- OK, in Book 3 you’re absolutely right. You find out a lot about Harry’s father. Now the important thing about Harry’s mother, the really, really significant thing, you’re going to find out in 2 parts. You’ll find out a lot more about her in Book 5, or you’ll find out something very significant about her in Book 5, then you’ll find out something incredibly important about her in Book 7. But I can’t tell you what those things are so I’m sorry, but yes, you will find out more about her because both of them are very important in what Harry ends up having to do.

_______________________________________________________

Peter, what’s your guess about Lily? What’s the real story of Harry’s mother? I don’t really know, but I’m guessing that, maybe she is going to come back to life, maybe, in the 7th book or something like that. JKR: Well, it would be nice, but I’ll tell you something. You’ve raised a really interesting point there, Peter, because when I started writing the books, the first thing I had to decide was not what magic can do, but what it can’t do. I had to set limits on it immediately and decide what the perimeters are. One of the most important things I decided was that magic cannot bring dead people back to life. That’s one of the most profound things. The natural laws of death apply to wizards as it applies to Muggles and there is no returning once you’re properly dead. You know, they might be able to save very close to death people better than we can, by magic. They have certain knowledge we don’t, but once you’re dead, you’re dead. So, yeah, I’m afraid there will be no coming back for Harry’s parents.

Do you know what Harry's parents look like?

"Yes. I've even drawn a picture of how they look. Harry has his father and mother's good looks. But he has his mother's eyes and that's very important in a future book."

______________________________________________________

Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit like ... Why do you want to know this? I just vaguely wondered. Why? Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes. Aren’t you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I’m going to say no more, very clever.

____________________________________________________

I find this very intriguing. What could it possibly be?! And what could it possibly have to do with a choice that Harry will have to make?!

***********

As far as Voldemort using Frank Bryce's death as a Horcrux...I have a feeling Nagini was already a Horcrux (if she is indeed a Horcrux) by the time of Frank's death.

***********

Madame Pomfrey, I have a feeling that the 'glint in Dumbledore's eye' back in GoF could be a couple of things. One, Dumbledore realizes that Voldemort used Harry's blood to overcome the special protection Harry has had all of these years from his mother's blood. In the prophecy it says that the 'one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord will have a power he knows not'...and Voldemort thinks he has cleverly overcome that... but I think Dumbledore's plan... whatever it is... allowed Harry to have another source of protection -one that Voldemort won't expect at all-which will fulfill the prophecy... that he will have a power the Dark Lord knows not.

The other possibility is that because Voldemort used Harry's blood, Voldemort will have some of Harry's mother's blood/'love' in him also and that might make for an interesting confrontation.

bubs - Oct 23, 2005 5:43 am (#1194 of 2969)
Edited Oct 23, 2005 7:04 am

Without going over the 1700-odd threads in this topic so far, has the SEVEN OF CUPS theory been discussed yet? I cannot take responsibility for this one, but I find the evidence rather compelling in it. Discuss... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The above address will show you the tarot card SEVEN OF CUPS. With 7 the most powerful magical number in the 'world', people have been looking for other uses of the number 7. It shows a person looking towards 7 cups, all containing an object. Cup 1. A picture of a young persons face. If it IS a young boys face, the Harry's scar theory may have merit. If it is girls face, it might be his mothers Locket, what Voldy remembers her by. Cup 2. A Serpent. (Nagini) Cup 3. A Castle Tower (Something hidden in Hogwarts)Unknown. Cup 4. Jewels (The Ring). DESTROYED. Cup 5. A Laurel Wreath (A prize of some sort perhaps. There is a skull engraved on the cup with the Laurel Wreath). Unknown. Cup 6. A Shrouded Figure. ( Now this one IMHO represents the Diary that was left in the possession of one of his shrouded Death Eaters-Lucius Malfoy) DESTROYED. Cup 7. A Dragon. (This is Voldemorts Body).

So, conceivably, the 5 Horcruxes to be destroyed are... 1. Voldemort's mothers Locket.(The young woman’s face) 2.The snake. 3. Something hidden in Hogwarts towers?? 4. A prize of some sort (Tri-wizard cup comes to mind, but probably incorrect.) 5. The portion resting in Voldemort's body.

Personally I find the evidence very compelling, but as people do say, you can be talked into a theory if you believe in it too much.

How's that for a first post lol.

Oliver Wood - Oct 23, 2005 5:47 am (#1195 of 2969)

Here's a thought about the triumphant glint. What if Harry was a Horcrux, and Voldemort needed his blood because it was the only way to get part of his soul back. We know he existed as Vapormort because of the Horcruxes, but he had to find some way to get his body back. if you take a religious tone to it, the body is really just a shell for the soul, and when the soul leaves you're dead. So here's a possible theory. Harry was an accidental Horcrux, Voldemort realized through their connection and what not what had happened. He was taken to the graveyard, where he used his blood to regenerate. After he had done that, he didn't need Harry anymore, so he attempted to kill him. Now the prophecy can be fulfilled because Harry is still alive. But Harry doesn't necessarily have to kill himself to kill Voldemort because LV already leached his soul back out of Harry.

Choices - Oct 23, 2005 8:06 am (#1196 of 2969)

Bubs - Thanks for posting that - it is a very interesting theory.

Hogs Head - Oct 23, 2005 10:59 am (#1197 of 2969)
Edited Oct 23, 2005 12:00 pm

On the continued dialogue about the Harry is a Horcrux and Harry's Scar is a Horcrux theories, -- no offense intended -- I'm still not buying them. Color me silly if I turn out to be wrong, but I just don't find them persuasive or satisfying from a literary standpoint.

On the Twinkling Eye interrogatory, interesting and creative, but my prior reading goes to the contrary (although I am willing to listen and change my mind). While Voldy may have made a "boomerang on himself" mistake by selecting Harry's blood for the GoF re-embodiment ritual, I seem to recall from the text that all that was required for that incantation was the blood of an enemy, not blood from a Horcrux or living thing housing a Horcrux. I also recall Voldy's logic (as expressed in GoF) to be that by picking his greatest enemy (oddly enough, a 14 year old boy at the time) who's blood otherwise bore some invulnerability to his (Voldy's) evil powers, he was "buying in" to that invulnerability himself. This could have meant that Harry's invulnerability was neutralized (as might be evidenced by the "uninvited touching" at the end of OoP when Voldy briefly possessed Harry), that Voldy came to share in that invulnerability (less likely, since the latter is driven by the love that Voldy finds repugnant), or a combination of both. Someone please let me know if my recollection or logic is faulty -- it wouldn't be the first time.

On the Horcrux / Tarot interface, I seem to recall that Troels brought that up earlier, although I may be wrong about that. I have definitely read that before. I somehow doubt JKR will do much more tying into Tarot cards, but I could be wrong on that score as well.

Paulus Maximus - Oct 23, 2005 11:08 am (#1198 of 2969)
Edited Oct 23, 2005 12:09 pm

I somehow doubt JKR will do much more tying into Tarot cards, but I could be wrong on that score as well.

The only times we see Trelawney using the tarot cards, they are pretty accurate. Considering that swords and cups are two of the four Tarot suits, and that they are also relics of the founders (Gryffindor sword, Hufflepuff cup), I'd say that there would be more things tied to the Tarot. So I'll have to disagree with you.

Of course, if discs and wands turn out to be completely irrelevant in book 7, I'll stand corrected.

Hogs Head - Oct 23, 2005 5:43 pm (#1199 of 2969)

Then we disagree about the Tarot cards, which is a thing friends can do.

From a plot standpoint, we won't know just how accurate or inaccurate Trelawney's cards were until we find out in Book 7 what really happened at the end of Book 6. That should be an interesting read to resolve more than one issue.

But I'm wasn't particularly speaking about the plot so much as whether JKR as author would continue to lash any significant part of her plot to the Tarot cards or any other form of soothsaying. I've read her so far to make light of all that, except in the sense that Trelawney has sometimes been the unintentional Delphic.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 24, 2005 3:18 am (#1200 of 2969)

Hi again!

Had to attend to family matters over the vacation, which left little time for on-line presence, and getting back, I accidentally marked everything as read (I do know how it happened, but am perplexed as to how I got in that situation: I thought I was in a folder when I pressed ‘Mark as read’ but discovered otherwise ) Oh, well I was picking up far too much on my ‘to be read’ list anyway

So, just to get back into the discussions

Hogs Head wrote on Oct 23, 2005 in message #1197

On the continued dialogue about the Harry is a Horcrux and Harry's Scar is a Horcrux theories, -- no offense intended -- I'm still not buying them. [...]

Probably not surprising to anyone, but I agree about this for several reasons, which I believe have been listed before.

Hogs Head: On the Twinkling Eye interrogatory, interesting and creative, but my prior reading goes to the contrary

I'm also with you there. The text implies that Dumbledore's ‘gleam of something like triumph’ was caused specifically by the information that Voldemort could now touch Harry, which indicated that ‘the lingering protection [Harry's] mother once gave him’ resided in Voldemort's veins, too. The protection which is the result of Lily's love and sacrifice for her son.

Hogs Head: (although I am willing to listen and change my mind).

Well, now, don't sell out too easily

Hogs Head: While Voldy may have made a "boomerang on himself" mistake by selecting Harry's blood for the GoF re-embodiment ritual, I seem to recall from the text that all that was required for that incantation was the blood of an enemy, not blood from a Horcrux or living thing housing a Horcrux. I also recall Voldy's logic (as expressed in GoF) to be that by picking his greatest enemy (oddly enough, a 14 year old boy at the time) who's blood otherwise bore some invulnerability to his (Voldy's) evil powers, he was "buying in" to that invulnerability himself. This could have meant that Harry's invulnerability was neutralized (as might be evidenced by the "uninvited touching" at the end of OoP when Voldy briefly possessed Harry), that Voldy came to share in that invulnerability (less likely, since the latter is driven by the love that Voldy finds repugnant), or a combination of both. Someone please let me know if my recollection or logic is faulty -- it wouldn't be the first time.

You might be thinking of this

‘My Lord, I do not say this out of concern for the boy!’ said Wormtail, his voice rising squeakily. ‘The boy is nothing to me, nothing at all! It is merely that if we were to use another witch or wizard any wizard the thing could be done so much more quickly! If you allowed me to leave you for a short while you know that I can disguise myself most effectively I could be back here in as little as two days with a suitable person ’

‘I could use another wizard,’ said the first voice softly, ‘that is true ’

(GoF ch. 1 ‘The Riddle House’)

Voldemort refers to this in the end, but doesn't there actually confirm that Wormtail is right, as he does here, though he does explain in detail why he wanted Harry's blood in particular

But the blood of a foe Wormtail would have had me use any wizard, would you not, Wormtail? Any wizard who had hated me as so many of them still do. But I knew the one I must use, if I was to rise again, more powerful than I had been when I had fallen. I wanted Harry Potter's blood. I wanted the blood of the one who had stripped me of power thirteen years ago, for the lingering protection his mother once gave him, would then reside in my veins, too

(GoF ch. 33 ‘The Death Eaters’)

Hogs Head: On the Horcrux / Tarot interface, I seem to recall that Troels brought that up earlier, although I may be wrong about that.

I did post something about a tarot interpretation on Aug 18, 2005 in message #644(f) with several follow-ups, e.g. by Elanor in message #662 (Aug 22) and myself in message #671 (Aug 23). However, I agree that the tarot is an unlikely source of information about the Horcruxes, and I think that references to the tarot should probably be read together with the other alchemical references; that she might be using the tarot on top of e.g. the ‘four houses = four elements’ symbolism.

Hogs Head: I have definitely read that before. I somehow doubt JKR will do much more tying into Tarot cards, but I could be wrong on that score as well.

I guess we could all be wrong about everything, though we tend not to believe it

Regards,

Troels

jani - Oct 24, 2005 4:36 am (#1201 of 2969)

My question is: Do you think LV has ever reached his goal about Horcruxes?

I don’t know if it was discussed before, but I’ m just wondering whether LV had 7 Horcruxes (piece of soul?) at the same time. That was his goal, to have 7, but maybe he never reached that. I think nobody knows exactly (not even LV himself) what should happen if one makes 7, but having 7 (not less and not more!) Horcruxes possibly makes a very powerful immortality, more powerful, than having 1, 6 or 8 etc. (maybe making/having more than 7 is impossible). What could be the extra power?

It was Harry second year when the diary-Horcrux was destroyed, had it been possible for LV to make the seventh before that? (I guess this magic needs a wand) If not his immortality never reached the state that he expected. Does he know it?

Actually, if the extra power comes from the act creating 7 (not from the fact having 7), then LV may have reached his goal. (And has a very powerful immortality.) He also reached it if Harry is the seventh one., but in that case he should not had to use Nagini. (Maybe he does not know he made 8 piece of soul already?)

Does it make any sense? What do you think?

Maybe part of the question is: A Horcrux is a piece of one’s soul or rather some object (containing the piece)? What is the exact definition?

Aurora Gubbins - Oct 24, 2005 3:18 pm (#1202 of 2969)

Going back a few posts: About the splitting of the soul occurring during the act of committing murder, does that also mean that giving one's life to protect another splits the soul in a similar way? Is that why Harry has his mother's eyes? Did a part of her soul split off and pass into Harry?

Another point: Tom Riddle's 16th year tells us that Tom was in fact 15, his first year being measured in months (2 months, 6 months, etc). That led a lot of people the wrong way.

I'm off to compare notes on Helga's cup and the Goblet of Fire...In the meantime, remember; the eyes are the windows of the soul!

Choices - Oct 24, 2005 5:22 pm (#1203 of 2969)
Edited Oct 24, 2005 6:23 pm

Aurora = "Going back a few posts: About the splitting of the soul occurring during the act of committing murder, does that also mean that giving one's life to protect another splits the soul in a similar way?"

Giving one's life for another is not committing murder. It takes an act of murder to split the soul - Lily sacrificed her life for Harry - she did not murder anyone, she was murdered by Voldemort. I certainly don't think that would cause her soul to split. I tend to think it would only cause her soul to shine brighter because of the great love she showed for her child.

Esther Rose - Oct 25, 2005 7:07 am (#1204 of 2969)

Here is a fun speculation. What if the seven Weasley children give clues to the seven Horcruxes. We have:

• one Beast - Nagini = Charlie
• two Slytherin Heirlooms - the locket and the ring = Twins Fred and George
• one Heirloom from a female - the Hufflepuff cup = Ginny
• one That forces the division of the souls - Voldemort = Percy
• one encoded soul - Diary = Bill
• one yet to be discovered = Ron

So, If Ron were a Horcrux what would he be? A Chess Set?

Oliver Wood - Oct 25, 2005 12:31 pm (#1205 of 2969)

Hmmm... It's an interesting theory. Ron did already give up Scabbers to the cause though. What else does Ron represent? It's got to be something of Gryffindor's doesn't it

me and my shadow 813 - Oct 25, 2005 5:28 pm (#1206 of 2969)
Edited Oct 25, 2005 6:30 pm

I'm in the process of reading this large thread, so forgive if this has already been discussed...

Assuming Harry's scar is in fact the 6th Horcrux (Vold being 7th bit of soul):

DD incurred a dead hand when he broke the curse on a Horcrux

but Harry didn't incur an injury -directly- from destroying the diary

If Harry leaves his scar for last, even after Vold is "finished" and the scar is the final bit of Voldy’s soul remaining, it will not possess Harry as he is whole and has stronger will than Quirrell. Especially with a bit of help from Bill the curse breaker. He won't need to "destroy" himself in order to destroy all Horcruxes because Harry does not get affected when destroying Horcruxes as evidenced with diary -- perhaps the scar is in effect a separate entity.

Viola Intonada - Oct 25, 2005 5:49 pm (#1207 of 2969)

It's a possibility that the reason that Harry was not directly harmed from destroying the diary because it was Riddle's first Horcrux, therefore he hadn't developed all of the curses to protect the diary.

Verbina - Oct 25, 2005 6:07 pm (#1208 of 2969)

But we also have to consider that the diary was unique as a Horcrux as it was made with the intention of someone using it. So the protections on it, whatever there may have been, had to be such that the diary could still be used.

I noticed that when Smith was talking to Tom about the cup and the locket, she said that the locket has powers connected to it that she was trying to discover. It made me think that perhaps all the items, save the diary, had special magic connected to them before Tom got them. And then he was able to use the power to his advantage. So there could very well be a protection of some sort on the ring set in place by the Peverell family.

As to the idea of the Weasley children representing the Horcruxes, if it does work out that way, the Horcrux could have something to do with feelings of inadequacy (SP?) and coming into their own. After all, we don't know what the Horcrux is and we have not yet seen Ron come into his own yet.

Just an idea really.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 25, 2005 7:26 pm (#1209 of 2969)

I don't understand the Horcruxes representing the Weasley children. I mean, most of them probably had not been born when he created his Horcruxes... and why would Voldemort do that? It doesn't really make any sense for JKR to tie something so evil in with the Weasley family either.

Viola/Verbina, I too think the diary Horcrux was unique. Not only was it most likely his first 'novice' Horcrux, but it was also meant to be used by a student for other purposes...namely opening the Chamber of Secrets. I wonder if that is why he wanted to go back to Hogwarts... to create his own mayhem and build an Army of young followers. Dumbledore said all tyrants fear those below them because they know that one day someone will rise from the ranks to defeat him. Maybe he felt he could more easily keep an eye on the 'up & coming' ranks.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 25, 2005 11:37 pm (#1210 of 2969)

RoseMorninStar wrote on Oct 25, 2005 in message #1209

I don't understand the Horcruxes representing the Weasley children.

Neither do I, but I'm sure we're just being dense

RoseMorninStar: I mean, most of them probably had not been born when he created his Horcruxes... and why would Voldemort do that?

I do think that, in order to work, the symbolism would have to be at a literary level, outside the sub-created universe something that doesn't exist for the characters inside the story, but which exists for Rowling and us readers. She has done this in other cases for instance the fake predictions Trelawney make (‘fake’ in the sense that she is not ‘Seeing’ at the time), which nevertheless do come true after a fashion, or when Ron's jokes turn out to contain a clue.

I am, however, uncomfortable about the idea even at that level. Seven is a very powerful magical number and it appears elsewhere as well, and the connections between individual Horcruxes and Weasley children are ... I'll just say ‘tenuous’ ... For instance we don't know that the Peverell Ring had anything to do with Slytherin, and whatever Percy's faults (and I'd say they are large), I cannot compare him to Voldemort at all. Percy's a git, but hardly evil.

RoseMorninStar: It doesn't really make any sense for JKR to tie something so evil in with the Weasley family either.

That too.

RoseMorninStar: Viola/Verbina, I too think the diary Horcrux was unique.

Me, too (‘AOL! AOL!’ )

RoseMorninStar: Not only was it most likely his first 'novice' Horcrux, but it was also meant to be used by a student for other purposes...namely opening the Chamber of Secrets.

And it was created using an object that contained a memory of himself and which was designed to allow others to communicate with these memories. Sort of if Sirius' mother had used her portrait as a Horcrux ... (and that wouldn't even capture the consequences of purpose and determination which were inherent in the diary).

RoseMorninStar: I wonder if that is why he wanted to go back to Hogwarts... to create his own mayhem and build an Army of young followers. Dumbledore said all tyrants fear those below them because they know that one day someone will rise from the ranks to defeat him. Maybe he felt he could more easily keep an eye on the 'up & coming' ranks.

I do not doubt that he would have been recruiting had he been allowed back (not that he appeared to have had too many problems about that being not at school, the gang Snape was part of all became Death Eaters), but I don't think it would have been his primary concern (in part because of the ease with which he recruited after being rejected). I am sure Dumbledore is right that he came back ‘To try and find something from one of the other founders?’ as Harry expressed it.

Regards,

Troels

Esther Rose - Oct 26, 2005 6:44 am (#1211 of 2969)
Edited Oct 26, 2005 8:40 am

Goodness! Everyone is taking everything so seriously.

First of all it's not the objects that are evil. It's not even the soul parts that are evil. (At least, I don't think it is. This might be debatable though.) It's the act of trapping the soul parts within the object that is the ultimate evil. It's an act against self, an act against others, and an act against the intention of the original object. (Especially, if the original object contained magic.) Once the soul is released from the object, the object is no longer evil or an act of evil. (Unless, if it still contains a curse of course.)

Second, Harry Potter is a story line of opposing forces. For every ying there is a yang sort to speak. So if Voldemort has 7 (or 6 or 5) Bits of soul that he created, then Harry may have the equal amount of positive force that is similar to or greater in strength of Voldemort's soul bits.

Voldemort's soul bits are the creation of his greatest desire, the desire to live forever.

What Harry wanted most in PS/SS was a family. Of course, He wanted his own family, which he could not have as a result of Voldemort's greatest desire. However, the Weasleys have all but adopted Harry as their own. So the relationship between Harry and the Weasleys could arguably be the creation of Harry's greatest desire. The family that Harry so desperately wanted.

So, paralleling the Horcrux' (Voldemort's acts of evil to fill his desire) to the Weasleys (Harry's acts of love to fill his desire) is not as far fetched as you may believe.

Furthermore, I never said that Percy was evil. I said that both initiate separation of souls. Percy is forcing the separation of family. (Whole souls connected by blood) An unnatural act but not necessarily evil. Voldemort is forcing the separation of his own soul. (One soul previously connected by body) An unnatural act totally evil.

Lastly, do I really think that JKR mapped out Weasley children as Horcrux opposites? Not really. She would be brilliant if she did though. For the reasons I stated above. Not because I think the Weasley family (or anyone in it) is evil or even remotely evil. But because they represent the manifestations of Harry's deepest desires just like the Horcruxes are the manifestations of Voldemort's desire.

You could argue that Harry does have a family and her name is Petunia. Well, Petunia has not been acting like the loving family member to Harry for a very long time has she? So, she doesn't count. They are only connected by blood.

As far as the Peverell ring goes I thought that was one of the objects that Gaunt showed as proof of his pure blood lineage. I will have to look that over again. Sorry for the confusion.

me and my shadow 813 - Oct 26, 2005 7:32 am (#1212 of 2969)

Bravo, Esther Rose. The Weasley family is exactly what you have described and thank you for that lovely metaphor. I'm reading GoF again and the scene where Mrs. Weasley hugs Harry and he says he never felt anything like it, like a mother's arms. Whoa, I lost it.

Regarding Horcruxes, I'm still not sure I even buy the idea that Harry and/or his scar are a Horcrux. It doesn't seem possible that Vold would be able to enchant/encase the soul bit after getting zapped by the AK. It specifically says in GoF that he wasn't capable of holding a wand, couldn't feed himself, etc.

So the only way Harry could have become a Horcrux is if Vold found something at Godric's Hollow that was a Gryffindor treasure and was intent on using that and cast the spell on it, then the spell got on Harry somehow and all this happened before the AK rebound (super unlikely scenario), or he had an accomplice that he'd trained in the encasement curse and decided to use Harry as a Horcrux for the murder of James and/or Lily. It just doesn't fit for my yet...still researching.

Regarding diary not being like other Horcruxes, again I'm not sure if that fits comfortably for me. I still think Harry is somehow immune to serious damage from Horcrux curse.

We don't know about the other Horcruxes yet. If the ring also had a memory in it, it wasn't going to screw around with DD. And the locket could have had a memory in it. We don't know.

It seems the green potion in the cave had a memory in it, which is why DD was shouting like that at someone.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 26, 2005 9:20 am (#1213 of 2969)

Esther Rose wrote on Oct 26, 2005 in message #1211

Goodness! Everyone is taking everything so seriously.

‘Do unto others ...’ I vastly prefer to be taken seriously, and have my mistakes pointed out, to being laughed at, but of course opinions differ.

Esther Rose: First of all it's not the objects that are evil. It's not even the soul parts that are evil. (At least, I don't think it is. This might be debatable though.) It's the act of trapping the soul parts within the object that is the ultimate evil. It's an act against self, an act against others, and an act against the intention of the original object. (Especially, if the original object contained magic.) Once the soul is released from the object, the object is no longer evil or an act of evil. (Unless, if it still contains a curse of course.)

A Horcrux is indeed an evil thing (insofar as it makes sense at all to speak of objects as good or evil), because it is representative of the evil that is its purpose and the evil that is required for its creation. Regarding the soul-fragments, I don't really think Ginny would agree that they aren't evil as well ...

Esther Rose: Second, Harry Potter is a story line of opposing forces. For every ying there is a yang sort to speak. So if Voldemort has 7 (or 6 or 5) Bits of soul that he created, then Harry may have the equal amount of positive force that is similar to or greater in strength of Voldemort's soul bits.

This is not what you described earlier. In message #1204 you directly equate (by using the equal signs) the Weasley siblings and Voldemort's soul parts

Even with the modification, it just doesn't work with the Weasleys, in my opinion.

Still, I think you are touching on something that is very right.

Evil, Voldemort, is traditionally lonesome. There is no shared responsibility or real co-operation in the evil camp, and Voldemort's Death Eaters, for all that they are terrible, are of no great import. Get rid of Voldemort and they will be impotent. Therefore Voldemort sought power by multiplying himself, so to speak, by creating his seven-part soul (or attempting it, in any case).

Good, however, is naturally co-operative. Harry isn't all that impressive as a wizard he is certainly no Dumbledore, but he finds his strength in his friends: the multiplication is external rather than internal.

So, whereas Voldemort derives strength from his multiple-part soul, Harry derives strength from his many friends.

But in your Weasley scheme you seem to ignore a number of important points. First of all that the fact that we count Voldemort himself as the seat of the seventh part of the soul means that Harry himself must also be counted on the side of Good. Secondly Percy has put himself outside that group of people from whom Harry derives strength, and both Bill and Charlie are also too distant to work well in that respect. Next you appear to ignore the fact that Harry derives as much strength from Hermione has he does from any of the Weasleys (more so, if you look at the earlier books).

It might be that the number of significant people on the side of Good matches the seven parts of Voldemort's soul (that would indeed be an appropriate set-up using this very powerful magical number and emphasizing the reflection of good in evil and vice-versa), but we will have to list the people from whom Harry derives, and has derived, strength.

If the correspondence is even closer, we might look to the two destroyed Horcruxes, and liken them to the two dead people from whom Harry drew considerable strength: I am, naturally, speaking of Sirius Black and Albus Dumbledore.

The four that I would call inevitable would be the Trio and Ginny Harry, Hermione and Ron are, IMO, obvious, and if one believes that the Harry/Ginny thing is fated, then she ought to be included.

If we want to match the number (and while I think it would be a very suitable arrangement, I am by no means convinced that it must be so), and if one trusts my count (I don't trust it very far myself the only that I am sure of are the Trio, but I do think that the other three are the most likely candidates), then we're still one short; Hagrid? (I'm influenced here by the Alchemists Rubeus' name as symbolising the red process just as ‘Black’ and ‘Albus’); Neville? (that would invoke some kind of poetic justice, wouldn't it? some kind of redress for Neville would definitely be nice) Or I don't know whom.

Esther Rose:

[snip]

As far as the Peverell ring goes I thought that was one of the objects that Gaunt showed as proof of his pure blood lineage. I will have to look that over again. Sorry for the confusion.

Pureblood, certainly, that was how Marvolo used the Ring in Ogden's memory (HBP ch. 10 ‘The Hour of Gaunt’), but that doesn't mean it's related to Slytherin as you claimed. Marvolo first showed the Peverell ring to Ogden, explaining that it had been in the family for centuries, and a little later (when Ogden seems unimpressed) he showed the Slytherin locket, but while a millennium is certainly ‘centuries’ my impression was that the Ring entered the Gaunt family rather later than the locket (by marriage, probably, to a Peverell).

Regards,

Troels

Esther Rose - Oct 26, 2005 10:14 am (#1214 of 2969)
Edited Oct 26, 2005 11:15 am

Thanks for your consideration Troels. What I wrote in my second explanation was what I actually meant. I just didn't realize how misinterpreting it was until I got the "Oh Heck No!" responses. Of course all of my harebrained theories are always in rough draft and I always allow modifications even if it does not come from me. =)

You may be right about no connection to the Weasleys though. But Harry does make it a habit to save Weasley lives and lives in general. He saved Ginny's life from the Diary (Diary). He saves Ron's life from poisoned mead (Cup?). He saves Mr. Weasley from a snake (Nagini). That might be a better connection than the 7 Weasley kids too.

Hmmm... Katie almost dies from a Necklace (Locket)... Who else did Harry save??? Wormtail? He saved Wormtail unintentionally from a wand? (Actually, I would like to think that the last unintentional Horcrux is Voldemort's wand.)

Just for clarification. I do not mean that the Locket Katie almost dies from is the Slytherin Locket nor is the cup that Ron drinks from the Hufflepuff cup (Did Ron drink from a cup?). Just the symbolism suggestion.

But your modification might be more workable. Sirius and Dumbledore.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 26, 2005 1:18 pm (#1215 of 2969)

Esther Rose wrote on Oct 26, 2005 in message #1214

Thanks for your consideration Troels.

Thank you. I am sorry that I got all huffed and curmudgeonly there ... you are actually right (with respect to me) that I do take these discussions seriously, and perhaps too serious at times ...

Esther Rose: What I wrote in my second explanation was what I actually meant. I just didn't realize how misinterpreting it was until I got the "Oh Heck No!" responses.

I really do think that you're on to something with the idea about this multiple source of ‘power’ for Harry it is often seen that the hero is surrounded by friends who are almost as important as he is, while the opponent is basically alone (despite perhaps legions of helpers, soldiers and slaves), and I think it could be profitable to discuss which might be Harry's significant helpers.

Esther Rose: Of course all of my harebrained theories are always in rough draft and I always allow modifications even if it does not come from me. =)

I know what you mean. My own style is to do work my way through it, listing the pros and cons, but unfortunately I do have a tendency to expect that others do the same, sorry! But my bark really is worse than my bite

Regards,

Troels

hawick girl - Oct 26, 2005 2:29 pm (#1216 of 2969)
Edited Oct 26, 2005 3:30 pm

I love all of these ideas that I can 'sink my teeth into'

I think that the friends/loved ones of Harry is a better fit than just the 7 Weasleys.

Possible 'Power' People

• Himself
• Ron
• Hermione
• Ginny
• Neville
• Hagrid
• Sirius*
• Dumbledore*
• maybe Molly Weasley-Mom he never had
• maybe Remus Lupin-Favorite teacher/uncle-ish/fatherly type
• slight maybe Fred and George-were on the same Quidditch team for 5 years (nearly), gave the Marauders’ Map, he helped to fund Weasley Wizard Wheezes

On another tangent: We have been told in interviews and the like that one reason that OotP was so long was because there were places that Harry had to see... I think that they are places that Harry will have to go to again like St. Mungo's, the MoM especially the room of mysteries (or something like that), and the RoR in Hogwarts. They may be 'places to visit' because of Horcruxes (Horcrucii) or where Harry will have to learn something to get to the next level. I can't think of anything in St. Mungo's that would be a Horcrux or particularly important to Voldie (I guess that I'll have to re-read, oh-no!), but maybe it is something that has been brought by a patient, worker, or an object that has been there for a while.

Just an idea. Be gentle!

hawick girl - Oct 26, 2005 4:21 pm (#1217 of 2969)
Edited Oct 26, 2005 5:22 pm

I was checking out St. Mungo's on the Lexicon and I came across this:

Due to the snakebite he suffered in OP21, Arthur Weasley was being held in the "Dangerous" Dai Llewellyn Ward: Serious Bites...There were two other patients in the ward during this visit. One was a wizard who had been bitten by a werewolf (who Lupin talked to during the Christmas visit), and the other was a witch who wouldn't reveal what she was handling when she sustained her injuries.

Hmmmmm, it seems that there is a mysterious object-induced injury at St. Mungo's. Who is this witch?

Madame Pomfrey - Oct 26, 2005 5:59 pm (#1218 of 2969)

She wouldn't reveal, not couldn't. Interesting.

Madame Librarian - Oct 26, 2005 7:27 pm (#1219 of 2969)

Perhaps this has been mentioned already, but a few posts back the uniqueness of the diary Horcrux was pointed out. As far as we know it's the one Horcrux that was intended to be used by others (in order to open the Chamber).

One more thing that makes it unique/unusual: it's a Muggle object, purchased in a Muggle stationery shop. Its origin is clearly described (a "notice this, folks" hint) when Harry finds it.

What this means? Dunno, as Ron would say.

Ciao. Barb

Verbina - Oct 26, 2005 8:34 pm (#1220 of 2969)

Going back to the mention of Harry needing to go to St. Mungo’s...it stirred up a memory. Neville's parents... his mother keeps trying to give him shiny metal foil from gum wrappers. I know those wrappers have been analysed over and over but...it may be a hint. Especially as I suspect that the Longbottoms were not only Aurors but members of the OotP and perhaps even Unspeakables. A lot perhaps but a notion.

The discussion of the relation of things on Voldemort's side and those on Harry's side... you have to admit it is very interesting that Voldemort has lost 2 Horcruxes and Harry has lost two people very close to him. Also, Voldemort, being a loner type who trusts no one has put much of his faith in his power in the Horcruxes, which are bits of himself.

And the idea has a great deal of merit. Since book one, we have been told in many various ways how Harry and Voldemort are similar yet different. Both orphaned, both with a Muggle (or Muggle born) parent. The twin wands, the thought of the Sorting Hat to put Harry in Slytherin even to the similarity in appearance which Harry noted in CoS. So it would make a great deal of sense for Harry to have 7 points of strength around him (friends) to even the playing field with the 7 points of power Voldemort has (Horcrux soul bits)

Though it does give a disturbing correlation that for every Horcrux Harry destroys, he will lose the help of one person.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:10 pm

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 26, 2005 11:07 pm (#1221 of 2969)
Edited Oct 27, 2005 12:08 am

Re the mysterious woman in Arthur's ward, the suspicion seems to be an illegal beast (dragon, basilisk, lethifold, chimera, nundu the possibilities are many even without invoking the possibility of experimental breeding). Anyway, her injury seems to definitely be a bite.

‘And that woman over there ,’ he indicated the only other occupied bed, which was right beside the door, ‘won't tell the Healers what bit her, which makes us all think it must have been something she was handling illegally. Whatever it was took a real chunk out of her leg, very nasty smell when they take off the dressings.’

(Arthur Weasley, OotP ch. 22 ‘St. Mungo’s Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries’)

Regards,

Troels

RoseMorninStar - Oct 26, 2005 11:28 pm (#1222 of 2969)
Edited Oct 27, 2005 12:28 am

Esther Rose, I have made posts on occasion myself where I thought my meaning was quite clear, however, upon reading the how other readers respond, I realize I must not have made my intent as clear as I thought I had!

That said, when you clarified your position:

quote: Voldemort's soul bits are the creation of his greatest desire, the desire to live forever.

What Harry wanted most in PS/SS was a family. Of course, He wanted his own family, which he could not have as a result of Voldemort's greatest desire. However, the Weasleys have all but adopted Harry as their own. So the relationship between Harry and the Weasleys could arguably be the creation of Harry's greatest desire. The family that Harry so desperately wanted.

So, paralleling the Horcrux' (Voldemort's acts of evil to fill his desire) to the Weasleys (Harry's acts of love to fill his desire) is not as far fetched as you may believe.

I guess I can agree that there might be a literary parallel between Voldemort's '7' items to fill his (evil) desire contrasted to 7 items to fill Harry's (good) desire. That seems a bit more likely. A 'balance' of sorts. I just don't know if I would go so far as to strongly tie it in with the Weasley family for reasons that have already been stated (like Percy/Hermione situation for example)

Troels Forchhammer[/b] - Oct 26, 2005 11:54 pm (#1223 of 2969)
Edited Oct 27, 2005 1:02 am

Verbina wrote on Oct 26, 2005 in message #1220

Going back to the mention of Harry needing to go to St. Mungo’s...it stirred up a memory. Neville's parents... his mother keeps trying to give him shiny metal foil from gum wrappers. I know those wrappers have been analysed over and over but...it may be a hint.

I honestly don't think that there is anything to this other than the emotional content:

MA: Our next winner question is from Delaney Monaghan, who is 6 years old, via her mother, Vanessa Monaghan. They’re from Canberra, Australia. ‘What is the significance, if any of the gum wrappers that Mrs. Longbottom keeps giving Neville?’

[...]

JKR: That was also asked of me this morning. That idea was one of the very few that was inspired by a real event. I was told what, to me, was a very sad story by someone I know about their elderly mother who had Alzheimer's, and the elderly mother was in a closed ward. She was very severely demented and no longer recognized her son, but he went faithfully to visit her twice a week, and he used to take her sweets. That was their point of connection; she had a sweet tooth, she recognized him as the sweet-giver. That was very poignant to me. So I embroidered the story. Neville gives his mother what she wants, and (it makes me sad to think of it) she wants to give something back to him, but what she gives back to him is essentially worthless. But he still takes it as worth something because she's trying to give, so it does mean something, in emotional terms.

But, the theories on the sweet wrappers, are really out there.

[...]

JKR: I've never, to my knowledge, lied when posed a question about the books. To my knowledge. You can imagine, I've now been asked hundreds of questions; it's perfectly possible at some point I misspoke or I gave a misleading answer unintentionally, or I may have answered truthfully at the time and then changed my mind in a subsequent book. That makes me cagey about answering some questions in too much detail because I have to have some leeway to get there and do it my way, but never on a major plot point.

EXT: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can imagine that Emerson was chagrined at his misspeaking, but post-facto the reply seems so intense that it must be absolutely honest JKR is, I believe, always completely sincere when she answers a question.

Verbina: Especially as I suspect that the Longbottoms were not only Aurors but members of the OotP and perhaps even Unspeakables. A lot perhaps but a notion.

They were in the Order they're on Moody's photograph that he showed Harry in OotP ch. 9 ‘The Woes of Mrs. Weasley’ (There's a good passage there as Moody points out Frank and Alice to Harry, who knows what happened to them, ‘Harry's stomach, already uncomfortable, clenched as he looked at Alice Longbottom; he knew her round, friendly face very well, even though he had never met her, because she was the image of her son, Neville.’ Heart-wrenching!)

Verbina:

[...]

Though it does give a disturbing correlation that for every Horcrux Harry destroys, he will lose the help of one person.

I agree with your general comments regarding the multiple sources of power, but internal/external (if we're going to speak more about that, we really need a better name for it ). When I was commenting on Esther's posts last night, I stopped short of the suggestion you give above, because it seems unlikely to me to be true: I don't think we'll see such a massacre of Harry's friends. This, naturally, weakens my argument for Dumbledore and Sirius being among Harry's supports, but I think there are other reasons why they should belong there (the same reasons they had, story-wise, to go: Harry was relying on them; they had become caring adults to whom Harry had too easy access).

Regards,

Troels

Esther Rose - Oct 27, 2005 6:41 am (#1224 of 2969)
Edited Oct 27, 2005 7:46 am

Ah yes, Troels. But sometimes, the journey of discovery is best experienced when among the best of friends. For it is they that say "Are You Out Of Your Mind?!" Yet, join along for the ride anyways. =)

Let’s not forget, Harry did not destroy the Ring Horcrux. Dumbledore did. When Harry destroyed the Diary, three years had passed before Sirius fell through the veil. So there was a delay. No conclusion from this. Just a thought.

The other thing is that it makes the thought of a Horcrux even more horrible. Something that costs life in its creation and costs life in its destruction is a gruesome thought.

Will JKR put five deaths in the last book? Well, I would think that in the thick of war there would be multiple deaths. And I have entertained the thought that the experience of incredible loss is what makes Harry's strength of love stronger.

We could also have the math wrong and need to include all of Harry's protectors/helpers into the fold. Maybe not James, but Lily since it was she that ultimately turned Voldemort into Vapormort through her charm. (Releasing Voldemort's soul from his own body.) This would make the score 3-2, of course. But I might be a lot off entertaining that thought.

Verbina - Oct 27, 2005 10:09 am (#1225 of 2969)

There is a way in which he could lose the help of one person without it always relating to death. A physical separation perhaps...Harry is already trying to distance himself from people he cares about to prevent them from being harmed. So, with each Horcrux he gets rid of, he could convince one more person to not follow him. I know...very weak.

hawick girl - Oct 27, 2005 8:07 pm (#1226 of 2969)
Edited Oct 27, 2005 9:07 pm

I am heartily sorry that I didn't research the St. Mungo's bit above, I didn't remember the specifics and I relied on the site. It (the site) sounded like an object, not an animal, hurt her. I should have gotten OotP out and re-read the chapter. I still think that it is interesting that she won't tell. Explainable, but interesting.

What else have we been exposed to in St. Mungo's that is related to Horcruxes or the resolution of the story?

Off to re-read!

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 28, 2005 4:12 am (#1227 of 2969)

Esther Rose wrote on Oct 27, 2005 in message #1224

Ah yes, Troels. But sometimes, the journey of discovery is best experienced when among the best of friends.

Oh, certainly. I did not mean to imply any superiority of one method over the other (different strokes and all that), but merely to explain my own error

: For it is they that say "Are You Out Of Your Mind?!" Yet, join along for the ride anyways. =)

I'll be happy to ride along

Regarding the question of deaths and destruction of Horcruxes, I rather think I was in error when I made that connection. The destroyed Horcruxes may show us that we shouldn't necessarily look only to the living for the sources of Harry's strength, but I don't think they show that there must be two dead among them, or that there must be a death for each soul-part destroyed (that would make quite a carnage of book 7, and might even imply that Harry only could vanquish the Dark Lord by sacrificing his own life, and neither seem terribly likely to me).

I would still include Dumbledore and Sirius among Harry's strength-sources: both of them had to die, story-externally, because Harry was coming to depend too much on them, and he has to go forth alone.

At first glance that might seem to contradict what we are doing here, but the Hero, our Harry, draws his strength from other people depending on him, not from depending on other people it is, I believe, the responsibility for others that makes Harry strong (what Hermione called ‘a bit of a saving-people thing!’ )

Back in 1999, JKR said in a radio interview,

Erm ... Harry is someone is forced for such a young person to make his own choices. He has very limited access to truly caring adults and he is guided by his conscience. EXT: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Looking back at the three books we've had since then, it would appear that it is important for her to keep things this way: that Harry must have ‘very limited access to truly caring adults’. Sirius and Albus got too close, and had to be removed, but that also means that Harry draws a lot of strength from them: both from their lives, but also from their deaths.

Regards,

Troels

RoseMorninStar - Oct 28, 2005 9:06 am (#1228 of 2969)
Edited Oct 28, 2005 10:12 am

Ah yes, the 'gone but not forgotten' scenario.

I think it will be interesting how JKR weaves those sources of strength into the next book and see how they help Harry find/destroy the Horcruxes. For instance, JKR has implied that the mirror that Sirius once gave Harry might come into play (although I thought it had been smashed and left at the bottom of his trunk...so one would think that mess would have been cleaned up by now!!!) And, I think she has implied (if you piece together several interviews) that there is something yet to be found out about the phoenix. Now, whether it happens to be in some form Fawkes or Dumbledore, I am not quite sure. I think it was rather obvious from Dumbledore's funeral that he departed much like a phoenix...the tomb ablaze in a white flame (flames which obscured the body) with the 'ghost' of a bird taking flight.

Troels, just before the funeral scene the narration reads:

'And Harry saw very clearly as he sat there under the hot sun how people who cared about him had stood in front of him one by one, his mother, his father, his godfather, and finally Dumbledore, all determined to protect him: but now that was over. He could not let anybody else stand between him and Voldemort; he must abandon forever the illusion he ought to have lost at the age of one, that the shelter of a parent's arms meant that nothing could hurt him. There was no waking from his nightmare, no comforting whisper in the dark that he was safe really, that it was all in his imagination; the last and greatest of his protectors had died, and he was more alone than he had ever been before.'

That bit ties in nicely with what you have said in your post. It is interesting to note that in the succession of protective people who have died, JKR once again lists Lily first...as she did in GoF when they came out of the wand (but not in the order we have been told they died in). I wonder if that was intentional. Or not?

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 29, 2005 10:09 am (#1229 of 2969)

RoseMorninStar wrote on Oct 28, 2005 in message #1228

Troels, just before the funeral scene the narration reads:

[...]

That bit ties in nicely with what you have said in your post.

I re-read that part today (I finished my second cover-to-cover reading today), and thought of this discussion as well.

: It is interesting to note that in the succession of protective people who have died, JKR once again lists Lily first...as she did in GoF when they came out of the wand (but not in the order we have been told they died in). I wonder if that was intentional. Or not?

I believe that Lily, to Rowling (and probably also Harry), is the most important she is first in his mind, rather than first in the purely incidental temporal sequence

Mothers matter to Jo Rowling, as they should, but I think we'll find in 7 that what Harry has from Lily (a protection which is running out and a couple of eyes [the last in the explicitly non-Igorish sense for any Pratchett readers]) is far more important than what he has from any of the father figures (James, Sirius and Albus).

I can't get it much closer at this point, but I'm convinced that the grouping is based on something other than time (which was probably also why she didn't catch Levine's ‘correction’ in GoF &8212; I doubt that her mental listings are ordered according to such physical parameters).

Regards,

Troels

Verbina - Oct 30, 2005 7:30 pm (#1230 of 2969)

Have to agree with you Troels. Shocking I know! LOL

Lily gave up her life specifically for Harry to survive. James on the other hand died in protecting Lily and Harry. (this last bit has never been said specifically but his death being first, one could pretty much safely assume he was attempting to protect them both.)

Plus, it is interesting to note that the persons that Harry has become close to and have passed away are both male. Harry has yet to find a mother-like figure (unless you count Molly but the connection there is not as strong as it was to Sirius or Dumbledore)

archie - Oct 30, 2005 9:41 pm (#1231 of 2969)

I was checking around for possible meanings of a Horcrux. I found something that was pretty interesting. ‘Hors’ is the Slavic god of the winter sun. The Slavs worshipped Hors as the god of survival and the triumph of health over illness. And ‘Crux’ is basically ‘the essential part of’. So I figured a Horcrux could mean ‘the essential part of survival’ which was obviously what Voldemort was trying to gain by splitting his soul. It’s just a possibility.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 31, 2005 12:15 am (#1232 of 2969)

Verbina wrote on Oct 30, 2005 in message #1230

Have to agree with you Troels. Shocking I know! LOL

Not quite as shocking as that, I hope

Verbina: Lily gave up her life specifically for Harry to survive. James on the other hand died in protecting Lily and Harry. (this last bit has never been said specifically but his death being first, one could pretty much safely assume he was attempting to protect them both.)

Yes, I agree (and I am not shocked at all ) Another difference, as I have read the TLC/MN interview, is that Lily chose deliberately to give her life in protection of her child, and she was given the time and opportunity to make that choice. James, on the other hand, chose not to die, but to fight there is, I believe, a subtle difference there, that can explain the huge difference between their choices that evening. Both died protecting their loved ones, but only Lily actually made a choice to die.

Verbina: Plus, it is interesting to note that the persons that Harry has become close to and have passed away are both male. Harry has yet to find a mother-like figure (unless you count Molly but the connection there is not as strong as it was to Sirius or Dumbledore)

I have my personal problems with Molly I find her to be simply too much! She isn't mothering Harry as much as smothering him (or trying to). Oh, well! There can be no doubt that Harry does feel strongly for Molly, though, as you say, their relationship isn't as strong or intimate as that Harry had with Sirius or Dumbledore (he would never have confided his fears and worries to Mrs. Weasley, for instance).

The majority of the Weasleys are background characters, nothing more. I'd only place Ron and Ginny in the front line: Fred and George have clearly been moved to the back after they left Hogwarts, and Molly is in some kind of middle-position: she isn't really one of the main characters, but too important to be just a background character.

But this wasn't meant to be a discussion of the Weasleys I'm sure there are other places for that.

Regarding the actual topic, the idea was that Harry had some sources of strength that parallels Voldemort's Horcruxes, but that for Harry these sources of strength are separate from himself, whereas Voldemort's use of Horcruxes underlines Dumbledore's statement that Voldemort relies only upon himself.

The problem seems to be Harry's sources of strength:

Does it make sense even to ask about specific people, or does Harry draw upon a more generalised background of people who depend on him? To take a specific example: when he fought in the Chamber of Secrets, did he gain strength from fighting for Ginny alone, or did he fight for all of Hogwarts (and gain strength from that) as well?

If he does get his strength from fighting for specific people, can we really know how many they must be? Love, while a powerful force of magic, is not in itself magical, and it would seem to me possible that the more people you love, the stronger your ‘power of love’ can grow.

At the time of writing this, I am leaning towards an unknown number of specific people (don't expect that to be fixed I said ‘leaning’, which means that I am still solidly planted on my fence! ). In other words, I think he got his strength in the Chamber from fighting for Ginny, but that the more specific people he can fight for, the stronger will he get, and that this doesn't have to be restricted to seven.

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 31, 2005 12:56 am (#1233 of 2969)

archie wrote on Oct 30, 2005 in message #1231

[...] ‘Hors’ is the Slavic god of the winter sun. The Slavs worshipped Hors as the god of survival and the triumph of health over illness. And ‘Crux’ is basically ‘the essential part of’. So I figured a Horcrux could mean ‘the essential part of survival’ which was obviously what Voldemort was trying to gain by splitting his soul. It’s just a possibility.

I wonder whether he is a development of the Greek Horae? (They were ‘the three goddesses of the seasons, for the Greeks only recognized spring, summer and winter.’)

The healing and health aspects of Hors don't fit very well with the Horcruxes, but of course the survival does.

‘Crux’ is of course Latin for ‘cross’, with connotations of torment and trouble, and as an abusive term, ‘Gallows bird’. Whether the use as ‘the essential part’ is related to Christian influence (which might be suspected) or simply to the shape (the cross as a marker or aiming aid), I don't know, but I have only met it in English, so if that connotation is intended, I would suspect that the prefix ‘Hor-’ also be English.

Personally, while I am leaning towards reading ‘-crux’ as cross (crucifixion, nailing things to the spot, affixing them), I find that this word has so many possible interpretations, and none of them particularly compelling in comparison with others, that I am unwilling to, or unable, to give preference to any of the many suggestions.

Regards,

Troels

RoseMorninStar - Oct 31, 2005 8:10 am (#1234 of 2969)

Quote: The majority of the Weasleys are background characters, nothing more. I'd only place Ron and Ginny in the front line: Fred and George have clearly been moved to the back after they left Hogwarts... ~Troels

Troels, I am not going to be so quick to write off the Weasley twins. I think that there is a very good reason that JKR had Harry win money, which he in turn gave to the Weasley twins to open a joke shop. I don't know if there will be any tie-in with the Horcruxes, but I definitely think they will play a role in the Wizarding War. And I think it will be a hoot!

Paulus Maximus - Oct 31, 2005 8:50 am (#1235 of 2969)

Personally, while I am leaning towards reading ‘-crux’ as cross (crucifixion, nailing things to the spot, affixing them), I find that this word has so many possible interpretations, and none of them particularly compelling in comparison with others, that I am unwilling to, or unable, to give preference to any of the many suggestions.

Good point. A Horcrux does "nail" or "affix" the soul to the mortal world...

Esther Rose - Oct 31, 2005 9:26 am (#1236 of 2969)

Troels, I am not going to be so quick to write off the Weasley twins. I think that there is a very good reason that JKR had Harry win money, which he in turn gave to the Weasley twins to open a joke shop. I don't know if there will be any tie-in with the Horcruxes, but I definitely think they will play a role in the Wizarding War. And I think it will be a hoot!

And Percy. Percy might have been pushed back a bit but I think he will be someone Harry will have to deal with eventually.

Choices - Oct 31, 2005 10:32 am (#1237 of 2969)

Troels - "James, on the other hand, chose not to die, but to fight"

I have to disagree - I don't think James had a choice at all. Voldemort had come to kill James and Harry. James may have resisted a bit before Voldemort killed him, he didn't want to die, but I don't really think he had a choice in the matter. Once Voldemort decided to kill someone, they could kiss life good-bye..... .except Harry, of course.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 31, 2005 11:50 am (#1238 of 2969)

I wrote on Hallowe'en, 2005 in message #1230

The majority of the Weasleys are background characters, nothing more. I'd only place Ron and Ginny in the front line: Fred and George have clearly been moved to the back after they left Hogwarts, [...]

RoseMorninStar responded to that on Hallowe'en, 2005 in message #1234

Troels, I am not going to be so quick to write off the Weasley Twins. I think that there is a very good reason that JKR had Harry win money, which he in turn gave to the Weasley Twins to open a joke shop. I don't know if there will be any tie-in with the Horcruxes, but I definitely think they will play a role in the Wizarding War. And I think it will be a hoot!

To which Esther Rose added in message #1236

And Percy. Percy might have been pushed back a bit but I think he will be someone Harry will have to deal with eventually.

Obviously nothing is certain we can guess and opine all we want, but the ultimate word is with Rowling.

That said, I don't see any real openings for any of the older Weasleys to really enter the plot again at the front line: none of them have ever been there, and there are, in my opinion, nothing that indicates that they should be going that way; rather the opposite.

Percy and the Twins have all had their moments in the limelight, but never as front characters: always as supporting characters emphasizing the plot, but never driving it. After they've left school, all of them have moved progressively further into the background.

No doubt Weasley's Wizard Wheezes will provide a few magic tricks that either side will benefit from (like Draco's use of the Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder), but even though the Twins will doubtlessly (if they haven't already) join the Order, they won't be participating in the first line of the battle: they'll be the intelligence or quartermasters or something like that.

There is no way that Rowling will be able to connect all dots and tie up every loose end, and there is no way that every nice character will be able to find their way into the front line, and judging by the last couple of books, Neville, Luna, Remus and Tonks are far more likely front-fighters than any of the seven older Weasleys (including the parents).

I wrote on Hallowe'en, 2005 in message #1230

James, on the other hand, chose not to die, but to fight [...]

to which Choices answered in message #1238

I have to disagree - I don't think James had a choice at all. Voldemort had come to kill James and Harry. James may have resisted a bit before Voldemort killed him, he didn't want to die, but I don't really think he had a choice in the matter. Once Voldemort decided to kill someone, they could kiss life good-bye..... .except Harry, of course.

In PoA ch. 12, ‘The Patronus’, Harry hears James yell, ‘‘Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off ’’

That statement, to me, implies that James has chosen to fight Voldemort, to hold him off.

It was possibly, probably, not a choice he had all that much time to make, which means that his choice might not be quite as deliberate as Lily's, but he did, IMO, make a choice, and even if he knew that he would be defeated, his choice was nevertheless to fight rather than to die.

We can, of course, quibble over the choice of the word ‘choice’ but that isn't important. He didn't, as JKR notes, ‘clearly die to try and protect Harry specifically given a clear choice’, but that does not mean that he didn't make a choice, just that his choice was different from Lily's. ‘A subtle difference’, Rowling says; yes, I say, the difference between choosing to fight to protect, and choosing to die to protect.

All of this is, of course, completely off topic for this thread, sorry Since it came up here, I thought I'd better answer here, but possibly any further discussions should be posted in the appropriate threads? (With a short notice here that it continues elsewhere)

Regards,

Troels

Choices - Oct 31, 2005 1:57 pm (#1239 of 2969)

JKR said that the difference between James' death and Lily's is that Lily had a choice and James didn't. I was basing my opinion on that.

Steve Newton - Oct 31, 2005 2:03 pm (#1240 of 2969)

I don't know but it seems that James could have chosen to run away. Maybe the situation didn't allow this but to stand and die seems like a choice that he made.

Troels Forchhammer - Oct 31, 2005 2:20 pm (#1241 of 2969)

Choices wrote in message #1240

JKR said that the difference between James' death and Lily's is that Lily had a choice and James didn't. I was basing my opinion on that.

I assume that you are referring to the TLC/MN interview just after the release of HBP? I am, at least, not aware of other interviews where she has elaborated on this matter (if you know of such an interview, I would be very grateful to be corrected about this). What Rowling said at that occasion was:

So in that sense her courage too was of an animal quality but she was given time to choose. James wasn't.

EXT: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Saying that James wasn't given time to choose, which corresponds to the scenario I describe, whereby he does choose to fight (as per the PoA quotation, I cited), but after that he doesn't get the opportunity to choose to live or die.

ES: And James didn't.

JKR: Did he clearly die to try and protect Harry specifically given a clear choice? No. It's a subtle distinction and there's slightly more to it than that but that's most of the answer.

ibid.

Here she says that he wasn't specifically given a clear choice (to die to try to protect Harry), which doesn't mean that he doesn't choose at any other level.

So, what she is speaking about is not a choice in general, but that very special choice which Lily made. James was not given an equivalent choice, but that was not what I was saying either.

Regards,

Troels

hawick girl - Oct 31, 2005 6:43 pm (#1242 of 2969)

Trying to get the train back on track...

What possible reasons would Jo have Harry visit St. Mungo's in OotP? Is it related to Horcruxes?

...The scenery is just as beautiful when train is not on track.

lol

vickilh42 - Oct 31, 2005 7:26 pm (#1243 of 2969)

This line of thinking is getting slightly off topic and yet it could lead us back to topic.....

So, referring to the following quote:

ES: And James didn't. JKR: Did he clearly die to try and protect Harry specifically given a clear choice? No. It's a subtle distinction and there's slightly more to it than that but that's most of the answer.

I understand the distinction that James drew his wand to defend his family and was murdered, where as Lily offered her life as a sacrifice. Voldemort asked her to stand aside and she defenselessly refuses to do so.

But I'm more interested in the JKR's phrasing: "there's slightly more to it". I could mean that JKR was purposing avoiding a discussion about some other aspect of the impact of Lily's sacrifice(In the above quote, JKR knows that Emerson is aware of Harry's blood protection from Lily that Voldemort overcame in GOF)or maybe it has to do with Lily's knowledge about Voldemort.

In rereading PoA, where we get the most information as to her sacrifice and relating this back on the topic of "Horcruxes", I was considering Lily's words as Harry recalls them, in his "Dementor visions". If reread with the idea in mind that she was aware of Voldemort's experimentation with Horcruxes, it gives a little different perspective to it. On page 170 she pleads, "Not Harry", please take me, kill me instead. Then on page 239 she pleads, "Not Harry", "I'll do anything."

I guess this depends upon Lily's Legilimency skills to read Voldemort's intentions of creating a Horcrux with Harry's death or if Dumbledore suspected Voldemort's use of Horcrux(es) pre-1980 and, if he then shared the information with the Potters--to whom he did seem to be exceptionally close. Dumbledore knew of Voldemort's vanity and arrogance...his desired to be special--greatest. He would have deduced that his immersion in the darkest and worst kinds of magic would have lead Voldemort to experimenting with a Horcrux(es). Might Dumbledore's hypothesizing about the "Prophecy" and that Snape had told Voldemort the first half, have lead Dumbledore to suspect Voldemort would at least try to make a Horcrux with baby Harry's death? Something made Dumbledore approach Slughorn to determine if young Tom had inquired about Horcrux creation?

And I've always wonder why JKR had Lily plea, "kill me instead". At first I wondered why Lily would think Voldemort would accept her life over Harry's when his obvious interest was in Harry?(This thought occurred to me even before reading GoF and Harry's status as "the Prophecy child".) Why would she think Voldemort would even respond to a plea? What is the "anything" that she would've done?

Verbina - Oct 31, 2005 8:30 pm (#1244 of 2969)

Going to the discussion of the death of Lily and James just a bit here...I wonder if it is more of a conscience choice JKR is talking about. We have to keep in mind that James was a father whose wife and child were in danger. He knew that Voldemort had come to destroy the family, especially his son. Faced with that, most fathers in that situation would find instinct taking over and they would set out to protect the family. Not a conscience thought or decision...an instinct born from the fact he was a loving husband and father (guessing here but the way everyone talks about James I really cannot see him as a horrible father) So while instinct took over, James stood to fight Voldemort and the choice to die was not his to make. Meanwhile with Lily, she made a conscience decision to sacrifice herself for Harry, refusing to step away when the choice was given to her. Somewhere I got the notion that Lily was good with ancient magic...where I have no clue. If that is somehow canon, could someone tell me where it was? If it is canon, it is possible that Lily knew the effects of such a sacrifice for her son. She knew and chose to give her life to protect him. Of course, it all hinges on the idea of her being good with ancient magic.

As to the correlation between the 7 Horcruxes and the strengths of Harry, what if it isn't people that are his strengths... What if it is personal strengths...love, intelligence ability...etc etc. things that he is able to learn from simply being around certain people? So for instance from Sirius, he learned what it was like to have someone genuinely care about him and supply him with a father like figure. From Dumbledore he could have learned things like trusting in people perhaps (though that is very likely shaken at this time) Going with this idea, the strengths could be connected to people but it more what he learns from them that is important, not the person themselves. (Not saying that the people are not important of course.)

As to St. Mungo’s...I keep getting the feeling that we have not seen the last of Lockhart. Not that he is a Horcrux but that perhaps somewhere in his foggy mind he knows something Harry needs to know.

RoseMorninStar - Oct 31, 2005 10:12 pm (#1245 of 2969)

I think it all comes down to the fact that Voldemort told Lily to 'Step aside' (and JKR does tell us that Voldemort would have let her live if she had stepped aside). But she consciously chose to (paraphrased) say 'No you cannot kill Harry, you will have to kill me first!' That is the choice that Lily was given that James was not. James would have died one way or another. Voldemort gave Lily a conscious choice.

There is something special about Lily. Maybe it has to do with her eyes. It seems JKR keeps hinting that there is something very important about her eyes (and Harry's too, since they are just like hers?) that will cause Harry to have to make a choice in book 7. I still cannot help but wonder if Lily was not an unspeakable. JKR has never told us James & Lily's occupations, so I am guessing that plays a part.

Verbina~ I don't think Lily knew that her sacrifice would create a special protection for Harry. Dumbledore says no one knew, because it had never happened before. (And Dumbledore is the one who invoked ancient magic when he chose Lily's only living relative to protect Harry because of her blood sacrifice and Lily's 'blood' also running through Petunia). I think it was just the love of a mother for her son. However, that said, I think you may be right about her knowing more than the average about ancient magic...especially if she had worked in the MoM.

St. Mungo’s... so much happened there... it ties in the knowledge about Neville's parents. The OotP members who were victims. The werewolf that Lupin meets... the Devil's snare plant. ... I think someone asked JKR in an interview if we would see Lockhart again or if he would get out of St. Mungo's and I think she said no. And oh yeah...Horcruxes.

Esther Rose - Nov 1, 2005 7:33 am (#1246 of 2969)

I apologize for being the catalyst to topic diversion. I was wondering if my question may have needed a separate title.

That said I will try and raise a Horcrux topic. Is it possible that a wizard can only create a finite number of Horcruxes (say 5 or 6) before chaos is created.

Let me use Time Turners as a hypothetical example before I go back into Horcrux's. Say for what ever reason you go back in time to finish a task. There are only two of you so it is easy to calculate what you are doing and where you were before you went back in time. Okay, now lets say you forgot to do something when you went back in time and decided to go back in the same block of time again to correct it. A little tougher to do right? Okay, say you think "Hey 7 is a powerful number, why not try going back 4 more times" and try to go back in time 6 times to create 7 of yous simultaneously. (Maybe you need an army of 7 to fight seven dudes. I don't know why someone would do this but imagine you did.) Each time you go back in time you get further and further from the original you and further and further away from knowing exactly where all of you were at any given point of time. Also, you don't know how the previous yous will react to the changes you made each time you went back into time. So you have created Chaos and you die or go mad.

Going back to Horcruxes. What would happen if all 6 (or 5 or 4) Horcruxes were released? Not destroyed, released. So you would have more than one Voldemorts walking the earth. Would the same or similar Chaos exist. Well, first of all, I don't know if the Wizarding World or Muggle World would survive it. But because all Voldemorts thrive on being special, and all Voldemorts want to become "The Greatest Wizard in the World", would they would all make attempts to kill each other? Chaos? Does the nature of magic prevent this from happening? Can the soul only allow itself to be split into a certain number of parts before the soul becomes fragile and self-destructs?

Troels Forchhammer - Nov 1, 2005 12:01 pm (#1247 of 2969)

Esther Rose wrote on Nov 1, 2005 in message #1246

I apologize for being the catalyst to topic diversion. I was wondering if my question may have needed a separate title.

Don't worry about that. No one can blame you for what the rest of us do with your topic, which was, after all, related to Horcruxes I don't know how it usually is on boards like this, but on usenet topic-drift is the norm (with or without appropriate changes to the subject).

I'd say it's a good idea to test the viability of an idea in an established thread before posting a new thread.

Esther Rose: That said I will try and raise a Horcrux topic. Is it possible that a wizard can only create a finite number of Horcruxes (say 5 or 6) before chaos is created.

There are a number of issues covered here, all of which might be worth some consideration.

Is it, for instance, possible to split your soul in so many parts that the part left in your body becomes too weak (or mutilated or whatever) —: possibly even so weak that it cannot successfully ‘possess’ its own body?

The Horcruxes as such are, I would guess, normally passive (I believe the diary was unique in this respect), so I don't think that they would, by themselves, affect things, except through their connection with the ‘living soul’ (there must be some kind of connection, as the Horcruxes are capable of anchoring the living soul in a spectral existence of the body is destroyed or, presumably, killed).

Esther Rose: Let me use Time Turners as a hypothetical example before I go back into Horcrux's. [...]

Well ... the discussion of time travel is a completely different issue At this place and time, let me just say that I don't think your example is necessarily valid ... [1]

Esther Rose: Going back to Horcruxes. What would happen if all 6 (or 5 or 4) Horcruxes were released? Not destroyed, released. So you would have more than one Voldemorts walking the earth. Would the same or similar Chaos exist. Well, first of all, I don't know if the Wizarding World or Muggle World would survive it. But because all Voldemorts thrive on being special, and all Voldemorts want to become "The Greatest Wizard in the World", would they would all make attempts to kill each other? Chaos? Does the nature of magic prevent this from happening?

This question applies already to the situation where the Tom Riddle from the diary had re-embodied. Rowling has said that this would have made present-day Voldemort much stronger[2], but without any further explanation.

I think there are a number of possible scenarios for a situation where several Horcruxes become independently embodied:

The different bodies fight each other as you suggest. This does not seem to agree very well with Rowling's statement regarding the diary Horcrux.

All the bodies are still guided/’empowered’/animated by one (however split) soul, and we will essentially have one person with several bodies (all of them with magical abilities really scaring, if you ask me ).

All the soul fragments will gather in one body, slowly growing back together, creating a soul that is, if not unhurt or untarnished, then at least more whole than before.

The bodies remain separate, but recognise that they are nevertheless one, and work perfectly together. I'd say that this is one of the least likely scenarios.

Other scenarios can doubtlessly be devised according to the tastes and imaginations of each of us

On the whole, I tend to favor a scenario in which re-embodiment of a Horcrux will strengthen Voldemort (because of Rowling's statement), and I think that this would only grow stronger with more embodied Horcruxes (if the embodiment of one Horcrux would ‘strengthen present-day Voldemort considerably’, then I see nothing to suggest that embodying more Horcruxes would work differently).

Regards,

Troels

[1] I presented a paper on time travelling and Time-Turning in physics, philosophy and Potterverse at Accio. Anyone who is interested can bring a copy (MS Word format) down upon their own heads by e-mailing me as per my profile.

[2] EXT: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Frustratingly brief

Verbina - Nov 1, 2005 9:22 pm (#1248 of 2969)

Hmmm...so a soul, released from a Horcrux could in theory re-unite with the soul within the body and make the person stronger? Interesting idea but...it seems to beg the question of why Voldemort didn't do that before? After the backfire of the AK at Godric's Hollow, he became Vapormort and extremely weak. In that state it is very likely that he would be unable to do much to acquire a soul piece to make himself stronger. But when he was setting things up with the Triwizard tourney and killed Frank Bryce, he was in the Riddle home, not far from the Gaunt home, where the ring was found by Dumbledore at a later date. He could have simply gotten the ring, released the soul and grew in strength...but he didn't. It was close by and would have made him stronger yet he didn't do it. It may be that he simply chose not to or it could also be that he could not do it.

The diary soul, being unique among Horcruxes, could very well have rejoined the core soul within Voldemort, thus making him stronger. But I wonder if it is possible to release a soul from the other Horcruxes without damaging it in some way. For some reason, it almost strikes me that the only way to get a soul piece out of a Horcrux is to destroy it.

Of course, I may be totally wrong in that.

Soul Search - Nov 2, 2005 5:42 am (#1249 of 2969)

The cannon references to a "soul" are Dementors and Horcruxes.

We are first introduced to Dementors in PoA. In GoF, Barty Crouch Jr. gets his soul sucked out and Voldemort says the Dementors will join him. Harry encounters Dementors in OotP and they do leave Azkaban and join Voldemort. In HBP there is a mist which means Dementors are breeding and we are introduced to Horcruxes.

What happens when a Dementor sucks out a person's soul? Is the soul gone, or does it become part of the Dementor? Can a Dementor suck up the soul-bits created from the act of murder? Can a Dementor suck the soul out of a Horcrux?

I can't get over the idea that all this "soul" related storyline is going to come together in book seven. It would be somehow fitting if Voldemort ended up like Barty Crouch Jr.

Esther Rose - Nov 2, 2005 6:04 am (#1250 of 2969)

I would agree with JKR that had Diary Voldemort succeeded in his release that Voldemort's strength would increase significantly. Why? Because Vapormort would have a concrete body to attach himself to and two souls would unite. He would have a very young body to connect to that would not die due to his possession since it would technically he could not possess himself.

But things have changed since COS. Voldemort now has a body. So, I guess the new question is. If a soul part is released. (not killed) Will it attempt to reunite to already solid form Voldemort or create it's own body. (I am sure the concrete answer to this will be answered in about two years and no sooner.)

JILL HUBER - Nov 2, 2005 1:34 pm (#1251 of 2969)

I just had an epiphany last night and I think it makes sense if you'll just go with me on this one. What if, in light of Dumbledore's knowledge of the prophecy, Harry was somehow made a Horcrux and that is why Voldemort couldn't kill him? My defense of this goes as follows:

(1) The two destroyed Horcruxes we are aware of are the Gaunt ring (gash down the middle due to removal/destruction of Horcrux within) and the diary (gash from removal/destruction). Harry has a gash down the middle of his forehead...possibly the reason is that when Voldie tried to kill Harry, he only destroyed the Horcrux he held inside of him, not actually Harry.

(2) Perhaps this is the power that the "dark lord knows not" (prophesy)

(3) This would explain why Harry was the only person to survive the Avada Kedavra curse...he couldn't be killed outright with one shot because he contained a Horcrux.

(4) Even those items which were Horcruxes had the Horcrux removed from within, the items still existed. Perhaps at a great disservice to the person removing the Horcrux (I.e.: Dumbledore's hand).

As to who created this Horcrux, I have no idea...one thing is for sure, Dumbledore knows much more about magic (both good and dark) than probably any other wizard alive...even Voldemort. Voldemort clearly got his information on Horcruxes second hand and maybe some parts of it were inaccurate or incomplete.

I am aware that this theory isn't without flaws, but I think it makes sense. Please send feedback!

Aurora Gubbins - Nov 2, 2005 3:14 pm (#1252 of 2969)

I reckon that when Lily was killed, something of her spirit or soul went in to Harry and that is why he has his mother's eyes - the eyes being the "windows of the soul" as the old saying goes. If this is the case then Harry has himself and a bit of his mother in him - making more than the whole, whereas LV-in-the-flesh has only a fraction of his original self.

I wonder why the ring left Dumbledore with a blackened hand - I haven't seen any theories on this but I do tend to skip over the very long posts. Maybe Dumbledore felt it was necessary to wear the ring in order to 'bring out' the piece of LV that was in there and had to do himself some serious damage to destroy the piece of soul as it tried to take over his body through his hand. I'm trying to think about both the ring and the diary and what was happening with Ginny. Oh, it's all a jumble in my poor tired brain!!!

hawick girl - Nov 2, 2005 4:10 pm (#1253 of 2969)

I think that we covered these topics. I'll try to recap, but search the thread for more information.

First:

I reckon that when Lily was killed, something of her spirit or soul went in to Harry and that is why he has his mother's eyes - the eyes being the "windows of the soul" as the old saying goes.

I may be rather critical of this, but I assume that since Harry was already 15 months old before the failed AK, and he already had 'his mother's eyes'. I agree with the idea that Lily's eyes were important and so Harry's will be as well.

Second:

I wonder why the ring left Dumbledore with a blackened hand - I haven't seen any theories on this...

I think that DD said that blackened hand came from the protections on the ring, and not the removal of the soulbit from the ring.

Paulus Maximus - Nov 3, 2005 6:32 am (#1254 of 2969)

Can a Dementor suck up the soul-bits created from the act of murder? Can a Dementor suck the soul out of a Horcrux?

Dementors can only suck the soul out of a being that can feel despair, if Lupin is to be believed.

Can Horcruxes feel despair?

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 3, 2005 11:50 am (#1255 of 2969)

Esther Rose - yes, I agree about CoS statement. It actually says so I believe... Tom Riddle sucked life out of Ginny in order to regain strength and have a new body - his 16 year old one. He sucked Ginny's soul via her emotional outpouring into the diary - her heart & soul. It's psychic vampiring. It seems those that cannot die also cannot live without vampiring off others. Kind of a catch 22.

It also fits that all the Horcruxes seem to relate to love/emotion on some level. A locket is usually between lovers. Same can be said of a ring. A diary keeps one's emotional sentiments. And a cup is a symbol of love as in tarot suit of cups (emotions).

More later...

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 3, 2005 8:38 pm (#1256 of 2969)

Okay, here's more I wanted to say.

If Nagini is indeed a Horcrux, then she also fits into the emotion/sentiment category. DD said Vold is as "fond of her as he can be of anything." It seems the idea of sentiment/love being in the object is significant.

Also regarding Nagini, it seems she is like the diary in that she is not merely a storage place for a soul bit, she's also a dynamic thing that he can affect people with, and possess. We know Vold was inside of Nagini when he struck Mr. Weasley, which is why Harry saw through the snake's eyes during the attack.

So perhaps it's premature to say the diary is unique. Perhaps even the potion that protected the locket was able to interact with it's drinker, as DD was pleading with someone other than Harry as he ingested the potion.

Edit: I don't know if it's been said but it seems Harry will easily get his hands on the locket by commanding Kreacher to bring it to him from that stash in 12 Grimmauld.

Verbina - Nov 3, 2005 10:36 pm (#1257 of 2969)

The reason I call the diary unique was its lack of protections. It was not hidden away in an abandoned shack nor was it stashed in an Inferi infested cave. It served a dual purpose. Not only did it hold Voldemort's soul, it also was made to be used by someone other than Voldemort to open the Chamber, so the soul within had to be different somehow, so it would be possible to possess the person using the diary. Without the ability of Diary Tom to possess Ginny, the Chamber never would have been re-opened. And I do think Tom made it that way from the beginning. He already knew that he was under suspicion from DD. For him to have attempted to re-open the chamber while he was there would have been a huge risk on his part. So he had to create Diary Tom to get another to do the job at a later time. I am beginning to think that Diary Tom, the memory, was created first then the diary was made into a Horcrux. Could someone possibly find the quote from HBP that Dumbledore made about how the diary was different and started him thinking of Voldemort making Horcruxes? Either way, I say the diary is unique because it was made to be used by another, not hidden away somewhere.

I am intrigued by the idea of each item relating to love in some way. Something that Voldemort was lacking in his life and denies needing...yet it seems he is seeking it out. Especially as the Horcruxes are items that have special meaning to him. So...we have deaths that have special symbolism to Voldemort being used to create Horcruxes out of items that have special meaning to him as well.

RoseMorninStar - Nov 3, 2005 11:27 pm (#1258 of 2969)

Quote from Verbina: Could someone possibly find the quote from HBP that Dumbledore made about how the diary was different and started him thinking of Voldemort making Horcruxes? Chapter 23 'Horcruxes' (page 500 U.S. edition):

Dumbledore paused for a moment, marshaling his thoughts, and then said, "Four years ago, I received what I considered certain proof that Voldemort had split his soul."

"Where?" asked Harry. "How?"

"You handed it to me, Harry," said Dumbledore. "The diary, Riddle's diary, the one giving instructions on how to reopen the Chamber of Secrets."

"I don't understand, sir," said Harry.

"Well, although I did not see the Riddle who came out of the diary, what you described to me was a phenomenon I had never witnessed. A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere memory, sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had fallen? No, something much more sinister had lived inside that book..... a fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it. The diary had been a Horcrux. But this raised as many questions as it answered. "What intrigued and alarmed me most was that that diary had been intended as a weapon as much as a safeguard."

"I still don't understand," said Harry.

"Well, it worked as a Horcrux is supposed to work---in other words, the fragment of soul concealed inside it was kept safe and had undoubtedly played its part in preventing the death of its owner. But there could be no doubt that Riddle really wanted that diary read, wanted the piece of his soul to inhabit or possess somebody else, so that Slytherin's monster would be unleashed again."

"Well, he didn't want his hard work to be wasted," said Harry. "He wanted people to know he was Slytherin's heir, because he couldn't take credit at the time."

"Quite correct," said Dumbledore, nodding. "But don't you see, Harry, that if he intended the diary to be passed to, or planted on, some future Hogwarts student, he was being remarkably blasé about that precious fragment of soul concealed within it. The point of a Horcrux is, as Professor Slughorn explained, to keep part of the self hidden and safe, not to fling it into somebody else's path and run the risk that they might destroy it---as indeed happened: that particular fragment of soul is no more; you saw to that.

"The careless way in which Voldemort regarded this Horcrux seemed almost ominous to me. It suggested that he must have made--or been planning to make--more Horcruxes, so that the loss of his first would not be so detrimental. I did not wish to believe it, but nothing else seemed to make sense.

"Then you told me, two years later, that on the night that Voldemort returned to his body, he made a most illuminating and alarming statement to his death eaters. 'I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality.' That was what you told me he said. 'Further than anybody.' And I thought I knew what that meant, though the Death Eaters did not. He was referring to his Horcruxes. Horcruxes in plural, Harry, which I do not believe any other wizard has ever had. Yet it fitted: Lord Voldemort has seemed to grow less human with the passing years, and the transformation he has undergone seemed t me to be only explicable if his soul was mutilated beyond the realms of what we might call 'usual evil..."

[...]

"...these things suggest to me that Voldemort would have chosen his Horcruxes with some care, favoring objects worthy of the honor."

"The diary wasn't special."

"The diary, as you have said yourself, was proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin; I am sure that Voldemort considered it of stupendous importance."

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 4, 2005 7:43 am (#1259 of 2969)

Thank you Verbina and Rose MorninStar for your posts.

I am familiar with the passage referenced. I understand the diary served two purposes. However, I still do not believe the diary was unique because it was not hidden, nor because it was also a weapon.

The quote above mainly illustrates how DD realized that the diary wasn't hidden because it wasn't the only Horcrux. The intriguing part now for me is --

"But there could be no doubt that Riddle really wanted that diary read, wanted the piece of his soul to inhabit or possess somebody else ..."

Can they all possess in some way? I feel perhaps we shouldn't assume the diary was the only "interactive" Horcrux. We never heard the tale about DD, the ring and the blackened hand. And DD said the ring was only hidden because Vold didn't want to wear it anymore. It could have been cursed until he was ready to unleash it. Remember, Lucius was in charge of "hiding" the diary until the time was ripe.

I know the locket was well hidden. But when DD "interacted" with the locket potion, it could have been trying to possess him. If you reread the cave passage, it's possible. And, of course, Nagini is an interactive weapon.

I understand your theory, know that Vold wouldn't want all his Horcruxes found but I am not convinced it is unique. The only thing I can see is they are all unique in some way, not one different from five.

Just a thought.

Edit: I'm also still having trouble with Nagini being the sixth Horcrux, but it may be. As far as my "love" theory in earlier post, she doesn't really fit in that she is not a known symbol of love/sentiment.

Paulus Maximus - Nov 4, 2005 9:34 am (#1260 of 2969)

The reason I call the diary unique was its lack of protections.

Maybe I should stop nitpicking, but "it's" is a contraction of "it is". "Its" is the possessive of "it."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:16 pm

Madame Librarian - Nov 4, 2005 11:00 am (#1261 of 2969)

Why did Diary Tom need to suck out Ginny's soul to re-birth himself in CoS? Was she supposed to "lend" him her soul (then die, of course) so he could attain corporeal form and be able do the Horcrux release business on the diary to get his own soul chunk re-installed?

Is he going to need an operative--a sacrificial living human--to retrieve the chunks in the other Horcruxes? If that's so, it would seem that you need one murder/death to make the Horcrux, and one to actually use it. I guess I just figured that when he needed them, the other Horcruxes would work when he himself did the magic to release the soul piece hidden inside.

Ciao. Barb

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 4, 2005 12:56 pm (#1262 of 2969)

Madam Librarian - good points made. I don't have CoS so cannot research chamber scene. Perhaps someone out there will contribute a Riddle quote. However, I don't see how Ginny's soul could be "lent" to Riddle.

I recently watched the film - which is not always reliable - and Riddle said something about when the transfer was complete (soul transfer/she's dead) then he'd have a body once more. I cannot fathom him being able to "return" a soul...to where? She's dead. I believe that's why a pureblood needed to be used for such a soul transfer, because he'd never want Mudblood or mixed blood inside him.

When Harry destroyed the Horcrux, Ginny's soul was restored. Otherwise, Riddle would have used it as "fuel". It seems like the Dementors. They feed off souls/emotions because they have none of their own, yet they simply burn through it, procreate, become more empowered.

I believe now he has attained a body, however, he won't need to do such a thing. The GoF tomb scene should help on this theory. Off to research.

Potion - Nov 4, 2005 2:13 pm (#1263 of 2969)

I understand that the diary didn't have the same 'showy' protections as the locket but I believe it rather protected itself - the diary ensnares a young girl who cherishes it and uses it like her own diary. Who's going to think a piece of LV's soul is in a lovesick girl's diary?

Also I think the part of Tom in the diary was from when he was young and a little foolish. So, instead of just using Ginny to open the Chamber and staying as a normal Horcrux he decided he would use her soul to try and 'live' again.

If that made any sense..... ... lol

Troels Forchhammer - Nov 4, 2005 3:14 pm (#1264 of 2969)

Verbina wrote on Nov 1, 2005 in message #1248

Hmmm...so a soul, released from a Horcrux could in theory re-unite with the soul within the body and make the person stronger? Interesting idea but...it seems to beg the question of why Voldemort didn't do that before?

An interesting question. The diary Horcrux may even be unique in the history of magic in that it was made of an object, which was purposed to interact with other people, to guide them and subvert them, and thus it had exactly what it took to make it possible for the soul-fragment to actually leave the Horcrux.

Verbina: The diary soul, being unique among Horcruxes, could very well have rejoined the core soul within Voldemort, thus making him stronger.

Oh, well ... yes ... that's what you were saying

Verbina: But I wonder if it is possible to release a soul from the other Horcruxes without damaging it in some way.

I think that would actually go against the purpose of a Horcrux (normally). The purpose, as I understand it, is to somehow bind the soul-fragment within the Horcrux, thus tying the whole soul, not just the soul-fragment, but also the living soul, to the ‘material plane’ the world of the living; preventing the soul from ‘passing on to the other side’. To achieve this anchoring, I would suppose that most wizards would prefer the soul-fragment to be inseparably united to the Horcrux.

In this we must, however, also recall that Voldemort did not only have purpose his Horcruxes to anchor his living soul at this side of the veil, but also to be a source of strength for him, and I think that that is the reason behind some of his more unusual choices (mainly the diary and Nagini). Whether that means that other of his Horcruxes would be able to also separate the soul-fragment from the Horcrux, I can't say.

Verbina: For some reason, it almost strikes me that the only way to get a soul piece out of a Horcrux is to destroy it.

Yes. I agree that that would be the normal situation.

And Verbina wrote in message #1257 (Nov 3, 2005):

The reason I call the diary unique was its lack of protections. [...]

Yes. That was what triggered Dumbledore's suspicion of more Horcruxes: the carelessness with which the diary was treated by Voldemort suggested that he did not rely only on this Horcrux.

Verbina: It served a dual purpose. Not only did it hold Voldemort's soul, it also was made to be used by someone other than Voldemort to open the Chamber, [...]. Either way, I say the diary is unique because it was made to be used by another, not hidden away somewhere.

Precisely! Though of course I'd cite a triple purpose recalling young Tom's question to his teacher, ‘Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces, I mean, for instance, isn't seven the most powerfully magical number, wouldn't seven ?’ It seems to me that Voldemort has this other purpose, in addition to his quest for immortality, for creating multiple Horcruxes: to get stronger.

I'm not sure about the precise way Voldemort imagined the diary to work. I don't think Voldemort was fully aware of the powers of his Horcrux, and I do think it was prepared with the memories in order to guide a willing follower to open the Chamber before he got around to make a Horcrux out of it, but these are minor details, I think.

Verbina: I am intrigued by the idea of each item relating to love in some way. Something that Voldemort was lacking in his life and denies needing...yet it seems he is seeking it out. Especially as the Horcruxes are items that have special meaning to him. So...we have deaths that have special symbolism to Voldemort being used to create Horcruxes out of items that have special meaning to him as well.

It's an intriguing idea, surely. Voldemort possibly searching out some items that were symbols of some love, in order to turn them into Horcruxes and thus prove his point to Dumbledore.

But I can't connect the dots. Everything about the diary seems to be removed from love. There is pride, yes, and an egomania so great that it might border on the narcissistic, but which, IMO, is psychotic, rather.

Of course we might relate the diary to Harry and Ginny, in which case the love is easy to find, but that doesn't seem to be what you mean by Voldemort seeking it out.

(I can't get a good love-connection on the Peverell ring or Nagini, either, I'm afraid.)

Still, even if it doesn't fit all the Horcruxes, the idea shouldn't be dismissed Merope's love for Tom Sr (however twisted) is symbolised in her sacrifice of the Slytherin locket, and that may still come back to haunt her son.

Regards,

Troels

Choices - Nov 4, 2005 6:08 pm (#1265 of 2969)

Shadow - "But when DD "interacted" with the locket potion, it could have been trying to possess him."

Interesting thought - It made me think that perhaps Dumbledore had foreseen this problem - that the soul bit might enter him - and this was why he had arranged for Snape to "kill" him. It was the only way to destroy the soul bit. Remember, he sent for Snape as soon as they got back to the castle. Maybe that was why - Snape knew what had to be done to get rid of the soul bit. But, the Horcrux was a fake so maybe Dumbledore just wanted to tell Snape he had failed to get the soul bit - but something went terribly wrong. Perhaps he still needed help for the potion he drank and the lake water chaser.

Shadow - " I believe that's why a pureblood needed to be used for such a soul transfer, because he'd never want Mudblood or mixed blood inside him."

But, it was not Tom Riddle who chose Ginny, it was Lucius Malfoy who picked her in an effort to discredit Arthur Weasley. I think her being a pureblood was coincidental.

vickilh42 - Nov 4, 2005 9:54 pm (#1266 of 2969)

I've a question.....

Has JKR told us that destroying a Horcrux "destroys" the soul bit?

Terms JKR has used to describe the chosen object's role: 1)"concealed part of their soul", "hide part of it". -Slughorn says pg497. 2) "encased the torn portion" - Slughorn's says pg 498. 3)"store it in", "had lived inside it". - Dumbledore says pg500. 4)"concealed inside", "concealed within".-Dumbledore says pg501. 5) "to guard his own precious" - Dumbledore says pg504 6) "to confide a part of your soul" -Dumbledore says pg 506 7) "it held a portion of his master's soul" - Dumbledore pg 508

Are the bits just "trapped" inside by the spell or made physically, a part of the object and thus destroyed when the object is destroyed?

The Diary Horcrux was stabbed with the Basilisk fang(This dramatic event leads us to believe ALL is destroyed). Dumbledore said,"...you have already destroyed one of them. And I have destroyed the other." "The ring is no longer a Horcrux."(p503) Later, he says "When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all its powers..." which again, does not indicate the status of the release soul bit. Then he says, "...with a maimed and diminished soul...while his soul may be damaged beyond repair." The "maybe be damaged beyond repair" seems to offer a possibility for repair.

The object chosen to contain the soul bit is not completely "destroyed". A physical assault (as Harry did) or a magical assault (presumably cast by Dumbledore/Snape) can damage the object but does it destroy the soul bit as well?

I'm having trouble with the concept of an inanimate thing such as the soul bits, being "destroyed" largely thru physical means. What does Dumbledore(JKR) really mean by, "That particular fragment of soul is no more."(HBP p501)

Perhaps upon the counter curses/extensive physical damage/etc., of the Horcrux object, the soul bit is merely released from the Horcrux object. Not having a "anchor" in this world, would it then make it's way "beyond the veil"--- where all souls go when they have left their earthly shells(bodies)?

A speculation: If the bit goes to the beyond, once Harry "releases" them, and the 6 bits are there, could they possibly reunite and "call" to the remaining portion in Voldemort--pulling him thru the veil? I like the "redemptive" nature of this scenario and that it provides for the vanquishment of Voldemort by his own "hand"(impaled upon his own sword--his creations of Horcruxes are his undoing).I prefer this scenario to one in which Harry actively "vanquishes" him. This may fit into JKR's religious belief system--which she is reluctant to talk about until after Bk 7.

Verbina - Nov 4, 2005 10:23 pm (#1267 of 2969)

Paulus Maximus - Sorry about that. I was in a hurry when I typed that and thought I had gotten most of the typos and errors. Oops!

Thank you RoseMorninStar for the long quote! ( I have learned my lesson...never loan out your copy of HBP!) And yes, that is exactly he part I was thinking of!!! Specifically the following part -

"A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere memory, sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had fallen?"

The way this is written, I take it to mean that memories in the WW can be much more interactive. Such as the portrait of Sirius' mother. She is no longer among the living yet the portrait almost seems to hold her memory. (Makes me wonder if that is how the portraits work?) And Dumbledore also says that the diary was important to Tom because it was his proof of being the Heir of Slytherin. So...here is my theory......

Tom, after opening the Chamber and having to abandon the usefulness of the Chamber for a time, thought to create an interactive memory in the form of a diary. In the diary he could put all his study and proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin. But then, as I have said before in a post a while back, he came upon the problem of how to get another person to use the diary and open the Chamber. He could not really expect that there would be another Slytherin heir which would have the Parselmouth ability as it is rare. And a memory like what we see in the paintings simply cannot get another to be able to speak Parseltongue. It became necessary for the diary to become much more...a Horcrux.

The possibility of the Horcruxes symbolizing love in some way to Voldemort is something I have thought about off and on today and I find it very plausible. Though we also have to consider the fact that Voldemort is ignorant of love and what it truly is. To him it may be simply the fact that people bow to his power. Looking at the Horcruxes, each seems to symbolize his desire for acceptance and power...

diary - proof of his heirship to Slytherin. ring - proof of a pure family heritage locket - proof of relationship to Slytherin cup - proof of power over the other family lines. Nagini - a snake is not what one immediately thinks of as a mothering type creature. But to Voldemort, she was. (Bizarre to think of it that way!)

If Voldemort equates love to acceptance and power like I think he does, then the Horcruxes do seem to fit into that notion. I have to keep reminding myself that Voldemort does not look at the world as we would because putting it bluntly, he is psychotic as Troels put it.

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 4, 2005 10:41 pm (#1268 of 2969)

Regarding my initial post on Horcruxes being symbols of love, I was looking at them from a more general/metaphoric standpoint, which is why I later said that Nagini doesn't really fit the true meaning of my theory. She merely is the closest Voldy’s got to affection.

I wasn't meaning to show that Riddle's diary is a symbol of emotion/sentiment - rather diaries in general. People write about their relationships in diaries. Lockets, in general, are given between lovers. Rings, in general, given between lovers. And cups are historically and metaphysically symbols of love as in the Tarot suit of cups.

But Nagini/snakes do not fit this theory for me, nor does Nagini seem to me to be one of the Horcruxes. I think there will be a relic from both Ravenclaw and Gryffindor. Tres Vold.

Potion - Nov 4, 2005 11:33 pm (#1269 of 2969)

Choices your post got me thinking - maybe the soul fragment was transferred to DD via the potion he drank because the potion was the actually the Horcrux. Voldemort left the locket and note to trick the finder into thinking the Horcrux had already been destroyed.

lol crazy I know Razz

I think I need sleep.

Choices - Nov 5, 2005 9:48 am (#1270 of 2969)

Vickilh - I find your post interesting and thought provoking. We know so little about soul bits, but I think of the one that escaped from Voldemort when the AK backfired and killed his body. It went to live in the forest and existed by inhabiting small creatures. It is puzzling to think about, but would that soul bit have died/passed into another plane of existence, had it not been able to find a "host" to live in? When a Horcrux is destroyed, does the soul bit die because it no longer has a host to live in? Does the soul bit die at all or does it merely enter the great beyond to await the other souls bits for a big reunion? Why did Voldemort's soul bit have the ability to inhabit small creatures and remain earthbound, but the Horcrux soul bits don't have that ability? It is a strange and complex subject, is it not?

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 5, 2005 1:59 pm (#1271 of 2969)

Choices - certainly strange and complex. My sense is the largest bit is the "parent" or most powerful. I'd imagine the reason no wizard would fathom breaking him/herself into so many little bits is eventually you run the risk of an outer bit becoming more powerful than the bit you're holding onto.

I've imagined this scenario -- if Harry's scar is in fact a Horcrux, and if some soul bits can be more "powerful" than other soul bits, then Harry may be able to use that if it comes down to him and Vold with all 5 other bits destroyed.

Verbina - Nov 6, 2005 12:07 pm (#1272 of 2969)

I have been pondering the diary Horcrux and it's relation to the others. And to be totally truthful, it is the only one we, as a reader, have had any experience with. But...the Horcrux is not like the others in many ways. All others as far as we have been able to discover have been magical with some kind of power associated with it already. (Smith tells Tom this about the locket and the cup when she shows them to him) The diary is a Muggle artifact with no pre-existing protections. It was just a book and Tom made it more so.

We don't know what the ring did to Dumbledore other than the damage to his hand and arm. And that we cannot say conclusively was caused by the soul bit within. It could have been a pre-existing protection on the ring itself (perhaps no one other than one of the family bloodline could wear it?)

What I am thinking since the diary is different from the other Horcruxes in some ways and simply doesn't fit Voldemort's pattern of Horcruxes, what if because it was made to be an interactive memory (like a painting can be) that is the reason why Diary Tom attempted to completely possess Ginny? The combination of an interactive memory and a soul bit creating what we saw in the diary?

Am I totally out of it or is this possible?

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 6, 2005 1:16 pm (#1273 of 2969)

I'm beginning to think that each of the Horcruxes will be different.

We know about the diary, we don't know fully about the locket/potion yet, all we know about the ring is it had a powerful curse on it that singed DD's hand while trying to break through it. The ring, remember, was crudely made and not necessarily "magical" on it's own. Who knows about the cup, Nagini is certainly different in that she is a living being. We don't know about the others, and Harry's scar would certainly be unique.

Verbina, yes it seems possible that only a Slytherin could touch the ring, but more likely no one except who cast the curse and could thus lift it.

Troels Forchhammer - Nov 6, 2005 3:19 pm (#1274 of 2969)

Verbina wrote on Nov 4, 2005 in message #1267 in reference to Dumbledore's, ‘A mere memory starting to act and think for itself?[...]?’

The way this is written, I take it to mean that memories in the WW can be much more interactive. [...]

It's a problem I've considered a bit, though I cannot find a good way to solve it. We have a lot of ‘memories’ in the books, which seem well able to think and act and which do appear to have a sense of self, ghosts (‘A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth,’ as Snape puts it with my emphasis) paintings, a map. ..

And yet it is clear, both from Dumbledore's statement above, and from Rowling's explanations at her website (the Marauder's Map question), that she does intend there to be a difference.

We might speculate that the bit that surprised Dumbledore was the ability of the ‘mere memory’ to abandon the purpose for which it was made, and then formulate independent strategies based on new data. The other memories (or imprints) do seem to possess an awareness, but are, perhaps, not able to deviate so drastically from the ‘programming’ (actually that might be a good image usually the memories can be likened to extremely complex programming, but that's all; they lack that ability to adapt rather than react to a wholly new and unpredicted situation).

The reason why this is relevant in this context is of course that the difference is the soul, or the soul-fragment! Lupin told Harry in PoA that the person whose soul is taken by the Dementors is left with ‘no sense of self any more, no memory, no. .. anything.’ Obviously the memories have memory and they also seem to have a sense of self, so there must be something else that distinguishes what Rowling calls ‘a recording’ from something that has a soul. The interesting part is that the soul-fragment is actually capable of making the difference: it doesn't require the living soul!

Verbina: If Voldemort equates love to acceptance and power like I think he does, then the Horcruxes do seem to fit into that notion.

Well. .. yes. .. but. ..

I am not sure that I understand you correctly, but as I read it, my problem is that it appears to me that we would then be repeating Dumbledore's statement with other words.

Voldemort would have chosen his Horcruxes with some care, favouring objects worthy of the honour.

[...]

Lord Voldemort would prefer objects that, in themselves, have a certain grandeur.

[...]

Four objects from the four founders would, I am sure, have exerted a powerful pull over Voldemort's imagination.

(Dumbledore, HBP ch. 23 ‘Horcruxes’)

Voldemort disdains love he despises and underestimates it (OotP-37), and I can't see him as equating love and power in any way, as he is clearly obsessed with power. You might say that he has replaced his own quest for power and immortality and the fear he inspires in others for the pleasure of seeking love and being loved, but that was not how I understood what you wrote?

I'm not sure that I can satisfyingly explain what I mean, but let me try. Some of the objects Voldemort has chosen for Horcruxes are chosen more for the grandeur than for their innate power (the power would, of course, have to be there for Voldemort to admit their grandeur). There is an element of more generalised respect about some of it, but I think that Voldemort is closer to equate respect with fear than acceptance with love. He would tell you that if people fear you, they will have to accept you no matter what.

It is akin to the autograph hunter who has secured the autograph of a particular celebrity. The autograph hunter may be completely indifferent about the celebrity him-(or her-)self, but the autograph, now, reflects a little of the glory and fame onto our autograph hunter.

In the same way Voldemort, IMO, would feel that he was elevating himself by using items of grandeur. It is not the same kind of reflected glory (since no-one would know about it), but, as I see it, rather a matter of his very ambivalent relationship to Hogwarts. In some ways it would, for Voldemort, symbolise a victory over the school to put a bit of himself in an object from each of the Four Founders, and at the same time the school, as I think Dumbledore explains somewhere, exerts a strange pull on Voldemort: it is the only place he has ever felt at home. That brings me to another motive: if there is anywhere Voldemort feels he belongs, anywhere where he can be at home, then it would be in the care of the Four Founders. ..

I hope this made at least a little sense

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Nov 6, 2005 3:32 pm (#1275 of 2969)

Verbina wrote in message #1272

What I am thinking since the diary is different from the other Horcruxes in some ways and simply doesn't fit Voldemort's pattern of Horcruxes, what if because it was made to be an interactive memory (like a painting can be) that is the reason why Diary Tom attempted to completely possess Ginny? The combination of an interactive memory and a soul bit creating what we saw in the diary?

Apart from one little quib, I agree completely. An interesting (IMO) aspect of this is the reproducibility of the circumstances leading to the strange powers of the diary Horcrux. It's probably not unreasonable to guess that Tom Riddle's diary is the only Horcrux ever made in which a wizard has placed a fragment of his soul in an object containing a memory of himself at a certain time, and intended to interact with others. If these circumstances (possibly there are more criteria to be met, but still) were to be reproduced, then I'd argue that the same outcome would occur.

My quib is about the statement that the diary doesn't fit Voldemort's pattern of Horcruxes. I think it fits very well extremely well, actually. The diary provides the link between Voldemort and Slytherin: it contains the proof that Voldemort is the Heir of Slytherin, and thus it forms a connection between Tom and the Four Founders. As such I think the diary fits the pattern better than the Peverell ring, and much better than Nagini.

It might of course not have been that pattern you meant, in which case you're free to disregard the above However, Nagini is part of the ‘pattern’ as well, and she is special in more ways, IMO, than the diary.

Regards,

Troels

Pinky Prime - Nov 6, 2005 5:45 pm (#1276 of 2969)

me and my shadow 813

Dumbledore’s Faulty Reasoning got him killed. With the ‘Ring and the ‘ Fake Lockett’ weakening him, and the Diary getting him sacked. He should have thought back to how Harry wanted to kill him while twice in his study. Another sought of weakening of DD had DD known.

Suppose that Harry’s Scar was the result of transferring of one of the seven bits of soul done as a mistake because Voldemort became overconfident in his ability to kill an innocent baby.

Voldemort’s personal Horcrux (Harry’s Scar?) might be retransferred assuming Harry’s blood in the graveyard wasn’t a soul transfer. I think that’s why Voldemort wants to kill Harry personally so that he can retrieve it himself now that he knows that he and Harry are connected in OotP. What other reason is there to do it himself without DE's knowing his secret. I doubt LV's followers know. Lucius Malfoy inquired how LV came back at the graveyard in the GoF but LV went into the spell not the details of his soul.

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 6, 2005 5:55 pm (#1277 of 2969)

I believe that while Vold detests/fears/is void of love, it is again the irony and downfall of him with Horcruxes.

He is specifically choosing some objects that have value to other people, but they had sentimental value to those people. Marvolo with the darn locket! Smith with her family heirloom cup. Vold does not understand this and sees the objects as merely status symbols of bloodline/wealth/power. There's a fatal flaw in his choosing these items I think because precisely because he greatly underestimates what they represent. Especially the non-Slytherin items.

It may even go wrong with Nagini in that she may lay eggs and if Vold tries to exploit her young she'll turn on him. Even a reptile has attachments. Irony again because he drank her milk-venom (reptilian mother) and a mother will again be lost to him.

Edit: I was just on Hepzibah Smith thread and her name in the Bible means "my desire is in it". That is a perfect correlation to what I just mentioned about sentimental value "encased" in the cup and other family heirlooms...

Pinky - seems we posted at the same time. I'll have to think about your points and get back to you...

RoseMorninStar - Nov 6, 2005 9:07 pm (#1278 of 2969)

I don't think Voldemort fears love. I think he despises it as a weakness meant for fools. And there in lies a great weakness. To borrow from 'Lord of the Rings'... one of Sauron's greatest weaknesses is also that he could not fathom love, sacrifice, honor and courage. He could not imagine that someone would enter his own territory to destroy the ring. He could only imagine someone wanting to use the ring. Someone wanting power and domination (which would have been their downfall and his triumph.) Because of this, Sauron's great weakness/oversight/overconfidence, he was eventually defeated.

Troels, I think you make a good point about the Horcruxes. You mention that he does not chose the Horcruxes for innate power, but the power of symbolism it has for him personally. I think this is true. Twisted minds often fall to 'magical' thinking. We see it in Voldemort's use of the number '7', which to him symbolizes perfection. I would imagine that each of the Horcrux items, as Dumbledore suggested, have strong personal connections for Voldemort... 'magical' in the sense that he feels it feeds his power...because of the strong symbolism, not because of any spell.

We must keep in mind that Nagini is a 'Naga' or magical snake of India mythology. And her venom/milk kept Voldemort alive. Much as the blood of the unicorn did in SS/PS.

Troels Forchhammer - Nov 7, 2005 12:36 am (#1279 of 2969)

RoseMorninStar wrote on Nov 6, 2005 in message #1278

I don't think Voldemort fears love. I think he despises it as a weakness meant for fools. And there in lies a great weakness. To borrow from 'Lord of the Rings'... one of Sauron's greatest weaknesses is also that he could not fathom love, sacrifice, honor and courage.

I am naturally inclined to compare Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and Rowling's Harry Potter books not only because I am immensely fond of both, but also because I believe to see a number of parallels in the moral premises of both worlds. As a result I try to be cautious about it

But you're right. ‘If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love.’ Dumbledore said that already in PS, setting the scenes, IMO, for Voldemort sharing Sauron's greatest fault:

For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it. If we seek this, we shall put him out of reckoning.

Gandalf, The Lord of the Rings (Book 2 ch. 2 ‘The Council of Elrond’)

RoseMorninStar: He could not imagine that someone would enter his own territory to destroy the ring. He could only imagine someone wanting to use the ring. Someone wanting power and domination (which would have been their downfall and his triumph.) Because of this, Sauron's great weakness/oversight/overconfidence, he was eventually defeated.

Precisely. And Voldemort appears to be making the same mistake. It was his fault to overlook the power of Lily's sacrifice, which proved nearly fatal.

But Rowling seems to be expanding on the theme. Voldemort not only doesn't understand love, but when he was possessing Harry in OotP, Harry's love caused Voldemort acute pain. How this relates to Voldemort sharing Harry's protection, I don't know

RoseMorninStar: Troels, I think you make a good point about the Horcruxes. You mention that he does not chose the Horcruxes for innate power, but the power of symbolism it has for him personally. I think this is true. Twisted minds often fall to 'magical' thinking. We see it in Voldemort's use of the number '7', which to him symbolizes perfection. I would imagine that each of the Horcrux items, as Dumbledore suggested, have strong personal connections for Voldemort... 'magical' in the sense that he feels it feeds his power...because of the strong symbolism, not because of any spell.

Well said, thank you!

RoseMorninStar: We must keep in mind that Nagini is a 'Naga' or magical snake of India mythology. And her venom/milk kept Voldemort alive. Much as the blood of the unicorn did in SS/PS.

I don't know what Nagini is (as far as I know the word, naga, is originally the Sanskrit word for snake), but that she is not a normal snake is clear. So, yes, she may well be less of an outlier than I had thought.

It's interesting that the Nagas of Hindu myths are related to fertility: ‘They are considered the protectors of springs, wells and rivers. They bring rain, and thus fertility, but are also thought to bring disasters such as floods and drought.’ (from Pantheon.org) Nagini's fertility has certainly brought on a disaster

Regards,

Troels

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 7, 2005 8:18 am (#1280 of 2969)

I believe Vold, or shall I say Tom Riddle, fears love as any one would who has been deprived of it from birth, sees everyone around him focusing their lives around it, and is convinced it will never be in his life. Naturally, anger/rage/detest stem from fear of the thing due to experience of it or of the unknown. Always.

Regarding Nagini, I see a parallel between her and the dragons protecting their eggs in GoF. If you want to talk ancient symbolism, snakes/sea monsters/dragons are usually symbols of the Dark Queen or Underworld Dark Feminine Alchemical Power. I could see a serpent turning on its "master" in a heartbeat if there were any threat to their young. If it came down to it, I think Nagini would know the difference between Vold and her own children. And, just as Vold exploited the unicorn, so he is doing to Nagini essentially.

There's a point in GoF where Vold is about to make his sacrificial potion. Just as he begins, Nagini "slithered away into the darkness". It wasn't until Vold emerged from the cauldron that Nagini "slithered back into sight".

I believe there is significance in her absence during his conjuring a body. But maybe it's something completely different...

JILL HUBER - Nov 7, 2005 9:14 am (#1281 of 2969)

Okay, I posted this last week and I would really like some feedback on this because I think it is a really interesting idea...

just had an epiphany last night and I think it makes sense if you'll just go with me on this one. What if, in light of Dumbledore's knowledge of the prophecy, Harry was somehow made a Horcrux and that is why Voldemort couldn't kill him? My defense of this goes as follows:

(1) The two destroyed Horcruxes we are aware of are the Gaunt ring (gash down the middle due to removal/destruction of Horcrux within) and the diary (gash from removal/destruction). Harry has a gash down the middle of his forehead...possibly the reason is that when Voldie tried to kill Harry, he only destroyed the Horcrux he held inside of him, not actually Harry.

(2) Perhaps this is the power that the "dark lord knows not" (prophesy)

(3) This would explain why Harry was the only person to survive the Avada Kedavra curse...he couldn't be killed outright with one shot because he contained a Horcrux.

(4) Even those items which were Horcruxes had the Horcrux removed from within, the items still existed. Perhaps at a great disservice to the person removing the Horcrux (I.e.: Dumbledore's hand).

As to who created this Horcrux, I have no idea...one thing is for sure, Dumbledore knows much more about magic (both good and dark) than probably any other wizard alive...even Voldemort. Voldemort clearly got his information on Horcruxes second hand and maybe some parts of it were inaccurate or incomplete.

I am aware that this theory isn't without flaws, but I think it makes sense. Please send feedback!

frogface - Nov 7, 2005 11:08 am (#1282 of 2969)

One of the reasons I don't like the theory Jill is that is takes away from the love idea. Love is suggested as being the power the dark lord knows not, and Dumbledore (and JKR I believe) have also said it was Lily's sacrifice that caused the curse to fail.

Verbina - Nov 7, 2005 11:55 am (#1283 of 2969)

Gone a while and it really shows!!!!

Troels - Actually, when I said that Tom relates power and fear in others as love...I meant something like...he has never known or understood love in his life. He finds it to be a foolish thing. Dumbledore has said over and over that love is powerful and stronger than anything else. Voldemort, not knowing or understanding love, does not agree, believing that power and fear are the most powerful things. To him that is the closest thing to love he has ever experienced...intensity of emotion wise that is.

As for my stance that the diary is different from the other Horcruxes and does not fit the pattern of Horcruxes...the known Horcruxes - the ring, the cup, the locket and Nagini...each was stolen from another person (we don't know about Nagini here), each is of a magical nature (Nagini being a Naga) and each was already special before he set his sights on them. You could also say that each was a symbol (save for Nagini which we really don't know enough about) on it's own before he acquired it. Each is a symbol of family heritage and power (again save for Nagini unless she has a family connection somehow)

Meanwhile the diary was...well...just that...a book, purchased from a Muggle shop to write ones thoughts in. Purchased possibly by Tom himself (unless he stole it from someone) it had no inherent magical power connected to it until he placed his memory in it. He made it something more than it was while the other Horcruxes were already special when he acquired them. The only thing, other than being a Horcrux that the diary has in common with the others is that it is a symbol of family heritage - proof that Tom is the Heir of Slytherin. Yet that is different as well. Tom himself made it a symbol of family heritage and power - proof of his being Slytherin's heir - whereas the other Horcruxes were already proof of family heritage and power.

I hope that explains why I feel the diary is unique among the Horcruxes and doesn't quite fit the pattern.

And with the ring, I do think there was some sort of magical power connected to it. Of course, I am going from the fact that Smith stated that the locket and the cup had such things. It would seem to follow that the ring would as well. Assumption on my part of course.

JILL HUBER - Nov 7, 2005 12:07 pm (#1284 of 2969)

Frogface...yes, I am a big fan of the whole love thing as well. I don't know how, I will have to look further into that aspect, but I think they can both exist. Maybe this goes into why Dumbledore had a twinkle in his eyes...I think that both can be the case at the same time, will write more when I formulize a theory...

RoseMorninStar - Nov 7, 2005 6:10 pm (#1285 of 2969)

Jill, perhaps you haven't read some of the old posts, but I have a theory a bit like yours. I do not think Harry is a Horcrux however, I think his scar may be one.

Harry did not die with Voldemort's Avada Kedavra curse because of the love/sacrifice of Harry's mother. JKR has said so in interviews. Because Lily knowingly forfeited her chance to live and 'step aside' in her last attempt to save Harry's life, she (unknown to her)passed along a special protection to Harry that resides in his very skin. Voldemort eventually figured this out and that is why he wanted to use Harry's blood in his rebirthing ceremony and not just the blood of any old enemy.

What I think will be interesting, is that Voldemort will think he has overcome that part of the prophecy...'He will have a power the Dark Lord knows not...' through the use of Harry's blood. But, and I think this has something to do with the 'gleam in Dumbledore's eye' at the end of GoF, I think this is where Dumbledore came up with some type of plan. A plan that will somehow give Harry (another)'a power the Dark Lord knows not'. And that is something Voldemort will think he has overcome and will not be suspecting.

Choices - Nov 7, 2005 6:20 pm (#1286 of 2969)

Gosh, just the thought that Voldemort might be seeing into Harry's thoughts, like Harry was seeing into his, really gave Harry the creeps. I can just imagine Harry's reaction if he found out that a piece of Voldemort's soul was residing in his scar. There wouldn't be enough Ogden's Old Firewhiskey in the wizarding world to wash that thought out of his mind. He'd probably be seeking out the executioner at the MOM to chop his head off.

RoseMorninStar - Nov 7, 2005 9:55 pm (#1287 of 2969)

LOL Choices, yes, that is a creepy thought! Since we do not know how Horcruxes work ... and since it sounds as if there is not a lot of information on them even in the wizarding world, I tried to think this through after reading your post.

Harry obviously has some type of connection with Harry that came with the attack on him as a young child. We really don't know if that connection is because of a Horcrux or not. That is only a theory of mine. (I also think that Voldemort will be the one to destroy his own-last-Horcrux, which he does not suspect) But we also know that Voldemort does not have a close relationship (is that the right word?!)... perhaps 'does not have a close connection' to his Horcruxes is a better way to put it. In fact... Voldemort had such a poor contact with his other soul fragments that he does not realize when one is destroyed.

Up until the time when Voldemort realizes that Harry knew about Mr. Weasley's attack at the ministry he didn't know that Harry had this access to his thoughts. What does this access mean? Voldemort now realizes how dangerous that access is... and that it comes at a price. Does Voldemort think it is because he used Harry's blood in his rebirthing ceremony? Does he realize Harry has had access to some of his thoughts and actions for a long time?

Anyway... to address your alarm Choices, I do not think Voldemort has the same access to Harry as Harry has to Voldemort. Voldemort sent Harry 'images/messages' after he knew Harry could receive them... but what thoughts has he gained of Harry's?

Choices - Nov 8, 2005 11:05 am (#1288 of 2969)

I think it was just that Harry worried that Voldemort might be able to see into his mind just as he could see into Voldemorts and be able to gain information about Dumbledore, the Order, etc. I don't think that has happened, but it did Harry pause for concern. It must have given Dumbledore concern also - hence the lessons with Snape. If Voldemort could get into Harry's mind to plant ideas, he might also be able to glean information.

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 8, 2005 1:22 pm (#1289 of 2969)

I think there'd be "negative" results for Harry from Vold using his blood to resurrect bodily. That being why Vold was partially able to control Harry's visions and why he was able to merge with Harry temporarily at MoM.

But triumphant glint, that glint is tremendously important JKR said. So I can see Vold thinking he got a connection of his own with using blood but it'll backfire of course. I'm sure this has already been said...

Choices - I can totally see why you'd get the Potter blood being important because of Vold using it and with DD saying Harry's blood is more valuable than his own. But my theory is it's the Lily blood that is valuable and not James. Oh, wait that's for another thread...Godric's Hollow thread but anyway it fits here too.

Madame Librarian - Nov 8, 2005 4:38 pm (#1290 of 2969)

What if Harry's scar was indeed a Horcrux, but Voldemort didn't make it and it isn't a piece of Voldemort's soul? It's part of Harry's own soul set there for safekeeping. Lily did it...somehow. Love was involved as a powerful force--opposite of hate, but both processes involve a death. In Lily's case it was either her own or possibly James's. A death, not a murderous act on their parts. The murderer was Voldemort, but indirectly.

Indirectly, you say. How's that? Well, it's all a bit hazy for a theory that I'm not betting the ranch on, but what if James and Lily knew without a doubt that Voldemort would kill all three of them, but there was the merest chance that one of them--Harry--could survive. They are desperate to save him. James tells her that he will sacrifice himself, or each has agreed to kill the other as a last resort to make the ancient Horcrux magic work. Something like that.

Yes, it's awful to contemplate, but it would offer a truly bizarre and original explanation for a couple of things--the scar, how Harry survived, the power he (Voldemort) knows not. I suggest that despite Slughorn's telling of how you make a Horcrux, he may not have known the alternate method(s) that may exist. As in the Muggle world, there are probably a few different routes to a desired result in Wizarding world, too.

Ciao. Barb

Choices - Nov 8, 2005 6:22 pm (#1291 of 2969)

I agree Shadow, it is Lily's blood that is important to Harry's safety and protection. It is just curious to me that Voldemort would mark James and Harry for death and not Lily. What separates James and Lily in that respect? We know why Voldemort wants Harry dead, but why does he want James dead and not Lily also? I just have this feeling it has something to do with the Potter bloodline. JKR said that James was going to die - he had no choice about it like Lily did. But why? I can't wait for the explanation in book 7.

Steve Newton - Nov 8, 2005 6:54 pm (#1292 of 2969)

I have wondered if perhaps Harry somehow took over the Horcrux that Voldemort had intended to use himself. Couldn't be. That would suggest that baby Harry had somehow died and bounced back.

Midori - Nov 8, 2005 8:55 pm (#1293 of 2969)

Well, let me post here some thoughts about Horcruxes. Summary of all info we could make conclusion about, and some thoughts and comments: (English isn’t my native language, so, sorry if I express my thoughts incomprehensible *sad* Sad

)

1. Horcruxes meant to work as "anchors". they meant to kept hidden in safe place

"The point of a Horcrux is, as Professor Slughorn explained, to keep part of the self hidden and safe, not to fling it into somebody else's path and run the risk that they might destroy it"

2. "interactivity" of Riddle's diary is "unique" (imho). it was just "one ... of my experiments had worked"- as he says. the only one really personal thing for Tom, so its characteristics and behavior were caused by that.

3. destruction of Horcruxes causes those parts of soul inside "die|fly away|disappear" (imho, again). those soul parts don’t return to "host" soul or possess the destroyer (exception is diary only) or "stick together".

supporting quotes:

"Without his Horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with a maimed and diminished soul. "

"...while his soul may be damaged beyond repair..."

then, I was just wondering about some questions.

4. is any murder "rips the soul apart"? logically it is indeed. you have to pay for your acts of violence. but here comes the question- for such person as Voldemort is, who committed many murders, and, then, his soul is already ripped into many pieces. but Dumbledore mentions 7 pieces of his soul. while naturally many more people were killed by him. so, where those other bits of his diminished soul? I am forced to conclude that they are inside him. those physical transformations (red eyes, snake-like features etc) are related to extracting parts of soul outside the body (otherwise, have you seen similar transformations described to other Death Eaters, for example? while they killed much people too.) so, if they are inside, is it need an incantation to extract one and put into the object OR making a Horcrux needs committing a "fresh" murder with special intention to rip "special" piece? and where those ripped parts were when Dark Lord was travelling along Albanian forests? Sticked to e/o forming that "boss" 7th part that presents DL himself? or they were lost already from "main" soul part?

5. unjust thing- if you commit a murder your soul rips apart. but if you, say, make this indirect- your soul stays ok? example - if you blackmail somebody to commit murder or force that person in some way to kill somebody - all soul damage goes to that poor person? it doesn’t have to be this way don’t you think? because, imo, from some point of view it’s even more terrible than "direct" killing.

6. in fact, destruction of Horcrux isn’t necessarily need total physical annihilation of object. ring stone was just cracked, diary was pierced. so, probably, if we have a unintentionally made Horcrux inside Harry, it may be neutralized without measures that cause death of a carrier.

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 8, 2005 9:20 pm (#1294 of 2969)

Midori -- nice points made.

Very good to clarify in your point 3 that DD said Vold would be a "diminished soul" so ruling out the idea that soul pieces could return to him when Horcruxes are destroyed.

Regarding your point 5, I have thought about this too. Vold is very good at getting DE's to do his dirty work. It was especially clear to me while rereading GoF. Vold didn't kill Cedric, Wormtail did. Even though Vold was able to raise a wand to kill Frank Bryce (the old man in Riddle house). That death was important because evidently he created a Horcrux with Nagini from it. But with Cedric, all he said was "kill the spare". And Wormtail did it, no questions asked. Life in Azkaban several times over for Wormtail, all because of Voldy’s influence.

Regarding if the soul splits with each and every murder, that has been discussed quite a bit. Many people said they feel killing out of self-defense or necessity would not be a soul splitting crime, or at least it could be repaired. I believe Wormtail will need to plea bargain in book 7 due to his overwhelmingly long list of murders. He could use the life debt to Harry to kill Vold for him at the climax of battle between Vold and Harry. This type of act could be sufficient for him to redeem his soul perhaps. Or he'll just rot in jail.

Regarding your point 6, yes I agree that if Harry is an "accidental Horcrux", he will not need to destroy himself in order to destroy the piece of soul.

One thing I found interesting was JKR's comment about the diary soul piece. From Mugglenet interview:

MA: Someone put it to me last night, that if Ginny, with the diary -

JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul, you saw it take shape, you saw it destroyed, it’s gone. And Ginny is definitely in no way possessed by Voldemort.

What if all the soul pieces will "take shape" before they can be destroyed? We haven't seen any others so we don't know.

Midori - Nov 9, 2005 12:56 am (#1295 of 2969)

me and my shadow 813,

thank u)

well, yes, forcing others to make your dirty business is a typical characteristic for many crime leaders. but, to think real, it’s not a moral/nervous shock or something that is hard to do- for Voldemort. and no any soul damage he can get in result will stop him.

Many people said they feel killing out of self-defense or necessity would not be a soul splitting crime, or at least it could be repaired.

yes, agree, but Aurors and DD would avoid such extreme measures if possible. they'd use legal spells to stop DE's. and no killing curse for sure. because seems like really every murder rips soul apart (but in some extenuating circumstances OR probably total and sincere remorse can "heal" the soul somehow...)

in addition, I want to notice also, that I think Harry will defeat LV without direct killing him. JKR will care about his soul and will not allow him to perpetrate such act. LV now "consist" of strangely mixed pieces of debts to Potter (Pettigrew debt that may be transferred partly with "willingly given" "flesh of the servant", also Harry's blood owing to which he could revive, and if Harry is Horcrux- add this piece here too)- so I believe he wouldn’t even to kill LV, he will make something and some kind of chain reaction will finish the case.

as, about Wormtail it seems like nothing can make him feel remorse, and no way for his soul to "repair", imo, he had gone too far.

Choices - Nov 9, 2005 9:25 am (#1296 of 2969)

I wonder if it is possible that killing an innocent person splits the soul, but killing an evil person does not cause a split. Just curious.

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 9, 2005 9:41 am (#1297 of 2969)

I think we all wonder the same thing. But it gets us back to the question of who decides whose deeds are evil versus good? We could say it has to do with intention. If Snape actually killed DD, and if he did it with DD's "permission", is that evil? If Draco killed DD because he had to in order to protect his family from Vold, is that evil? If Harry hunts down and kills Snape for killing DD before hearing Snape's reason, is Harry evil? What if he finds out later that Snape was acting out DD's wishes? What if Harry kills Snape and finds out later that DD is alive? Is Harry innocent?

According to DD, he uses the term "innocent" as someone who's never killed. In speaking to Draco, DD says "Killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe...". But what if Harry wasn't frozen under the cloak and killed Draco before he had a chance to kill DD. We now know that Draco is incapable of murder (innocent?) but it looked like he was about to do it. If Harry had killed an "innocent" Draco because it looked like he was going to kill DD, would that make Harry's soul split?

DD froze Harry specifically to avoid just that. So DD knew that Harry was capable of killing Draco or DE's or Snape or anyone who would threaten DD on that tower. But sometimes it just looks like someone is evil. And I believe JKR has many lessons about 20/20 hindsight and regret.

EDIT: back to Horcruxes... I found an interesting tidbit regarding Harry's scar. In HBP, DD calls the Founders's locket/cup/sword "relics". The quote is "I am confident, however, that the only known relic of Gryffindor remains safe." And he points to the sword. Cut to GoF The Third Task chapter -- Rita Skeeter wrote an essay on Harry (again) and it says "Potter...regularly collapses at school, and is often heard to complain of pain in the scar on his forehead (relic of the curse with which You-Know-Who attempted to kill him)."

My point is that JKR used the word "relic" in both places and thus made a link between Horcruxes and Harry's scar. Cannot be coincidence...

RoseMorninStar - Nov 9, 2005 3:56 pm (#1298 of 2969)

Me an My Shadow, WOW,... great catch!!

Quote from Me & My Shadow: I found an interesting tidbit regarding Harry's scar. In HBP, DD calls the Founders' locket/cup/sword "relics". The quote is "I am confident, however, that the only known relic of Gryffindor remains safe." And he points to the sword. Cut to GoF The Third Task chapter -- Rita Skeeter wrote an essay on Harry (again) and it says "Potter...regularly collapses at school, and is often heard to complain of pain in the scar on his forehead (relic of the curse with which You-Know-Who attempted to kill him)."

My point is that JKR used the word "relic" in both places and thus made a link between Horcruxes and Harry's scar. Cannot be coincidence...

Amazing wording there, is it not? I definitely think that is some sort of clue.

As for murder versus killing, we cannot know with precision what Jo's 'rules' are for Horcruxes, but here is the definition of 'murder'" MURDER: the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also killing done while committing some other felony. To kill inhumanely or barbarically. Unlawfully and with malice.

KILL: To cause the death of. To destroy, defeat, put an end to. To destroy life.

In my dictionary there is a special section with definitions of various words connected with 'Kill’. This is what it says; KILL is the general word in this list, meaning to cause the death of in any way, and may be applied to persons, animals or plants. SLAY, now a largely literary word, implies deliberate and violent killing; MURDER: applies to an unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing; ASSASSINATE: implies specifically the sudden killing of a politically important person, often by someone hired or delegated to do this; EXECUTE: denotes a killing in accordance with a legally imposed sentence; DISPATCH: suggests a killing by direct action, such as shooting, and emphasizes speed or promptness.

I think there is a clear difference between killing and murder.

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 9, 2005 9:41 pm (#1299 of 2969)

Rose MorninStar - thank you for your kind nod and for the research. Yes, unfortunately, we are all at the mercy of JKR's interpretation of murder in book 7. For now all I've seen in the books is if you take the life of another human being you get life imprisonment in Azkaban. So we'll see.

If we assume the scar is a Horcrux, then why doesn't DD suspect? Why wouldn't he say to Harry, "there are four left, and one of them could be your scar" ?

In any event, I read either on this thread or another that the sword could have been at Godric's Hollow on the night the Potters were killed. Vold could have known that and cast the "encasement" spell onto it after killing James and Lily but before the AK on Harry. So when the AK backfired, the encasement spell somehow closed the soul piece into Harry. That's the only thing I can come up with. I should go back and reread this thread...

On a sour note, I came across a quote that I hope someone can explain. In GoF The Death Eaters chapter, Vold is speaking to DE's at the grave. He says to them, "And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death?"

So all the DE's knew about the Horcruxes. Not just Regulus. Snape then knew about the Horcruxes. Did he tell DD right away? Can anyone cite text in HBP that supports Snape possibly informing DD years ago?

EDIT: Also in same chapter, Vold says "You know my goal - to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked...for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it."

It sounds like he still isn't sure every Horcrux was successful in holding the soul piece. Perhaps there won't be four more?

RoseMorninStar - Nov 9, 2005 10:36 pm (#1300 of 2969)

Me and My Shadow, There are some about your question in the books. Lucius Malfoy was given Voldemorts Diary for safekeeping to open the Chamber of Secrets when the time was right, but he had no idea it was a Horcrux.

The mysterious R.A.B. states in his note that he discovered Voldemorts 'secret', and hopes that when he meets his match he is mortal once more.

Dumbledore does not suspect Horcruxes until Harry tells him what happened the night in the Chamber of Secrets and the 'behaviour' of the Diary, and it's subsequent destruction. So, I would surmise that Snape did NOT tell Dumbledore about the existence of any Horcruxes.

Snape mentions that Voldemort perhaps did not trust him enough at the time Voldemort used Quirrell to get into Hogwarts and attempt to steal the Sorcerer's Stone. Snape says many of the Death Eaters thought Voldemort was dead too.

My guess is that one or two of the Death Eaters may know some of the safeguards that Voldemort took... or know that he claimed to take, but did not know specifically. Certainly they did not all know exactly what measures Voldemort had taken. I cannot imagine Voldemort being the type to lay all his cards on the table for all to see.

Perhaps other measures were (also)taken that were not so secretive. For example, the drinking of unicorn blood. And the 'milk' of Nagini.

As far as why Dumbledore might not have told Harry that his scar may be a Horcrux, well... there could be two reasons. One, he did not know or suspect it. Or two, he suspected it but could not bring himself to tell Harry for fear of what it would do to him. Or that he suspected it but felt that no good could come from it to tell Harry before it was necessary because he had no idea how it could be destroyed. Especially if he were not certain.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:18 pm

Verbina - Nov 10, 2005 11:26 am (#1301 of 2969)

There is one thing I recall that may be a clue as to JKR's stance on killing...murder or not. Though...I can only recall the movie version so I (or someone quicker than I) should double-check this to make sure it is canon. But Harry explains to Sirius in the PoA film that he didn't think his father would want his two best friends to become murderers. Even though Peter deserved to die, it seems that in this statement from Harry, even killing Peter in such a situation would be murder. Of course, it would be without a trial and all so that may be why. As I said, I must see if it is in the books as well. If so...it may be a clue as to how JKR feels about what makes it murder.

Choices - Nov 10, 2005 11:39 am (#1302 of 2969)

Peter thanks Harry for not letting Sirius and Remus kill him and Harry replies..... "I'm not doing this for you. I'm doing it because----I don't reckon my dad would've wanted them to become killers----just for you." POA - chapter 19 The Servant of Lord Voldemort

Madame Kulich - Nov 10, 2005 12:37 pm (#1303 of 2969)

So, how many Horcruxes are there? I don’t understand how there are six Horcruxes at the beginning of HBP. First, Voldemort had a soul in him when he tried to kill Harry, and supposedly six Horcruxes were out there waiting until he needed them. So, the curse backfired, and he was "killed" and he needed to use a Horcrux to make it again, right? So, that means that one part of his soul was down, he used one to live again, and that means that five remained, right? So, there is one in the ring (which was destroyed), one in the locket, one in the Hufflepuff cup, one in the snake, one in the diary (which was destroyed), and Harry thinks that one is in something of Gryffindor or something of Ravenclaws? But, that totals 6, when there should only be a total of 5, right? If Voldemort must encase the parts of his soul in things to keep him from dying, and if something happens to him (like being hit with the AK curse), wouldn't he then need to get that other part of his soul to survive?

Potion - Nov 10, 2005 1:40 pm (#1304 of 2969)

I think when Voldemort was hit by his AK his body was destroyed but the part of soul inside it was bound to 'Earth' because the other parts of soul in Horcruxes couldn't leave.

As Dumbledore says in HBP - "no, Harry, not seven Horcruxes: six. The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his regenerated body. That was the part of him that lived a spectral existence for so many years; without that, he has no self at all. That seventh piece of soul will be the last that anybody wishing to kill Voldemort must attack - the piece that lives in his body."

I believe that is the point of a Horcrux - to allow the soul to stay earth bound even when the body has been destroyed

Pinky Prime - Nov 10, 2005 3:46 pm (#1305 of 2969)

When LV possessed Harry at the MoM and on other occasions, LV was viewed as a snake. Whether this was subconscious influence to make him appear so on LV’s part, or Harry’s relating to other Horcruxes by himself (scar) I don’t know. Harry somehow found the Diary didn’t he? He also told Lucius where he had first seen it.

Errrrrrrrrr! Vroooom! Vroooom! Which snake Nagini or the image of LV’s Animagus used Harry to allow Harry to see through its eyes and think about killing? Nagini is a known Horcrux. LV’s Animagus Horcrux may leave more questions than answers. If so could Harry possess Nagini and the other Horcruxes?

He supposedly gave Harry the powers of:

1. The ability to sense his presence

2. Parseltongue

3. The ability to read emotional stress and anxiety from LV and others

4. The ability to sense evil? (Umbridge) (The Wine) (Dark Mark)

5. The power of possession (Snake)

Don’t know if there are more connections. I’m sure I’ll find out if any of this relates to oddities in Harry’s ever becoming a mistaken Horcrux. LV sure premeditated James Potter murder. I’m feeling very Creevey right know and want a blow-by-blow analysis.

Choices - Nov 10, 2005 6:11 pm (#1306 of 2969)

Pinky - I don't think we know for sure if Voldemort is an Animagus. Nagini is sort of his pet or familiar, but she is not his Animagus form. They appear together often, so she can't be Voldemort if Voldemort is present. (LOL Hope that makes sense.)

Potion - At the beginning of HBP Voldemort has one soul piece inside him (in his reborn body), two others have been destroyed - the diary soul bit and the ring soul bit. That leaves four Horcruxes to find. Dumbledore thinks Nagini is one, the necklace/locket is another, possibly the cup that Hepzibah Smith showed to Tom and one other - probably a relic of one of the founders (Gryffindor???). So, one in Voldemort, two gone and four to find - seven in all.

hawick girl - Nov 10, 2005 8:57 pm (#1307 of 2969)

I got behind on the weekend and it took me until today to get caught up.

OK here are my comments to above posts...

Me and my shadow 813 said in #1297

According to DD, he uses the term "innocent" as someone who's never killed. In speaking to Draco, DD says "Killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe...". But what if Harry wasn't frozen under the cloak and killed Draco before he had a chance to kill DD. We now know that Draco is incapable of murder (innocent?) but it looked like he was about to do it. If Harry had killed an "innocent" Draco because it looked like he was going to kill DD, would that make Harry's soul split?

I disagree that Draco is ‘innocent’. He had been using the unforgivable curses. Imperius Curse on Rosmerta and he tried to Crucio Harry. He also attempted to indirectly kill DD with harmful effects on Katie and Ron. These are not actions of the innocent. I think that DD froze Harry to be the witness to the scene. I agree that evil is in the eye of the beholder. (lol)

The use of 'relic' in connection between Harry’s scar and the possible Horcrux relics. Hmmmmm: I think that the relic attached to the scar is from Rita Skeeter, not from a traditional ‘spokesperson’ of Jo I.e. Hermione or DD. Interesting nonetheless.

Again me and my shadow 813 posted #1299

On a sour note, I came across a quote that I hope someone can explain. In GoF The Death Eaters chapter, Vold is speaking to DE's at the grave. He says to them, "And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death?"

So all the DE's knew about the Horcruxes. Not just Regulus. Snape then knew about the Horcruxes. Did he tell DD right away? Can anyone cite text in HBP that supports Snape possibly informing DD years ago?

I think that they knew generally what Voldie was attempting to do (conquer death), without knowing the specifics (Horcruxes). I don't think that Snape knew any more than what Voldie wanted him to know. Did Snape think that Voldie was dead? Also, what use would Snape have to keep this (Horcruxes) a secret? I think that whether Snape is 'good' or 'evil' the answer is different. Accio 7!

RoseMorning Star said in the next post (#1300):

I cannot imagine Voldemort being the type to lay all his cards on the table for all to see.

And

As far as why Dumbledore might not have told Harry that his scar may be a Horcrux, well... there could be two reasons. One, he did not know or suspect it. Or two, he suspected it but could not bring himself to tell Harry for fear of what it would do to him. Or that he suspected it but felt that no good could come from it to tell Harry before it was necessary because he had no idea how it could be destroyed. Especially if he were not certain.

I totally agree with the cards statement. Voldie is secretive by nature. As to the reasons why DD didn’t tell Harry that he/his scar may be a Horcrux, you gave two, but you didn’t put the most obvious reason (in my opinion)that he is not one.

I was thinking about Tommy's Horcrux education. When he found out all of the juicy details on how to do the charm or whatever, was there a tutorial on how to remake a body? It seems to me that when you make a Horcrux, you are assuring your immortality, but in a spectral existence for part of that time. When your original body is killed (through AK, Dragon Pox, Avian Flu, or whatever) how would a Horcrux help? Yeah you wouldn’t ‘go behind the veil’ but you would be ‘less than spirit: less than the meanest ghost’ (GoF pg. 653 Schol.). I guess that it would allow opportunities to regain a body if the right situation came along. This assumes that the wizard in jeopardy knows the right spell.

Your Thoughts?

Sorry so long.

RoseMorninStar - Nov 10, 2005 10:50 pm (#1308 of 2969)

I totally agree with the cards statement. Voldie is secretive by nature. As to the reasons why DD didn’t tell Harry that he/his scar may be a Horcrux, you gave two, but you didn’t put the most obvious reason (in my opinion)that he is not one. ~Hawick girl

Yes, that is true. Harry's scar may not be a Horcrux, but I was answering Me and My Shadow and the statement I was answering was something to the effect of, 'If we assume the scar is a Horcrux, why wouldn't Dumbledore have told Harry.'

So, taken out of that context, yes, it does seem like I left out an important option. It can get a little confusing on these threads sometimes!

hawick girl - Nov 10, 2005 11:02 pm (#1309 of 2969)

I thought as much, that it was under his assumption of a Horcrux on Harry's person, and not stated on its own merits. I almost left it out and I guess that I should have, but I'm of the thought that the making of a Horcrux is difficult and couldn't be accidental.

I agree with the confusing threads bit as well.

RoseMorninStar - Nov 11, 2005 7:03 am (#1310 of 2969)

Hawick girl...don't worry about it at all. It's fun to guess and theorize!

However, I do not think that it is impossible that an unintentional Horcrux, while maybe not made by accident, could have been made when something went wrong while making one so it did not turn out as originally planned. IF Harry's scar is a Horcrux, that is what I think may have happened.

Perhaps, if Voldemort said the spell or had an object ready (or whatever) and then attempted to kill Harry...but Harry did not die... AND Voldemort was left in a horrible state... what might have become of his Horcrux intentions/spell? Voldemort would have had a torn soul bit from the murders of Harry's Mother &/or Father. It will be interesting to see what comes of 'the last Horcrux'.

Hmmm... that would make a nice title for book 7. Harry Potter and the Final Horcrux.

Vaughn - Nov 11, 2005 9:05 am (#1311 of 2969)

Hi all...I am relatively new here so bear with me. I have some thoughts about Horcruxes and killing/murder in general. So here goes...

All killing damages our souls, but the really evil thing about the Horcruxes is that the person is killing in order to intentionally damage his soul and then to preserve that damaged piece in/as a Horcrux. I think that what JKR is saying that all killing, whether in self-defense or as an act of murder is going to damage our soul. I also think that we are being a little too technical trying to figure out who else has a damaged soul, where are the soul bits from other murders etc. The intention is to show that a soul can be damaged by killing someone and that LV goes beyond that and does it intentionally in order to create a Horcrux, or six Horcruxes giving him the 7 part soul that he believes is so powerful. His mistake is that, like DD says, he never understood the value or power of an intact complete soul.

Verbina - Nov 11, 2005 9:54 pm (#1312 of 2969)

Good points Vaughn and welcome! I agree that while the actual killing of anyone is horrible, the thing that makes creating a Horcrux so despicable is the fact that 1) it prevents any chance of healing 2) a person purposefully kills someone in an effort to preserve their own immortality 3) and the purposeful ripping of ones own soul.

The thing I find truly ironic is that Voldemort never attained a 7-part soul. The diary being destroyed before Nagini was made a Horcrux.

I wonder though if the actual act of rending the soul impossible to heal by removing the torn piece to another object causes any pain? If so, this would enhance the reason for Voldemort to only use important deaths to create Horcruxes.

Puck - Nov 12, 2005 9:00 am (#1313 of 2969)

Curious, if in a case of a mass murder, such as when Pettigrew killed those Muggles, is the soul split once, as it was a single act that caused the death, or in several pieces, one for each victim? Just wondering if it would have been possible for LV to create more than one Horcrux at a time.

Choices - Nov 12, 2005 10:05 am (#1314 of 2969)

I still wonder if that counts as "murder"? Peter did not know all of those people - he just caused an explosion and did not intentionally plan to kill all of them - they just sort of were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think for a murder to split the soul you have to know and deliberately plan to kill someone. Example - I want to split my soul and create a Horcrux, so I will pick out John Doe (he made me really mad last week) as my intended victim. I will seek out John Doe, stalk him and murder him in cold blood. I think that would do it, but if I just threw a bomb into the street and it killed a couple of unknown people, then I don't think that would count. Just my opinion..... :-)

Blots - Nov 13, 2005 8:48 pm (#1315 of 2969)

Jill Huber in #1251 (11.02.05) asks for comments on the idea that the curse rebounding might have something to do with Harry being a Horcrux, that is, that LV’s Horcrux caused the curse to rebound.

It was trying to puzzle out two matters: the ‘rebounding curse’ and DD encouraging Harry into the dungeons in Sorcerer’s Stone, which led me to guess that a wizard attempting to AK his own Horcrux would instead kill himself. However there are a number of events that are inconsistent with this idea. The discussion still exists on this thread to read...but a couple of comments….

RoseMorninStar - Nov 14, 2005 10:20 pm (#1318 of 2969)

I cannot fathom anyone else being able to take a bit of someone else's soul and turning it into a Horcrux. That just doesn't seem to fit.

I do however think Lily very well might have been an unspeakable and have suspected that for some time. We have never learned of James & Lily's occupations and I find that intriguing. I am sure JKR has something up her sleeve.

I am also (probably) a lone voice calling out in the wilderness, but I am very inclined to think that Voldemort, on the night he attempted to kill Harry, became overconfident, in the way psycho mass murderers do, which set into motion a unique set of circumstances.

We know that Voldemort attempted to kill Harry with an AK curse. It backfired upon himself because of Lily's love & sacrifice. So, in effect, Voldemort 'killed' himself. However, he did not die because of the Horcruxes. This much is certain. If we enter the realm of conjecture... I will take it a bit further.

I venture to guess that Voldemort may have had the Horcrux item/container with him the night he killed Lily and James. It may have even been something belonging to Lily and James. Perhaps he even said the spell to create the Horcrux with the anticipation of Harry's death. Mass murdering psychos are known for becoming terribly overconfident, so this would not surprise me. IF he had said a spell to create a Horcrux...perhaps even using Harry's name as part of the spell, yet Harry does not die, what would become of the spell? It could very well use a soul fragment created when James or Lily was killed.

We know that the AK curse did not work as planned. Could the Horcrux spell also not have work out as planned? Could it have (unintentionally) attempted to be encased in Harry, been unable to enter his body and left it's mark upon him in the form of his scar? Or, could it have destroyed one of the soul fragments within Voldemort, and it's destruction left the 'crack' on Harry's forehead, much as the destruction of the Ring Horcrux left a crack in the stone.

There are clues to these connections in the books, so it is not that wild of a suggestion. The unusual connection Harry has not only with Voldemort, but also with Nagini. The fact that Harry has gotten physically ill when Voldemort is feeling especially 'murderous'. The reference to 'relics' of the school in connection with the Horcruxes and Rita Skeeter's mention of 'relic' in relation to Harry's scar courtesy of Voldemort (great catch by 'Me and My Shadow'!).

I do not think it is something that we can entirely discount. It may not be correct, but I do not believe it is unthinkable.

Soul Search - Nov 15, 2005 5:43 am (#1319 of 2969)

Wild Idea.

RoseMorninStar, I concur with a lot of your previous post, especially Voldemort using an object at the Potters (the sword) to create his sixth Horcrux. I am also in the camp that says the murder has to be created as part of the Horcrux spell. Since an AK doesn't leave a mark, Harry's scar says something strange happened. We have discussed all this before.

But, what if Harry's scar is not only is a Horcrux, containing Voldemort's soul-bit, but also Lily's soul. The "ancient magic" that Lily invoked created the scar, allowed her soul to occupy it and for her to protect Harry. Voldemort's soul-bit got dragged along and shares the Horcrux, since he had performed the spell to create a Horcrux. This could explain a lot.

The numerous "Lily's eyes" references. She's there, behind the eyes.

Harry's seeming luck escaping Voldemort. Lily has been protecting him always, not just at #4 Privet Drive.

Why Dumbledore hasn't told Harry his scar is a Horcrux. Dumbledore knows that the scar is a Horcrux, but he thinks it only holds Lily's soul.

Obviously, Lily's soul is freed when Harry turns seventeen. The very last of his protections. He will truly be on his own.

Esther Rose - Nov 15, 2005 7:41 am (#1320 of 2969)

Here is a curious thought. What would happen if Voldemort did try to make a mirror a Horcrux. Not necessarily Erised. From the onset a mirror would look to be a great Horcrux. It, like the diary could be used as a weapon. I could be used to possess anyone that crosses the mirror. It probably hasn't been done before so we would not know if a soul bit could travel by mirrors or if it would be confined to just the one Horcruxed mirror. The thought of a soul bit traveling by mirrors is a frightening thought. I could see this as something that Voldemort would find a mirror an extremely attractive Horcrux to possess.

But there is a problem with this. Mirrors reflect and change the direction of light.

Let's say you are V and you point your wand into a mirror and shout an incantation, (The Horcrux spell) pointing at yourself. Are you making the mirror a Horcrux or yourself?

Ok, so maybe, as big V, you are wise enough to not point at yourself in the mirror when doing the Horcrux spell. So you point your wand at a random object in the mirror. The question still remains. Are you making the mirror a Horcrux or the object in the mirror a Horcrux?

Why does Voldemort's name start with V? Was this done deliberately to look like a deflected spell?

JILL HUBER - Nov 15, 2005 2:27 pm (#1321 of 2969)

I am not suggesting that someone else used a bit of Voldie's soul to make Harry a Horcrux, but rather that someone simply made him a Horcrux. I think that someone made Harry a Horcrux, for whatever reason...this is why it did not kill Harry, the scar on Harry's head, thus, is the result of removing a Horcrux. Just like the ring and the diary, there is a mark on the object as a result of the removal of the Horcrux. Voldemort didn't realize he was a Horcrux and so he was not prepared for whatever may have happened when he tried to destroy the Horcrux, instead of Harry.

I am not sure if that clears up your question Choices! Please advise. I think whomever did it, if this is possible, did it for some reason relating to his safety from what was said in the prophecy. This leads me to believe it was someone who was very skilled in magic, had the connections or lineage to know of Horcruxes (which I have determined must be an extremely old piece of magic), made him the Horcrux.

I think it is important to note how old the Horcrux spell is, this goes directly to who could know about it...I am not saying the person must be old to know about it, but rather would have to have access to old documents...I am guessing located at the M.O.M., or from a long lineage of wizards who could have imparted this information, direct contact with Voldemort is a thought also. If Horcruxes are banned from Hogwarts, it must be that it has been for quite some time if no one really knows about them.

This leads to another question, how did Slughorn know about it? How did Riddle find out? How did Dumbledore know of them? This goes back to my other theory that Dumbledore, in his quest to DEFEAT Grindelwald, found that maybe Grindelwald had created one. If Riddle had found out this bit of information, perhaps he went to track down the source of the information...it is important to remember that it was never specifically said that Dumbledore killed Grindelwald, but that he defeated him. Maybe his defeat had to do not with death so much incapacitation. Perhaps when Riddle went into Albania and other regions heavily associated with Dark Magic after graduation from Hogwarts or school breaks, he found Grindelwald.

I mentioned once before that, just like most evil masters and apprentices, he learned all he could from Grindelwald and then he killed him and took his place. This would seem an important murder worthy of a Horcrux if you ask me...again, these are all theories and speculation. Let me know what you think Smile

Esther Rose - Nov 15, 2005 3:15 pm (#1322 of 2969)

Jill,

Your theory still seems a bit problematic to me. For one reason it would further complicate an already complicated story.

If Harry was made a Horcrux by another wizard (wizard other than Voldemort), who would that wizard be? It would have to be a character already known from previous books. I can't see a character present or past (other than Voldemort) evil enough to make Harry a Horcrux. Or have enough knowledge of Harry to want to make Harry a Horcrux. And If another wizard did make Harry a Horcrux wouldn't we have gotten some sort of hint to that fact by now? It's already a bit late in the whole story.

But then again, I am the extreme few that believe in the "Draco is a Vampire" theory. So you can take everything I say with a grain of salt. =)

RoseMorninStar - Nov 15, 2005 9:58 pm (#1323 of 2969)

I do think that a Horcrux was involved in the defeat of Grindelwald. I think that is also where Voldemort got the idea that he would 'one-up' (or in this case, '7-up!! ) what he felt was a 'weakness' in Grindelwald’s plan by making 7 Horcruxes.

Blots - Nov 15, 2005 10:45 pm (#1324 of 2969)

I have to go with Esther Rose (#1322) Jill (#1316, #1321.) It seems important to build a case with specific clues and motives given in the text. For example, it is possible to imagine Snape having access to a Horcrux of LV, because DD states it would have taken two wizards to retrieve the Horcrux from the cave. We also know that Snape, apparently like this RAB, was a Death Eater, who began to resist LV. So it isn’t a stretch to imagine them working together, and RAB apparently died shortly after obtaining the Horcrux...and you can go on from there. We know that Snape told LV of the prophecy, so he could have influenced Voldemort’s interpretation of it. We know Snape hated James Potter. We have Sectumsempra, a curse for cutting flesh invented by Snape. Quite possibly it is a curse known only to him, as well.

Unfortunately, the most obvious problem is that there is no clear connection between a curse rebounding and a wizard being a Horcrux. It is tempting to imagine there might be when you think of it as being the wizard’s own soul bit that he is AK’ing, but the AK curse stops the functioning of a living physical body. It seems obvious from the text that a soul is regarded as something immortal. You don’t AK soul bits. The very word Kedavra invokes the body, not the soul.

In fact, the idea of an animate Horcrux is quite strange, but a dead body might not make such a terrible Horcrux, especially a body securely entombed. It wouldn’t last as long as a silver locket, but it would probably stay well hidden.

Cassiopeia - Nov 16, 2005 5:15 am (#1325 of 2969)

For example, it is possible to imagine Snape having access to a Horcrux of LV, because DD states it would have taken two wizards to retrieve the Horcrux from the cave. We also know that Snape, apparently like this RAB, was a Death Eater, who began to resist LV. So it isn’t a stretch to imagine them working together, and RAB apparently died shortly after obtaining the Horcrux...and you can go on from there.

Do you think it is possible that Snape and Draco will be searching for Horcruxes, too?

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 16, 2005 9:00 am (#1326 of 2969)

Blots wrote -- "In fact, the idea of an animate Horcrux is quite strange, but a dead body might not make such a terrible Horcrux, especially a body securely entombed. It wouldn’t last as long as a silver locket, but it would probably stay well hidden."

I agree and would venture to say that unless Vold had a "relic" in the room with Harry and cast the encasement spell on it while it was in proximity to Harry, I'd say Vold was planning to use Harry's corpse as a Horcrux for James/Lily murder.

Verbina - Nov 16, 2005 12:02 pm (#1327 of 2969)

Me and My Shadow813 - Trying to clarify something I am reading...are you saying that LV had to have something there at the time of the attack on Harry to make into a Horcrux...or that he had to have an object there for Harry to have been made an accidental Horcrux?

RoseMorninStar - Nov 16, 2005 9:15 pm (#1328 of 2969)

If Snape knew about the Horcruxes, then he definitely is on Voldemort's side, because we know Snape is NOT the one who told Dumbledore about them. Dumbledore (correctly) guessed about the Horcruxes after Harry told Dumbledore about the way the diary acted in CoS. If Snape knew (and he was on Dumbledore's side), he certainly should have been of more assistance to Dumbledore in finding them than it appears he has been up to this point.

Also, I am not quite sure how JKR will have the Horcruxes play out, but the soul fragments are not necessarily 'immortal' because then they would not be subject to destruction, as it is obvious they can be destroyed... and that the original soul is diminished as a result.

I personally cannot imagine anyone intentionally using a human, dead or alive, as a Horcrux. A living being would be subject to too much danger/uncertainty/too much autonomy/independence of action and thought. (Nagini, although perhaps not the best choice, is much easier to keep track of than a human being, and I believe Naga's live to be very old.) And a dead human, well, I would think decay might be a problem, although we cannot know for sure. It seems that a person who would want to make a Horcrux would want to encase his soul fragment in a vessel that would be sound for at least as long as he hoped to live.

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 16, 2005 11:57 pm (#1329 of 2969)

Rose MorninStar - good points. I see Nagini even becoming a problem for Vold. Although at this point she seems "controlled" by him, she has an independent consciousness and that spells trouble.

So, regarding Verbina's question -- I had to read it a few times as it's a mind bender... but yes I'm saying both. If Harry's scar is a Horcrux, it must have been unintentional because we're told he intended to kill Harry and not use him as a vessel.

Vold may have known Godric's sword was at the cottage and cast the "encasement" spell on it after killing James and Lily but before Harry. Thus when the AK backfired, the spell was already cast (which it must have since Vold became incapacitated/disembodied) and somehow the spell encased the soul bit in Harry rather than the sword.

This is the only scenario I can think of for the "Harry scar" theory, which seems more and more likely to me.

Cassiopeia - Nov 17, 2005 5:41 am (#1330 of 2969)

If Snape knew about the Horcruxes, then he definitely is on Voldemort's side, because we know Snape is NOT the one who told Dumbledore about them.

Unless DD told Snape about them... Snape helped DD with his hand (not exactly sure how and can't find that passage in my book) and DD insisted on Harry bringing Snape to him after the scene in the cave. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that Snape knows exactly what DD was doing, but I think there is a possibility.

Kiwaiti - Nov 18, 2005 4:35 am (#1331 of 2969)

Due to the prophecy, the murder of Harry would seem a lot more important to LV than those of his parents, so it is likely that if he had wanted to create a Horcrux at Godric's Hollow at all, he would not have cast the encasement spell before Harry was dead.

Another interesting circumstance is the priori Incantatem effect in GoF:

There is neither any trace of the AK that rebounded (which could be explained since it didn't work), nor of any encasement spell that would have had to be used after the AK's on James & Lily (never mind their erroneous order of appearance owing to the US publisher).

Aurora Gubbins - Nov 18, 2005 3:11 pm (#1332 of 2969)

Apart from the locket, the ring, the diary, the cup, and LV himself I think the remaining Horcruxes are LV's wand (so full of his own self importance and seeing himself World famous for being the greatest wizard of all time) and the Award for Services to the School.

I just don’t think that Nagini or any other living being come to that, would be a good Horcrux. What happens to the soul fragment if the Horcrux dies?

I am quite prepared for the potential dungbomb attack...

Choices - Nov 18, 2005 6:43 pm (#1333 of 2969)

Well, Nagini does not seem to be a good choice for a Horcrux, but Dumbledore tends to think she is one, so I can't argue with the greatest wizard in the world. He definitely knows his magic!!

dizzy lizzy - Nov 18, 2005 7:22 pm (#1334 of 2969)

What I want to know is why can't Harry use a "tame" Dementor to suck the bit of Voldemort's soul out of the Horcruxes? That way the only damage an imploding Horcrux is going to do, is kill the Dementor.

Lizzy

Madame Librarian - Nov 19, 2005 6:10 am (#1335 of 2969)

What about that silver hand Voldemort made for Pettigrew? I don't know if the timing is right for that. Would Voldemort still be trying to create more Horcruxes at the point of his re-birthing? Did he need a new piece to live in his reconstituted body? There are murders and a "spare" available to use (Bertha, Cedric, unknown DEs that were executed for disloyalty), but I would agree that this is an easily shot down idea. I just like it because it makes "the hand of the other" a very loaded phrase in more ways than we think.

Ciao. Barb

Puck - Nov 20, 2005 7:14 pm (#1336 of 2969)

I don't think LV himself was responsible for the murders of Cedric and Bertha. We know Wormtail used LV's wand to kill Cedric, and likely Bertha as well, so those soul bits could not have been used.

Snape may have known and told DD about LV planning to use Harry's death to make a Horcrux, but I doubt he knew of the others. After all, LV didn't truly trust anyone enough to impart all that information.

Like the idea of Lily as an unspeakable. Why else have we been told about them? Plus, it would give her information regarding some serious magic, that she used to protect Harry. I can even swallow the bit about her "soul", or part of it, being encased in Harry's scar. Still not sure about Harry being a Horcrux. Perhaps because it's just too horrible a thought for me to accept.

hawick girl - Nov 20, 2005 10:35 pm (#1337 of 2969)

Puck-Both Cedric and Bertha were killed on his orders. I guess that this is murky moral territory, but I think that Voldie is partially (I would say mostly) responsible. As to the state of his "frayed" soul in conjunction to the murders: Dunno.

Kiwaiti says in Post 1331:

Due to the prophecy, the murder of Harry would seem a lot more important to LV than those of his parents, so it is likely that if he had wanted to create a Horcrux at Godric's Hollow at all, he would not have cast the encasement spell before Harry was dead.

Another interesting circumstance is the priori Incantatem effect in GoF:

There is neither any trace of the AK that rebounded (which could be explained since it didn't work), nor of any encasement spell that would have had to be used after the AK's on James & Lily (never mind their erroneous order of appearance owing to the US publisher).

I totally and whole-heartedly agree with these points. I have also repeatedly said that a Horcrux is not easy magic, and that Voldie has attempted to kill Harry more than once. I think that these are "cons" to the Harry as Horcrux theory.

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 20, 2005 11:06 pm (#1338 of 2969)

Hawick girl/Kiwaiti -- "Due to the prophecy, the murder of Harry would seem a lot more important to LV than those of his parents, so it is likely that if he had wanted to create a Horcrux at Godric's Hollow at all, he would not have cast the encasement spell before Harry was dead."

Good point. As was mentioned earlier, the sword could have been at Godric's Hollow, and could have been meant as the Horcrux for Harry's death. We do not know (to my knowledge) how the "encasement" spell is cast. Perhaps before murder, perhaps after. I'm thinking before, as once the murder is committed, the soul bit emerges from the culprit and needs somewhere to go immediately.

Kiwaiti again -- "Another interesting circumstance is the priori Incantatem effect in GoF: There is neither any trace of the AK that rebounded (which could be explained since it didn't work), nor of any encasement spell that would have had to be used after the AK's on James & Lily (never mind their erroneous order of appearance owing to the US publisher)."

Another good point. I wonder if Wormtail isn't doing quite a large bit of Voldy’s dirty work with his own wand, and could have been at G's Hollow.

Troels Forchhammer - Nov 21, 2005 1:27 am (#1339 of 2969)

Puck wrote on Nov 20, 2005 in message #1336

I don't think LV himself was responsible for the murders of Cedric and Bertha. We know Wormtail used LV's wand to kill Cedric, and likely Bertha as well, [...]

Lord Voldemort killed Bertha that much is quite plain from GoF ch. 1 ‘The Riddle House’:

‘Ah, Wormtail, [...] but I promise you, you will have the honour of being just as useful as Bertha Jorkins.’

‘You you ’ Wormtail's voice sounded suddenly hoarse, as though his mouth had gone very dry. ‘You are going to kill me, too?’

‘Wormtail, Wormtail,’ said the cold voice silkily, ‘why would I kill you? I killed Bertha because I had to. She was fit for nothing after my questioning, quite useless. [...] ’

And with respect to the Priori Incantatem effect, there were several spells missing from that, so we probably shouldn't try to hang anything on that. That said, we have Dumbledore's explicit statement that Voldemort failed create a Horcrux that Hallowe'en Y1 in Godric's Hollow, so I still find the idea that he somehow did so, accidentally, anyway to be implausible in the extreme.

Regards,

Troels

RoseMorninStar - Nov 21, 2005 1:48 am (#1340 of 2969)

Couple of points I'd like to make. Even though I think Lily (and maybe James?) were quite possibly Unspeakables, I do not think they knew of any special protection that their actions may provide for Harry. I think it was made quite clear that it had never happened before, so no one knew exactly what happened that night or how it happened nor did they expect it. Second, Lily's soul did not split, she did not murder anyone. We can only presume her soul went whole and complete to wherever good souls go and was not fragmented.

We do not know how difficult it is to make a Horcrux, only that it requires an act of evil (presumably a murder) that splits the soul and some type of spell. Voldemort has killed his father (1), both of his paternal grandparents (2,3), Hepzibah Smith (4), James & Lily Potter (5,6) the old caretaker of the Riddle house (7), and Bertha Jorkins ( Cool

. So at the very least 8 murders. More than enough for 6 Horcruxes, even if his soul does not split when he orders a murder, such as in Cedric Diggory's case.

As far as there being no trace of Voldemort's AK curse, I would think that the destruction of Voldemort's body is more than a 'trace' of his AK spell. Voldemort cast the AK curse against (baby) Harry, it was unable to penetrate Harry due to Lily's sacrifice of love, and rebounded, hitting Voldemort causing him to loose his powers and his body.

It is interesting that those killed by the AK usually have bodies that are unharmed in any way. But Voldemort is reduced to almost nothing. What does that tell us? Did his AK, which rebounded, do something to the soul fragment that remained within him? If that soul fragment left his body, where did it go? Why would it have destroyed him bodily, as that is not what an AK curse usually does?

Why would that curse, which was unable to kill Harry, give Harry special powers? (The ability to speak Parseltongue, channel Voldemort's emotions and thoughts, see through his eyes...and the eyes of the snake, Nagini?) Something more happened that night and I suppose we will have to wait for book 7 to find out.

One more thought. We know that JKR (and Trelawney ) worded the prophecy very carefully. So, in regards to Wormtail’s silver hand... if the prophecy says that, " And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives."

Well, the 'hand' would not belong to Harry... and it doesn't really belong to Voldemort... even if the hand Voldemort created were to kill him, it wouldn't be at the 'hand of the other' considering only Harry and Voldemort are the only two mentioned in the prophecy. Unless of course, Harry were to die at the 'hand' of Wormtail, as made by Voldemort.

Cassiopeia - Nov 21, 2005 5:00 am (#1341 of 2969)

Great points, Rose... I am thinking, though, about DD telling Harry that he may be glad one day that Wormtail owes him a life debt. I don't think that Harry will die at Wormtail's hand for that reason. Why couldn't it be that LV will die at Wormtail's hand? I understand that he is not mentioned in the prophecy, but how do we know who this "other" is? Just thinking out loud...

RoseMorninStar - Nov 21, 2005 9:42 am (#1342 of 2969)

Yes Cassiopeia, it is quite possible Wormtail will come into play. Sort of like Gollum in Lord of the Rings. My post above was responding to an earlier post that was musing about various possibilities. I do not really think Harry will die at the hand of Wormtail. I do wonder about Voldemort though. To be honest, I would think that his 'followers' (I am thinking of the 'Bella-type' follower) will get rather peeved when they find out that the 'Lord' they have been following is a half-blood. Perhaps that is why Snape is so disgruntled.

I think that the wording in the prophecy leaves no room for a third party. The 'other' is either Harry or Voldemort. BUT, the fact that Voldemort made Wormtail’s hand could complicate things a bit. I am not sure if that hand will play a part or not. I do think Wormtail will be of some use to Harry.

So Sirius - Nov 21, 2005 10:09 am (#1343 of 2969)

I'm going out on a limb here to say that I think we come to find that a living creature can be used as a Horcrux, because DD himself may have created a Horcrux.

After Harry kills (inadvertently) Quirrell and then passes out, DD could have taken a little measure to give Harry a little extra protection and made a Horcrux for him, possibly using Fawkes. I wonder if that's why his connection to Fawkes is as powerful as it is.

Edit: I just read your post and just want to say my thoughts on LV losing his body and the Horcrux.

I think that the vapor LV was reduced to, was his last remaining soul, that's all it/he was left as, so he needed a new body or shell to encase it. And perhaps Harry, either became a Horcrux at that point, getting a bit of his soul or was transferred whatever was left of LV that a vaporous soul couldn't contain.

Verbina - Nov 21, 2005 12:40 pm (#1344 of 2969)

Me and my shadow - I have to disagree on the idea of a soul piece flying away from the person after they commit murder. I don't think it is an immediate thing. The diary is the reason I think this. It was created in the school year after the death of Myrtle and the deaths of the Riddles. If you attribute the death of myrtle to the diary Horcrux, then there is a gap of at least three months before the diary was even begun. If you attribute the deaths of the Riddles to the diary, then there is still a gap of at least a month or so. Depending on which death was used to make the diary a Horcrux, Voldemort had anywhere from one to four months to do it after the soul was split.

Detail Seeker - Nov 21, 2005 12:48 pm (#1345 of 2969)

The Voldemort’s body question is interesting and somewhat murky. The fact alone, that he had a "ghostly" life after the incident alone does not tell us, that the AK did not work in the normal way, but just, that the soul could not leave the earth being tied by the Horcruxes. But there does not seem to have been a body of his to be found. If a body had been found, then Hagrid would not have referred to the opinion, he died at Godric’s Hollow a "Codswallop". A body would have - falsely - settled it. So, his body was either really destroyed or taken away by somebody (Wormtail ?) before anyone else arrived.

So, some stuff to think about on the "Limits of Avada Kedavra"-thread.

We do not know, if it is possible for a third person to create a Horcrux for somebody else. Going by feeling, I would doubt it, as this is a very personal spell - perhaps the most personal spell possible (aside from another one I am not going to define more precise). Also, I doubt, that Harry’s soul was split by this, as he did not willingly, not knowingly kill Quirrell as far as I remember the book at least. So, a Horcrux creation by this might be impossible due to no split soul.

A Horcrux for Harry, though, is an interesting idea.

Kiwaiti - Nov 21, 2005 4:12 pm (#1346 of 2969)

There are (at least) two reasons why Horcruxes are considered horrible dark magic:

The prerequisite murder

The damage done to one's own soul: Rather than let the torn soul heal, you make the damage permanent, removing the torn portion from your body. This is what makes LV less than a whole human (it seems to show even in his outward appearance).

DD would never inflict that kind of damage on young Harry (especially if his whole and loving soul could be the special power that will allow him to vanquish LV).

By the way, LV did not know how to create Horcruxes when he killed Myrtle, and maybe when he created the diary (it may have been just a memory, as he said, which was later reinforced with part of his soul when he had a convenient murder to use for ripping the soul). He hadn't asked Slughorn about Horcruxes when he killed off his paternal family (during the summer holidays when he was sixteen) and Myrtle died in June, at the end of his fifth year (when he was sixteen).

So Sirius - Nov 21, 2005 5:53 pm (#1347 of 2969)

DD, in my estimation, would do whatever needs to be done, to keep Harry alive to be the one to kill off LV, eventually. He did, after all, leave him with the Dursleys. He also allowed Harry, knowing the dangers, get into a lot of very Sirius and dangerous situations. Nonetheless, I hear what you're saying and as I prefaced, I was going out on a limb there.

Choices - Nov 21, 2005 6:01 pm (#1348 of 2969)

Detail Seeker - "Also, I doubt, that Harry’s soul was split by this"

Doesn't Dumbledore tell us in HBP that Voldemort underestimates the power or value of a whole, untarnished soul like Harry has? So, Harry can't have split his soul.

lapland - Nov 21, 2005 6:04 pm (#1349 of 2969)

Greetings all. I am new hear and just wanted to add my two cents worth to this discussion. I haven't read everything yet, but what I am going to add, I haven't seen mentioned yet so hope it is new.

DD discussed what Horcrux's LV had created. He also made it quite clear it was unwise to use a living, or self-aware thing as a Horcrux. LV would obviously try very hard to keep to this as he would not want to risk the destruction of more of them. So I do not believe that he did. The idea that Harry or the sorting hat would not suite LV very well. Remember every student has tried on the sorting hat. With some forty new students a year for the last fifty years you have some two hundred students having tried it on. I wouldn't want something that valuable exposed to that many people if I could help it. Besides the only time he could have done it was while in the Headmasters office, which is guarded by the paintings and by the hat itself. Any of which could tell DD. The sword came out of the hat and was probably always a part of the hat until Harry had need of it, so could not have been a Horcrux.

The hints that DD gave were that the final Horcrux was very important artifact to the history of Hogwarts and the founders. I believe one of the four founders was Headmaster or Headmistress of Hogwarts. Perhaps there was a bigger reason for the rift between Slytherin and the others then just his desire to enroll only pure bloods. Perhaps the others chose his best friend Gryffindor to be Headmaster. Gryffindor’s views more closely followed those of the others and he was obviously looked up to. Just as the other two houses look up to Gryffindor house today. Slytherin however thought he should be in charge and blamed his friend for the treachery.

Having been the first Headmaster of Hogwarts Gryffindor would have made the Head's office his own. And it is there we should look for signs of what LV would have made a Horcrux. Nothing inside the room would do because they are forever watched over by the pictures of the past Heads as well as the sorting hat. However LV did come to the office at least three times that we know of. Once when he asked for a place to stay during the summer after opening the Chamber of Secrets the first time. The second was when he asked for a teaching job. And the third is when he sought a job from DD. DD knew that LV was not really interested in the job but could not discern exactly what LV really wanted. Was it to place his Horcrux?

I haven't gone through all the chapters of all the books looking for proof that Gryffindor was indeed the first headmaster, but there is some evidence in the CoS ch.11 when Harry visits DD's office he notices a brass knocker in the shape of a griffin. We at first think it was because DD himself was a Gryffindor, but could it really be that the headmaster's office is a relic of Gryffindor himself. Since it is the seat of power of the school it would make since that the office would be attractive to LV. Since the knocker is outside the office, no one would notice if LV made it a Horcrux while visiting the headmaster. He could have created it at any of the three visits, the last being the most suspicious.

Notice when Harry views the memory of LV's last visit to the headmasters office he does not hear LV's nock. Does Harry ever use the knocker? Does anyone? The locket can't be opened, so is the knocker similarly disabled?

me and my shadow 813 - Nov 21, 2005 10:35 pm (#1350 of 2969)

Verbina, I see your point regarding diary. The soul piece may linger I guess, not needing an immediate "encasement". Confusing, but canon supports it. It makes me think the encasement spell must "recall" the soul piece back in order to encase it...

Assuming Harry's scar is an "accidental" Horcrux, is it possible that upon AK backfiring, Harry's body contained the soul piece that's supposed to remain "embodied"? Doesn't make much sense though...I haven't thought this through, will ponder more... and welcome any feedback.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:22 pm

Vaughn - Nov 22, 2005 9:19 am (#1351 of 2969)

I agree with Kiwaiti, there is no way that DD made a Horcrux for Harry after Voldemort AK'd him.

I also do not believe that Harry is a Horcrux for LV...Intentionally or unintentionally. I just don't think it would be a very good story line.

Are we still just trying to identify one Horcrux or two? We have

1) the diary
2) the ring
3) the cup
4) the locket
5) Nagini
6) unknown...right?

I am just trying to clarify where we are in the process. Thanks.

Verbina - Nov 22, 2005 1:23 pm (#1352 of 2969)

Me and my shadow - it could also be that the soul piece remains in the body. Of course this would put a time limit on the creation of the Horcrux, which I think there is anyway. The Horcrux would have to be made before the soul is able to heal itself. This, considering the reason for the soul tear, could take a while...how long I think would vary from person to person. Confusing issue I must agree.

Vaughn - Looks right to me. The cup, while not entirely confirmed, is very likely to be one. And taking Dumbledore's word for it, Nagini is one as well. So there is one Horcrux which we know nothing about.

Potion - Nov 22, 2005 6:12 pm (#1353 of 2969)

I've been reading along and I really like this discussion. Just wanted to add that we've been told by DD that the last Horcrux could be something of Ravenclaws or Gryffindors (most likely Ravenclaw because according to DD the sword is the only remaining relic of Godric’s). Personally I think this makes sense but am not so sure about Nagini (but then what would I know?! Razz

) I like the idea of the soul being able to heal itself by the way.

Choices - Nov 22, 2005 6:24 pm (#1354 of 2969)

I think without remorse and seeking forgiveness for the murder that was done, that the soul does not heal. Perhaps this would give Voldemort a longer time to create a Horcrux.

Verbina - Nov 22, 2005 8:42 pm (#1355 of 2969)

That is very true Choices. Voldemort, not feeling any remorse would have a longer time period to create a Horcrux, if remorse is necessary to the healing of a soul tear. I do think it is but...I'm not JKR! LOL

I guess I am just not certain of the soul piece leaving the body. It sounds as if it works sort of like...the soul piece almost has to be forced away from the original soul into a Horcrux. Don't ask me why I get that feeling.

Troels Forchhammer - Nov 23, 2005 12:18 am (#1356 of 2969)

Verbina wrote on Nov 22, 2005 in message #1355

Voldemort, not feeling any remorse would have a longer time period to create a Horcrux, if remorse is necessary to the healing of a soul tear. I do think it is but...I'm not JKR! LOL

A failing that is so common that I can't blame you (most of us share it, anyway )

I agree with your assessment, though. I would think that remorse, repentance, redemption etc. both speeds up the healing process, but also allows for ‘cleaner’ healing (like the difference between a fracture that has been set and tended properly, and one that has just grown back together haphazardly). Voldemort, being remorseless (and possibly even irredeemable?), would probably still be able to reunite a torn soul-piece with the rest of his ‘living soul’, but it wouldn't be really ‘healed’.

: I guess I am just not certain of the soul piece leaving the body. It sounds as if it works sort of like...the soul piece almost has to be forced away from the original soul into a Horcrux. Don't ask me why I get that feeling.

Possibly Jo's choice of ‘encase’ for the process? I know that this has given me an impression of applying force. Also it is clear that just ripping your soul (I.e. killing somebody) doesn't really create a partitioned soul: certainly other wizards have killed more than once, and Voldemort has killed several times without creating a Horcrux, but these rippings don't count towards ‘splitting’ the soul. The implication, as I read the explanations in the book, is that only by encasing a soul-piece in a Horcrux will your soul exist in two distinct entities. That, again, suggests once more that the encasing involves an application of force to split the ripped parts of the soul from each other.

Regards,

Troels

Diagon Nilly - Nov 23, 2005 4:33 pm (#1357 of 2969)

Question: Now that it's up to Harry to find and destroy the Horcruxes, I'm concerned about Harry's ability to do it. DD sustained a rather serious injury destroying the ring, and if a wizard as powerful as DD had trouble, I doubt Harry (talented as he may be) would be able to destroy the last remaining Horcruxes. My question: is it possible to use a Dementor to suck the souls out of the remaining Horcruxes?

Choices - Nov 23, 2005 6:30 pm (#1358 of 2969)

Perhaps Dumbledore tackled that particular Horcrux because he believed it would be the most difficult? Harry destroyed the diary Horcrux without injury, so maybe the others will prove less problematic than the ring was. Just a thought.....

First of all, I don't think it would be an easy task to get a Dementor to cooperate. They are now on Voldemort's team and I doubt they would work for anyone else. Anyway, memories are in the mind, not the soul, and it is the happy memories and good feelings that the Dementor wants. I just don't think a piece of soul encased in something inanimate would be a big draw for a Dementor and Nagini probably doesn't have many happy thoughts. Sirius said the Dementors were not mindful of him as a dog. Dementors suck the soul out of a person's mouth, would a Dementor even know how to approach an object containing a soul piece? It has no mouth - would a Dementor comprehend how to get the soul piece out if it were so inclined? Just some things to ponder......

RoseMorninStar - Nov 23, 2005 8:06 pm (#1359 of 2969)

I am sure JKR will have Harry come up with some ways of destroying those Horcruxes. Just think of what Harry, Ron and Hermione were able to do in there first year with the SS/PS! Harry may be 'on his own' as far as protectors go (with his parents, Sirius, and Dumbledore gone) but he has friends. And there still is the Order of the Phoenix. Harry also has some 'power' the dark lord knows not. I think Harry will do just fine.

Verbina - Nov 23, 2005 9:08 pm (#1360 of 2969)

I wonder though. I know Smith said that the locket and the cup had magical properties before Voldemort got his hands on them. (She commented that she was still trying to discover the properties of the locket) The ring was a heirloom of a bloodline somehow connected to Slytherin (the Gaunts had it and they were of Slytherin line). What are the chances that the ring had protections on it? And what are the chances that the protections were potentially dangerous to anyone that was not supposed to have it?

The diary had a protection of sorts...Tom himself. The memory of Tom manipulated the person using the diary thus forming a type of protection around it. A protection Harry was able to get past.

So if there are protections on the Horcruxes that were in existence before Tom got hold of them, it could depend on the previous owner really. The ring, being connected to Slytherin just seems to exude a darker side of magic. The locket could have hazardous curses on it as well then. The cup of Hufflepuff...I think it has protections but not as dangerous perhaps.

Okay...now I am rambling so I better stop. Just pondering I guess.

RoseMorninStar - Nov 24, 2005 1:04 am (#1361 of 2969)

Verbina, I think I agree with your line of thinking. The protections that harmed Dumbledore could possibly have been placed around the Gaunt home and not the Horcrux itself. Either way... I think we have Harry's gutsy-ness, Hermione's brains, and Ron's... um, well support! (and let's face it, Ron must have a good amount of strategy and logic to be such a good chess player). Harry has a lot of support even if it is not always in the form of major adult 'protectors'.

Nearly Legless Mick - Nov 29, 2005 2:51 am (#1362 of 2969)

I've been re-reading HBP recently (got as far as "House of Gaunt") and have noticed two things that may be relevant to this current conversation.

Firstly, Harry keeps asking DD about his blackened hand and DD keeps telling him that he will tell him the full story later. But he never gets round to it, aside from very briefly explaining that it was the curse on the ring that caused it and the Snape helped him recover. Could it be that DD has left further info on this subject for Harry to find in Book 7? I hope so because info on destroying Horcruxes is noticeably lacking from the private lessons in HBP

Secondly, we are intriguingly reminded that Bill Weasley works as a curse-breaker. Surely he is a candidate to assist Harry with this matter in Book 7 (when he gets back form his honeymoon, that is).

RoseMorninStar - Nov 30, 2005 10:10 pm (#1363 of 2969)

Very astute observations Nearly Legless (that moniker always gives me a laugh... nearly legless?) LOL It is odd that the withered hand is mentioned several times... with no resolution in sight. It does lead one to believe we will learn more about it in book 7.

Perhaps Bill and Fleur will help Harry while they are on their honeymoon. I wonder where they will go?

Troels Forchhammer - Dec 1, 2005 12:24 am (#1364 of 2969)

Nearly Legless Mick wrote on Nov 29, 2005 in message #1362

[...]

Firstly, Harry keeps asking DD about his blackened hand and DD keeps telling him that he will tell him the full story later. But he never gets round to it, aside from very briefly explaining that it was the curse on the ring that caused it and the Snape helped him recover. Could it be that DD has left further info on this subject for Harry to find in Book 7?

To which RoseMorninStar replied on Nov 30, 2005 in message #1363

It is odd that the withered hand is mentioned several times... with no resolution in sight. It does lead one to believe we will learn more about it in book 7.

I have been wondering about that ring and hand as well, being dissatisfied with the curt explanation we got after all the build-up; a typical example of a ‘was that all?’ reaction on my part

But we have come to know, actually, quite a lot about this:

The ring bears the Peverell coat of arms

It was an heirloom in the Gaunt family (supposedly they are somehow related to the Peverell family as they are to the Slytherin family)

Tom Marvolo Riddle took the ring from Morfin Gaunt

Later it was turned into a Horcrux by Tom a.k.a. Lord Voldemort

After that, the Horcrux was hidden by Lord Voldemort in the ruins of the house in which he had once taken it

Voldemort placed ‘many powerful enchantments’ as protection for the Horcrux.

Albus Dumbledore found the Horcrux while following in Voldemort's footsteps being on the lookout for ‘traces of magical concealment’.

Destroying the Horcrux Dumbledore was hit by a terrible curse that was upon it, and saved only by Snape's help.

The most relevant passage for this is,

‘Yes indeed,’ said Dumbledore, and he raised his blackened, burned-looking hand. ‘The ring, Harry. Marvolo's ring. And a terrible curse there was upon it too. Had it not been forgive me the lack of seemly modesty for my own prodigious skill, and for Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale. However, a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul. The ring is no longer a Horcrux.’

‘But how did you find it?’

‘Well, as you now know, for many years I have made it my business to discover as much as I can about Voldemort's past life. I have traveled widely, visiting those places he once knew. I stumbled across the ring hidden in the ruin of the Gaunt's house. It seem that once Voldemort had succeeded in sealing a piece of his soul in side it, he did not want to wear it anymore. He hid it, protected by many powerful enchantments, in the shack where his ancestors had once lived (Morfin having been carted off to Azkaban, of course), never guessing that I might one day take the trouble to visit the ruin, or that I might be keeping an eye open for traces of magical concealment.’

Dumbledore and Harry (HBP ch. 23 ‘Horcruxes’)

Going through all this, I can't help thinking that besides the magical details such as how it was concealed, what enchantments protected it, what the curse was and how Snape countered it, there isn't anything missing from the story about the ring and Dumbledore's blackened ring. These details may or may not become important, but I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that Rowling created a huge build-up for something that wasn't really very interesting, and either she didn't realise that this wasn't very exciting, or she forgot to go back and tone down the build-up once she did. I'm afraid that that appears to me more likely than this being of such extreme importance that it would need this kind of build-up spanning more than a whole book.

Nearly Legless Mick: Secondly, we are intriguingly reminded that Bill Weasley works as a curse-breaker. Surely he is a candidate to assist Harry with this matter in Book 7 (when he gets back form his honeymoon, that is).

RoseMorninStar: Perhaps Bill and Fleur will help Harry while they are on their honeymoon. I wonder where they will go?

In that case? Godric's Hollow, perhaps. .. followed by Grimmauld Place, surely.

I would love for Bill to get a bit more ‘screen-time’, and his curse-breaking experience can doubtlessly help Harry; the question is whether Harry (and Rowling) will allow it.

Regards,

Troels

Nearly Legless Mick - Dec 1, 2005 2:20 am (#1365 of 2969)

Troels - firstly I must say how much I appreciate your thoughtful posts which I have seen on several of the threads that interest me most. Keep up the good work.

Regarding Marvolo's ring - you are right that we do gradually learn quite a lot about it, and perhaps that is all that we will find out. However there are still several questions that I would like to know the answers to and, more importantly, I think Harry also needs this information.

1) What specifically was the curse that blackened DD's hand?

2) Could he have avoided this damage?

3) Was the curse an old curse that had always protected that ring, or was it added by LV as protection for the Horcrux? (Or a combination of both?)

4) Was DD wearing the ring on that hand at the time, or was he holding his wand in that hand as he attempted to destroy the Horcrux? Or was that hand just where the curse happened to land?

5) What method did DD use to destroy the Horcrux?

6) How did Snape attempt to heal the damage?

7) What other methods may be useful in attempting to destroy other Horcruxes?

8 ) What other precautions should be taken when attempting to destroy other Horcruxes?

I am greedy for info, I admit. Partly for Harry's sake, and partly because I found his private lessons with DD so fascinating. They were amongst my favourite sections of the whole series.

My hunch is that each Horcrux will need a different method to destroy it - I just wish that DD had given Harry more info on this aspect of the subject because the basilisk tooth method is still the only one we know and that's not likely to be possible with any of the other Horcruxes.

Regarding the other suspected Horcruxes - the founder's items are powerfully magical objects and will probably have their own protection in addition to LV's worst efforts. I hope Harry can find out how to destroy the Horcrux without destroying the artifacts themselves. If Nagini has indeed been horcruxed, the danger from her is probably just the obvious one - she's a great big, nasty snake.

It doesn't seem likely to me, but I am holding a faint hope that some of LV's Horcruxes may have failed. He doesn't completely understand them himself (I.e. - unaware initially that Diary Horcrux was destroyed, later said "it appears some of my experiments worked" in the GOF Graveyard scene, as if he had some doubts about them).

Perhaps some of the founder's artifacts would have had powerful enough protection to withstand an attempt to plant a Horcrux in them. I can't help thinking that the Slytherin artifact may have been more accepting of this dark magic than anything of Helga, Rowena or Godric.

RoseMorninStar - Dec 2, 2005 1:41 am (#1366 of 2969)

Troels, while it may be so that the blackened withered hand seems to be too much build-up, I am sure that in either case Harry would have found the tale fascinating, for the reasons mentioned above by 'Nearly' Legless (giggle) Mick. Now, whether we would find them interesting...or the fact that to know there is a story to tell Harry 'at a later date' is all we (as readers) need to know. To me, it sets up a kind of unfinished, poignant feeling between Harry and Dumbledore. Things left unsaid. Lessons unlearned. An incompleteness. A profound loss. Perhaps that is what JKR was aiming for as a writer, not so much as to tell us the details of his injury and prowess in Horcrux hunting/destruction. Sometimes it is the things left unsaid.

As far as Bill/Fleur/curse breaking/Honeymoons and all... Godric's Hollow is a good guess. I also cannot help but wonder if Albania may not enter back into the tale... and if Viktor Krum will be involved. Or perhaps Madame Maxine.

Troels Forchhammer - Dec 2, 2005 8:45 am (#1367 of 2969)

I'll have to split this in two parts. One regarding the general aspects of Rowling's authorship and one regarding the actual Horcrux issues.

Nearly Legless Mick wrote on Dec 1, 2005 in message #1365

Troels - firstly I must say how much I appreciate your thoughtful posts which I have seen on several of the threads that interest me most. Keep up the good work.

Why, thank you I really enjoy this conversation

Nearly Legless Mick: Regarding Marvolo's ring - you are right that we do gradually learn quite a lot about it, and perhaps that is all that we will find out. However there are still several questions that I would like to know the answers to and, more importantly, I think Harry also needs this information.

I don't question that there are questions that are left unanswered, I even mentioned some of them. Rather my comment should be seen in relation to the build-up of tension or suspense (I'm not sure which is the most appropriate in English here the Danish word I need can translate into both). During the book, there is what appears a careful built-up about the story of Dumbledore's blackened hand where we are led to believe that the story behind the blackening will be of tremendous importance in any number of ways, but when we finally do get the story, it is incidental and wholly disappointing when considering the build-up. I do not believe that all that build-up is for a revelation in book 7 it doesn't feel like building up for something to come later, and it would not, IMO, fit Rowling's usual style of writing. I rather think that this is a simple uncorrected error in the story-arc: the blackened hand was intended to have a major importance (probably the story about it was intended to have a much more central role in the revelations about Horcruxes), but in the end the story changed a bit, but they forgot to tone down the build-up. There has been enough evidence of poor editing in the last three books to justify the assumption that such an error would pass through the editors.

There's been an interesting exchange in the Norwegian paper, Aftenposten, (referred to on the Cauldron EXT [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] where a film director claims that J.K. Rowling is a pseudonym for a carefully instructed group of ghostwriters (yes, really ). The interesting part, however, is mostly in the Norwegian translator's counter arguments, where he, among other things state:

Another thing is that there are suitably many author-technical weaknesses. Rowling is not a good dramaturgist. She doesn't manage to build up a tension-arc [or ‘suspense-arc’ Troels] that holds through a single book or from book to book.

(I've translated as well as I might)

Now, one may agree or disagree with the specifics, but I think the fact remains that Rowling is not all that good at the careful construction of a world or a plot. She is a genius storyteller, and that is what carries the story.

This is not to say that she is hopeless or bad at world-construction or plot-construction: just that these, relatively speaking, are the weakest parts of her authorship, together, according to some critics, to a tendency towards unnecessary linguistic embellishments.

None of this means that we won't see any of the answers we're looking for, but I don't believe that we'll ever see a proper release of the tension that was built in the introduction of Dumbledore's blackened hand.

Regards,

Troels

P.S. I don't know how many, if any, readers will benefit from the original quotation from the Norwegian translator (in Norwegian), but here it is anyway:

En annen ting er at det er sÂpass mange svakheter rent forfatterteknisk. Rowling er ingen god dramaturg. Hun klarer ikke Â bygge opp en spenningskurve som bÊrer gjennom en enkelt bok eller fra bok til bok.

Troels Forchhammer - Dec 2, 2005 8:49 am (#1368 of 2969)

Nearly Legless Mick wrote on Dec 1, 2005 in message #1365

Regarding Marvolo's ring - you are right that we do gradually learn quite a lot about it, and perhaps that is all that we will find out. However there are still several questions that I would like to know the answers to and, more importantly, I think Harry also needs this information.

Yes, and I hope that we'll get at least some of those answers (but then, I'm a self-admitted obsessed geek, so my wishes may not count for all that much )

Nearly Legless Mick: 1) What specifically was the curse that blackened DD's hand?

My impression is that these things ‘are many, varied, ever-changing, and eternal’ as well as ‘unfixed, mutating, indestructible’ What I mean is that I think such curses are custom-made to the specific application, so it's not a matter so much as what, precisely, but rather of how.

Nearly Legless Mick: 2) Could he have avoided this damage?

I think that is the implication of Snape's description to Bellatrix and Narcissa. At least he makes it sound as if the blackened hand is the result of Dumbledore getting older, and in particular his statement that Dumbledore had ‘sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were.’ I think Snape is, in this chapter, for once being truthful, and if he thinks that Dumbledore would once have been able to avoid the damage, then that is enough for me.

Nearly Legless Mick: 3) Was the curse an old curse that had always protected that ring, or was it added by LV as protection for the Horcrux? (Or a combination of both?)

We know that Voldemort had it ‘protected by many powerful enchantments’, but whether this was one of them is impossible to tell.

Nearly Legless Mick: 4) Was DD wearing the ring on that hand at the time, or was he holding his wand in that hand as he attempted to destroy the Horcrux? Or was that hand just where the curse happened to land?

I'd like to know as much as the next man, but I don't think it's going to be important to Harry in any way. Destroying Horcruxes is dangerous, that is the lesson he needs to take away from this.

Nearly Legless Mick: 5) What method did DD use to destroy the Horcrux?

Judging by the destruction of the diary, and the later state of the Ring (the cracked stone), I would say that damaging the Horcrux physically is what it takes. Think of the Horcrux as you would think of the body of a normal person to kill the person you kill the body, and in the same way you should think of ‘killing’ the Horcrux.

Nearly Legless Mick: 6) How did Snape attempt to heal the damage?

‘Professor Snape knows much more about the Dark Arts than Madam Pomfrey.’ If you mean more than this: what spells did he use etc. I don't think we're ever going to learn. In some situations the unspecified ‘magic’ works best.

Nearly Legless Mick: 7) What other methods may be useful in attempting to destroy other Horcruxes?

Crush it, smelt it, crack it, stab it (shoot it ) or whatever makes sense with that specific Horcrux. Just remember that there's likely to be some protections on it.

Nearly Legless Mick: Cool

What other precautions should be taken when attempting to destroy other Horcruxes?

Good question. I'm tempted to just quote the Boy Scout motto: ‘Be Prepared’

Nearly Legless Mick: I am greedy for info, I admit. Partly for Harry's sake, and partly because I found his private lessons with DD so fascinating. They were amongst my favourite sections of the whole series.

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but I am certainly fascinated with the exposition found in these scenes. I'm often irresolute with respect to this aspect of Rowling's writing, because while it isn't, IMO, among that which she does best, it is nevertheless a part of that which I find most fascinating despite the weaknesses: that of the actual sub-creation.

Nearly Legless Mick: My hunch is that each Horcrux will need a different method to destroy it - I just wish that DD had given Harry more info on this aspect of the subject because the basilisk tooth method is still the only one we know and that's not likely to be possible with any of the other Horcruxes.

Thinking about it, I actually do think that this will prove to be equivalent to killing the body in some way: I.e. physically harming the Horcrux. The problem is, of course, the protections that are on the Horcrux, which may very well prove you right that each will require a new approach.

Nearly Legless Mick: Regarding the other suspected Horcruxes - the founder's items are powerfully magical objects and will probably have their own protection in addition to LV's worst efforts. I hope Harry can find out how to destroy the Horcrux without destroying the artifacts themselves.

I agree on both counts

Nearly Legless Mick: If Nagini has indeed been horcruxed, the danger from her is probably just the obvious one - she's a great big, nasty snake.

.. . over which Lord Voldemort has an uncanny level of control. And I saw somebody claim somewhere (very precise, isn't it ) that Nagini must be a magical species, which, if true, probably won't make it easier for Harry to kill her.

Nearly Legless Mick: It doesn't seem likely to me, but I am holding a faint hope that some of LV's Horcruxes may have failed. He doesn't completely understand them himself (I.e. - unaware initially that Diary Horcrux was destroyed, later said "it appears some of my experiments worked" in the GOF Graveyard scene, as if he had some doubts about them).

There is a possibility that he was referring to his Horcruxes simply as one such experiment, and that he had also tried other ways of attaining immortality (some of which he were more open about), but there's a bit of explaining left to do on these points for Rowling, and I surely do hope she'll get around to it (if not in book 7, then at least somewhere else). I like the idea that some of the Horcruxes may have failed, though as you do, I doubt it to be the case: Lord Voldemort seems simply too accomplished for that.

Regards,

Troels

me and my shadow 813 - Dec 2, 2005 2:15 pm (#1369 of 2969)

Regarding Nagini, I posted earlier about her activity during the "resurrection" scene at graveyard. I'd love to hear others' ideas on what the heck she was doing. Don't have book, but in a nutshell -- just as Wormtail put Vold into the cauldron, Nagini slithered away into the trees. She doesn't reappear until Vold emerged in body, then it says she slithered back towards the cauldron. I found this very strange, given it was a crucial moment for Vold. Is she losing interest? Is Vold losing his power over her? Any thoughts?

Nathan Zimmermann - Dec 2, 2005 2:58 pm (#1370 of 2969)

A question is it possible that the opal necklace that poisoned Katie Bell a Horcrux?

Choices - Dec 2, 2005 7:21 pm (#1371 of 2969)

I think Dumbledore would have known if it was - magic leaves traces. Also, why would Voldemort knowingly let one of his soul bits (Horcrux) find it's way into the house of the enemy? I believe he thinks they are all very carefully hidden away and unlikely to fall into enemy hands. We don't even know where that necklace is now. It may still be in Snape's office - didn't McGonagall tell Filch to take it there?

haymoni - Dec 2, 2005 8:21 pm (#1372 of 2969)

The necklace has been mentioned three times.

Once in COS and then twice in HBP - when Hermione sees it in the shop and again when Katie touches it.

COS & HBP were linked.

It seems odd to me that the necklace appears in both books.

JKR says some of us may be able to pick up on one of the Horcruxes.

Maybe the necklace is it.

RoseMorninStar - Dec 2, 2005 11:01 pm (#1373 of 2969)

Me and My Shadow, I too found Nagini's actions odd... and interesting. But I have no idea what they might mean. I guess it could range from something very interesting and sinister to behaving almost like a watchdog to looking for something to kill & eat.

Next time I read that I will have to give it more thought.

CatherineHermiona - Dec 3, 2005 7:04 am (#1374 of 2969)

I think each Horcrux would give Voldemort different shape. As this one that Voldemort is in now is probably one of later maiden Horcruxes, when he already lost his humanity a lot and was pretty ugly. Me personally would like more if the diary Horcrux became Voldemort. Probably wouldn't be so disgusting as he is this way.

Kate

HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 6, 2005 10:53 am (#1375 of 2969)

Regarding the Harry Horcrux theory, some people feel as though DD would have deduced this by now. Didn't DD say, though, that when he makes mistakes, they're big ones?

Josh Edwards - Dec 6, 2005 7:12 pm (#1376 of 2969)

I'm not sure about Harry being a Horcrux. Consider: why would Voldemort want to kill Harry if he's a Horcrux? It just doesn't fit. If Harry is a Horcrux, I think Voldemort did it unknowingly--which I find difficult to believe. I think if you're going to transfer part of your soul to something then you know it when you do it.

I have also heard it said that Harry's scar is proof that he's a Horcrux--except that none of the other Horcruxes have any distinguishing marks (that we know of) simply because they were made Horcruxes.

Also, the Horcruxes have to be something Voldemort considers worthy, more like a trophy. Dumbledore is pretty certain of this. I don't know that Harry is a trophy (although I guess it's possible that some item of Harry's might be--I just don't know that Voldemort thinks very highly of him).

Finally, why is everyone so sure that Voldemort would have six Horcruxes? Yes, he mentioned the power of the number seven, and splitting himself into sevenths would mean there are six items--I follow that. But maybe he hasn't found six items he wants to use? Maybe he never completed this goal before he ran into baby-Harry? I'm just saying it may not be the case that there are six things out there...yet.

hawick girl - Dec 6, 2005 8:41 pm (#1377 of 2969)

I think that the main argument is that Jo has said that DD is "never very far from the mark" and He says that Voldie went to GH to make the last Horcrux, and later Frank Bryce is used to make Nagini into one. He gave a list of probable/likely Horcruxes.

Troels Forchhammer - Dec 12, 2005 4:28 am (#1378 of 2969)

hawick girl wrote on Dec 6, 2005 in message #1377

I think that the main argument is that Jo has said that DD is "never very far from the mark" and He says that Voldie went to GH to make the last Horcrux, and later Frank Bryce is used to make Nagini into one.

Yes, but not only that; she has carefully explained precisely what kind of mistakes Dumbledore does make: emotional mistakes.

JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things. He’s always the one who gives, he’s always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second in command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that.

TLC/MN interview 2005-07-16, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And we also have her statement elsewhere that ‘Dumbledore knows pretty much everything anyway’[1], and that she often uses Dumbledore when she has something to tell the readers. This is particularly true in the long expository passages that have usually come in the end, but which, in HBP, was moved up to chapter 23 ‘Horcruxes’ for natural reasons.

In fact, I am willing to make a prediction: at no time will there be a truth that is in direct contrast to something Dumbledore has said in exposition to Harry. Obviously Dumbledore doesn't tell Harry everything, but what he does tell is True and will not in any way be contradicted by later revelations (this does not cover such mistakes as e.g. referring to Harry and Hermione as ‘two thirteen-year-old wizards’ when Hermione was in fact fourteen at the time). What I am referring to is the details of the plot and the working of magic and the magical community in Potterverse nothing Dumbledore has said in exposition about any of these will be contradicted (always excepting the ‘emotional mistakes’ as per Rowling's explanation of Dumbledore's character).

hawick girl: He gave a list of probable/likely Horcruxes.

And we will see that he has the number right (though there is a possibility that Voldemort will replace the diary Horcrux, or seek to do it), and that those he has listed are correct, regardless of whether he lists them as definite or as a guess.

Regards,

Troels

[1] From the DVD interview on Chamber of Secrets: EXT: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

hawick girl - Dec 13, 2005 7:19 pm (#1379 of 2969)

I feel like being a Devil's Advocate here because we haven't had much to 'thrash out' on this thread lately.

I wonder if a plant could be Horcrux-ed? What would happen at the end of summer? Had it been 'passed on' to the seeds, or would it go dormant for the winter, or in the case of an annual, gone when the plant dies? What happens if Nagini reproduces? My gut says that she would retain the Voldie-essence, but could it be given away if the Horcrux was an animate being? Just some things to mull over.

Bekah

Madame Pomfrey - Dec 14, 2005 6:41 am (#1380 of 2969)

Although I don't know about plants being Horcruxes, I've often wondered about Dumbledores comment to the Dursleys about the Agapanthus flourishing being that agapanthus are also referred to as "Lily of the Nile."

Soul Search - Dec 15, 2005 4:34 pm (#1381 of 2969)

Something occurred to me. Tom Riddle wasn't the first to employ a Horcrux. He might have been the first to use multiple Horcruxes, but he learned of Horcruxes at Hogwarts, Slughorn knew of them, and, no doubt, there are books about Horcruxes among the thousands in the RoR storeroom.

So, who used Horcruxes, before Tom Riddle?

Most likely, the dark wizard Grindelwald, that Dumbledore "defeated" in 1945. I always wondered about the use of the word "defeat," rather than killed, or something.

We know that killing a wizard that has made a Horcrux doesn't destroy him; he can come back. So, the use of "defeat" must mean that Dumbledore first destroyed his Horcrux, then him.

Question is, how does this help Harry in his quest?

HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 16, 2005 2:21 pm (#1382 of 2969)

Well, perhaps if Big V isn't human enough to die, he isn't human enough to live once all of his Horcruxes have been destroyed.

TomProffitt - Dec 20, 2005 4:29 am (#1383 of 2969)

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but Nagini can't have been made a Horcrux prior to GOF. If he(it) had, we would have seen it Priori Incanto at Riddle Sr's grave.

Troels Forchhammer - Dec 20, 2005 8:09 am (#1384 of 2969)

There were several spells that wasn't explicitly mentioned during the Priori Incantatem effect, so don't attempt to infer anything from that. Rowling was not ready for us to get a good clue about Horcruxes, and thus Harry conveniently missed the appearance of the Horcrux-creating spell (at least that is a convenient explanation which also covers the other missing spells).

Regards,

Troels

me and my shadow 813 - Dec 21, 2005 7:00 pm (#1385 of 2969)

I hadn't thought of this literally, but in JKR interview below she alludes to the idea that each Horcrux soul piece takes Voldy’s "shape" from the time period the Horcrux was made, which means Harry will have to face something similar to CoS with the other four...

"MA: Someone put it to me last night, that if Ginny, with the diary -

JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul, you saw it take shape, you saw it destroyed, it’s gone. And Ginny is definitely in no way possessed by Voldemort."

I wonder if each soul piece can direct obstacles like the basilisk at Harry, so that he isn't only facing the curse on the object itself but the form or "shape" of Vold and the environment in which they find themselves..... Wish we could have heard DD's story about the ring.

Esther Rose - Dec 22, 2005 9:51 am (#1386 of 2969)

Thanks Me and my shadow 813,

Now I am wondering if you have to destroy the Horcrux's in the order they were created. It seems that at the moment this is what has been done so far.

The diary took shape of young Voldemort. Does this indicate that it was the first Horcrux? We have no idea what shape if any the ring Horcrux took but my guess is that it was the second Horcrux and that one looked similar to the Voldemort that visited Morfin. Would the third Horcrux look like the Voldemort that visited Hepzibah Smith? Was this the reason we were taken back in time? Do we need to see what Voldemort looked like after each Horcrux was made? (at least the ones he could make before he became Vapormort.)

This is a chilling thought since it would mean the locket Horcrux has not been destroyed yet.

me and my shadow 813 - Dec 22, 2005 10:56 am (#1387 of 2969)

Esther Rose, I think we'd be safe in guessing the locket at #12GP is the Horcrux locket. You're right, we're led to believe young Tom's first experience with killing was Myrtle, then his parents, so it does seem we're going in order so far... I sure hope Harry doesn't *have to* do it in order. Maybe he could collect them all, wrap them in a cloth to protect his skin, and toss them into Mount Doom...

frogface - Dec 22, 2005 2:45 pm (#1388 of 2969)

I can already see Kreacher throwing himself in after them screaming "my precious locket...my precious"

Choices - Dec 22, 2005 5:55 pm (#1389 of 2969)

Oops, wrong book there frogface. LOL

Finn BV - Dec 24, 2005 6:24 pm (#1390 of 2969)

So, I never post on this thread () but so much for the Sorting Hat: JKR Official Site.

Choices - Dec 24, 2005 6:29 pm (#1391 of 2969)

JKR is knocking down the rumors, isn't she. Hope she at least leaves us a few theories to wonder about while we await book 7 - first she shoots down Petunia and now the Sorting Hat.

Troels Forchhammer - Dec 25, 2005 4:04 am (#1392 of 2969)

Petunia and the Sorting Hat were good ideas initially, but given the statements and hints in books and chats, they were becoming increasingly dubious, IMO. Once more Rowling is cutting off those unproductive lines of investigation and discussion: the directions that just don't lead anywhere. Better that so that we can concentrate our efforts where they have a chance of leading somewhere.

If Gryffindor's Sword were safe from having been made a Horcrux, then we ought to have known that the same would apply for the Sorting Hat.

Personally I am fairly sure that the last Horcrux (probably a Ravenclaw artifact) will be something we have never seen before or, if we have seen it, it will have been mentioned only in passing (like Sirius Black in PS) so that there are no clues to it at all. I'd put the odds at 50-50, and shrug off the guessing game as pointless at this point.

Regards,

Troels

TomProffitt - Dec 25, 2005 2:17 pm (#1393 of 2969)

I never thought the Sorting Hat would be a Horcrux. I just thought its personality would have been corrupted if that had been done. It would have been obvious to Dumbledore(and not just to us readers).

Solitaire - Dec 26, 2005 10:34 am (#1394 of 2969)

Something about Horcruxes came up on the Metamorphmagus thread, and I decided to copy the main part of my post over here, where it belonged.

I keep wondering how Harry could be a Horcrux. Wouldn't Voldemort have to actually be alive in order to put the part of the soul he split off into the "object" he had chosen as the Horcrux? He certainly wouldn't have put the part(s) of soul he lost from killing Lily or James into Harry, if he was planning to kill Harry immediately after he killed them ... right? That would have meant deliberately destroying one of the parts of his soul. Since he didn't actually kill anyone with his attempt on Harry--and so could not have "split" his soul at that time--I can't understand how Harry could have been made a Horcrux at that time. Can someone explain?

Looking at the above, I have begun to wonder ... exactly how many people did Voldemort kill before he killed the Potters? If his soul split every single time he killed someone--even before he was vaporized--wouldn't we have a lot more than seven Horcruxes? Or is that why he created the DE squad ... to take care of any additional murders for him, so that the perfect number of seven would not be diluted?

Also, would all of the Horcruxes have had to be created before his vaporization? Or do some feel he has been creating them since his rebirth? Since learning about them, I've felt that they had to be created beforehand, and that the part of the soul that remained in him was destroyed when he attempted to kill Harry--and he was only "living" through the Horcruxes that are still intact. Confusing? Yeah, I know ...

I apologize if all of this has been discussed before ...

Solitaire

Weeny Owl - Dec 26, 2005 1:17 pm (#1395 of 2969)

This is how I see it, but who knows exactly how JKR sees it.

Murdering someone and having your soul split is different than creating a Horcrux from said split.

I don't know if JKR feels that a split soul can ever heal, but even with the splits, it takes a deliberate choice to create a Horcrux because the split portion has to be encased in something else. Just killing someone and having your soul split won't create a Horcrux.

Think of it as a text file. You have a whole file. It's complete. One day you decide to edit it and divide it. You now have two half-files, but they're still on the same computer. It's possible that they could merge again into one file, but instead, you deliberately choose to keep the split complete and transfer one of the half-files to a floppy. You have to make the choice to do the transfer. A deliberate choice.

If Voldemort has killed dozens of people, his soul might be completely tattered, but it wasn't until he made the choice of removing part of it that he created a Horcrux. He can keep killing people and having what's left of the soul within him torn, but it will still be within him.

Solitaire - Dec 26, 2005 2:10 pm (#1396 of 2969)

I understand what you mean about the Horcruxes needing to be specifically intended and created. I am curious, though--and it will take Jo's explanation, to be sure--about what happens when additional murders are committed. Does only the soul remaining within the individual continue to split, or does the entire soul split equally, making the amount of soul within each Horcrux continue to grow smaller and smaller, with each murder committed?

Whew! How's that for a confused question? I can't wait to find out more about the whole Horcrux issue. I hope Jo addresses it on her site, and we do not have to wait until the last book to find out more.

Solitaire

Choices - Dec 26, 2005 6:17 pm (#1397 of 2969)

Good question - I tend to think that once a soul bit is encased in an object to create a Horcrux, that bit of soul remains the same from then on or until it is destroyed. I think it is only the soul that remains in Voldemort (or whoever) that is affected by any new murder he commits.

Solitaire - Dec 27, 2005 12:06 am (#1398 of 2969)

If that is the case, then there can't be much soul left in Voldemort. It makes me wonder ... if all the Horcruxes were destroyed, would there even be enough of him left to kill?

Consider this ... What if the bit of soul that remained within him turns out to have been destroyed the night he attempted to AK Harry? What if that is why he was vaporized? Then, what if he used one of the Horcruxes to help restore himself? After all, wasn't that the reason for creating the Horcruxes in the first place ... so that he could not be killed?

Solitaire

Choices - Dec 27, 2005 10:39 am (#1399 of 2969)

Solitaire - "What if the bit of soul that remained within him turns out to have been destroyed the night he attempted to AK Harry?"

But we were told that the soul bit in Voldemort flew away and lived in a forest inhabiting small animals, snakes, etc. It was only his body that was destroyed. If the soul bit AND his body were destroyed, what was left to get one of the Horcruxes and use the soul bit in it to restore himself?

I liken Voldemort's soul to a piece of cloth. It starts out whole and with each murder, a strip of that cloth (one seventh of it) is torn off and encased in a Horcrux. Voldemort murders six times and creates six Horcruxes, retaining the last one seventh of his soul himself.

Solitaire - Dec 27, 2005 1:16 pm (#1400 of 2969)

Were we? I do not remember the particular scene or book (nothing new ... I frequently forget things). Or did Jo tell us in an interview?

Solitaire

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:41 pm

Mrs Brisbee - Dec 27, 2005 1:56 pm (#1401 of 2969)

This might help, it's Dumbledore talking to Harry right after they have been in the Pensieve to see Slughorn's memory:

"But firstly, no, Harry, not seven Horcruxes: six. The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his body. That was the part of him that lived a spectral existence for so many years during his exile; without that, he has no self at all. That seventh piece of soul will be the last that anybody wishing to kill Voldemort must attack-- the piece that lives in his body." ( Chapter 23, "Horcruxes", HBP)

The six Horcruxes with their respective soulbits are acting like tethers, it seems, keeping his main soul earthbound. The tethers need to be destroyed first if anyone wants Voldemort's main soul to go flying off on the next great adventure.

Solitaire - Dec 27, 2005 2:22 pm (#1402 of 2969)

Thanks, Mrs. B.

Choices - Dec 27, 2005 6:32 pm (#1403 of 2969)

I think the scene I am thinking of was in GOF in the graveyard when Voldemort tells them what happened to him after the AK backfired - he says he was ripped from his body - he was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost. I believe he was speaking of the soul bit that left his body and had to inhabit small animals, snakes, etc. to survive until he could regain a human body to house that soul bit. He refers to the soul bit as HIMSELF - he says "I WAS less than spirit..... ." So the bit that escaped his mortal body contained his essence - his SELF.

Verbina - Dec 27, 2005 6:38 pm (#1404 of 2969)

It also seems to me that that last bit of Voldemort's soul, the twisted piece within his body, would be...for want of a better way to say it...pure concentrated Voldemort. That piece of soul has gone through everything and learned from everything. The piece that was in the diary only had experience in life and learned from mistakes while it was part of Voldemort. Diary Tom never went through the years after Hogwarts or the attack on the Potters. The piece within Voldemort has experienced it all.

Solitaire - Dec 27, 2005 6:43 pm (#1405 of 2969)

"less than spirit" ...

It is precisely the wording of that passage, Choices, which has made me wonder if, technically--had their been no Horcruxes in the picture to prevent it--Voldemort was dead. It really sounds that way to me.

Solitaire

Soul Search - Dec 28, 2005 7:49 am (#1406 of 2969)

Thanks, Mrs Brisbee, for that quote. Reading it, I think I picked up on something I had missed on previous reads. This part ...

"That seventh piece of soul will be the last that anybody wishing to kill Voldemort must attack -- the piece that lives in his body."

It reads like Harry must destroy the remaining four Horcruxes, then Voldemort's body, THEN the last soul bit now in Voldemort's body. NO soul bit can be released to "go on;" Voldemort must be completely destroyed!

His evil soul would contaminate the "go on" existence, as well, and so must be destroyed.

TomProffitt - Dec 28, 2005 12:48 pm (#1407 of 2969)

"... had their been no Horcruxes in the picture to prevent it--Voldemort was dead." --- Solitaire

I think you are quite right. If at any point prior to the consumption of unicorn blood the Horcruxes had been destroyed I think it would have been the end as well. I'm not sure if it was the unicorn blood or the rebodification in GoF that "anchored" Tom Riddle back in the world, but one of those events did the trick.

That thought had been bothering me for a while. I was wondering why it was that bit of soul, the one from the original body that continued on after the AK backfired. I had been wondering why it wasn't one of the Horcruxes that joined with Quirrell.

I'm guessing now, that that part which affixed itself to Quirrell was the part that would have become a ghost. (Because if anyone is afraid of crossing over it has to be Tom Riddle, and won't that be a fun resident ghost at Hogwarts for Ginny's final year.)

HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 28, 2005 1:29 pm (#1408 of 2969)

What I gathered regarding the Horcruxes is that the part residing in Big V is the part with an awareness. The other parts are passive tethers - anchoring Big V and certainly keeping him from death, but without any type of awareness of real existence on their own. The anchors need to be cut (destroyed) before the aware part of Big V's soul can be destroyed.

Solitaire, without these soul bits anchoring him, yes, it certainly seems as though he would have died at GH. If he was less than the meanest ghost (whatever he means by that), my interpretation of that is that he had split his soul and was less than a whole spirit.

His body had been destroyed and he had to sustain himself in another's body first by drinking unicorn blood, then his own by the spell in GoF. As far as I can tell, he has not yet mastered an immortal body.

Weeny Owl - Dec 28, 2005 9:20 pm (#1409 of 2969)

Ghosts aren't corporeal in JKR's world, but they do have an essence of some sort in order to be able to talk and to be visible.

Perhaps as HungarianHorntail said, with his soul split, he was less than a whole spirit and couldn't do what a whole spirit could do under normal circumstances.

Troels Forchhammer - Dec 30, 2005 2:23 am (#1410 of 2969)

Addressing various points in recent posts. ..

Verbina wrote on Dec 27, 2005 in message #1404

[...] The piece within Voldemort has experienced it all.

Yes. I do suspect, however, that that is the only immanent difference between that and the other soul-bits. The other differences are due to the remaining soul-bits being encased in their Horcruxes, and unable to do anything much about it (I consider the diary to be unique in this respect). You might say that I consider any two soul-bits to be interchangeable, except for the memories and life-experience they possess.

Solitaire wrote on Dec 27, 2005 in message #1405

[...], had their been no Horcruxes in the picture to prevent it--Voldemort was dead. It really sounds that way to me.

Yes. I think that was the message already when Rowling stated her two questions:

‘Why didn’t Voldemort die?’ The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn’t he? (JKR at Edinburgh Book Festival, 15 August 2004

The answer to that question is, obviously, now, ‘Horcruxes’.

TomProffitt responded to Solitaire on Dec 28, 2005 in message #1407

I think you are quite right. If at any point prior to the consumption of unicorn blood the Horcruxes had been destroyed I think it would have been the end as well. I'm not sure if it was the unicorn blood or the rebodification in GoF that "anchored" Tom Riddle back in the world, but one of those events did the trick.

I don't think it is clear how things go. It may be that the Horcruxes only need to work at the time of the ‘killing’ of the body. Dumbledore's statement, which Soul Search also quoted, might imply as much.

‘[...]. That seventh piece of soul will be the last that anybody wishing to kill Voldemort must attack the piece that lives in his body. ‘

(HBP ch. 23 ‘Horcruxes’)

The suggestion is that the soul-piece in the body must be attacked last, which again implies that it wouldn't work to first kill the body, and then go about destroying the Horcruxes: which suggests that the last soul-piece would still live on even if the last Horcrux was destroyed while it was in its spectral state.

At the moment, I don't think we can come to a final conclusion on this Rowling is rarely as precise and her details rarely as consistent as we might wish, so she could still go both ways.

It would, however, seem easier to kill Voldemort first and then go about destroying Horcruxes without the threat of an attack by Voldemort, so if Harry doesn't do it that way, I think that something must be rendering it ineffective, and all that I can come up with is the above scenario (which may speak more to my lack of imagination than to anything else )

Finally, Weeny Owl wrote on Dec 28, 2005 in message #1409

Ghosts aren't corporeal in JKR's world, but they do have an essence of some sort in order to be able to talk and to be visible.

Ghosts are not the actual soul of a dead person in Potterverse. Despite the suggestive comments by Sir Nicholas in OotP, he did get it right, when he said that ‘Wizards can leave an imprint of themselves upon the earth.’ It is most clearly stated by Snape, though

A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth

(HBP ch. 21 ‘The Unknowable Room’)

Rowling also alluded to this in her FAQ:

[...] think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve in ‘Goblet of Fire’, the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts walking around Hogwarts, the portraits of dead headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office, not to mention Mrs. Black's portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place. .. there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one.

Here ghosts are put in the same category as the other, which are clearly not containing a soul, but which are merely some kind of magically conserved memory of a person. As Snape's explanation in HBP shows, that applies to ghosts as well.

Regards,

Troels

Soul Search - Dec 30, 2005 6:28 am (#1411 of 2969)

Seems a bit inconsistent regarding ghosts. The quotes by Sir Nicholas and Snape say "imprint," but Sir Nicholas's explanation to Harry at the end of OotP says the person's soul did not "go on."

My read is that the dead person's soul is still around, separate from the ghost imprint.

Troels Forchhammer - Dec 30, 2005 7:00 am (#1412 of 2969)

Actually if you read it, Sir Nicholas says nothing about soul or spirit. What he says is,

‘I was afraid of death,’ said Nick softly. ‘I chose to remain behind. I sometimes wonder whether I oughtn't to have. .. well, that is neither here nor there. .. in fact, I am neither here nor there. . .’ He gave a small sad chuckle. ‘I know nothing of the secrets of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble imitation of life instead. I believe learned wizards study the matter in the Department of Mysteries.’

(OotP ch. 38 ‘The Second War Begins’)

All he refers to is himself, I.e. the existence he has, which he has already described as leaving an imprint behind. Obviously this imprint has no knowledge about what happened to the soul, since it was left behind at the time when the soul was departing.

I think it is quite clear that the soul of a ghost has passed on, as Snape says, and that a ghost is nothing more (or less) than another kind of magical recording of the personality of a dead person.

Regards,

Troels

Soul Search - Dec 30, 2005 8:00 am (#1413 of 2969)

Troels,

Thanks for the quote. It seems to leave the question of "soul" open. Since Nick says "I chose to remain behind" I took the "I" to mean the essence of the person, the soul, and, since it did not "go on," must be around somewhere.

Weeny Owl - Dec 30, 2005 9:15 am (#1414 of 2969)

Ghosts are not the actual soul of a dead person in Potterverse.

I didn't say that ghosts were the actual soul. I said that they do have an essence of some sort in order to be able to walk and talk. Voldemort couldn't do that without possessing someone else. That is an explanation of what he meant when he said he was less than a ghost... he couldn't even do the same things a ghost can.

Solitaire - Dec 30, 2005 9:57 am (#1415 of 2969)

The ghosts do seem to have a sort of consciousness, or an awareness that allows them to interact with what is happening. Remember that Peeves offered information to Dumbledore about the Fat Lady the night Sirius Black slashed her painting and she left it. Also, Dumbledore asked Percy to send one of the ghosts with a message if there was any disturbance in the Great Hall--where all the students had been sequestered that night. And NHN had enough "essence" that he was able to be petrified by the Basilisk in CoS, something I found rather odd.

I have often wondered if Voldemort, minus his soul, would be like a Dementor.

Solitaire

Choices - Dec 30, 2005 11:24 am (#1416 of 2969)

I thought the whole thing about a person choosing to stay behind as a ghost was that their soul does not cross over or go on. If the soul went on to the "next great adventure" and the person also stayed on earth as a ghost, that would be like having your cake and eating it too. I believe either you choose to go on - your body is dead and your spirit or soul leaves the earth and enters "heaven" - or you choose to remain on earth - your body is dead and your soul/spirit stays causing a silvery/transparent shape to form resembling your earthly body - a ghostly image of your former self. The whole point was that Nearly Headless Nick was fearful of death - fearful of the great beyond, so his spirit chose to stay on earth and not cross over.

Aurora Gubbins - Jan 4, 2006 2:31 am (#1417 of 2969)

...back to Horcruxes.

I can't help but wonder where TR found out about Horcruxes. He needed to have discovered something about them in order to consider the possibility of making more than one. Was it something to do with the screaming book in the Restricted Section of the school library? I don't think the book itself would be an LV Horcrux because Jo said it wouldn't attract attention to itself - as this book does. It could however be something to do with how they are made and, consequently, how they can be destroyed.

The other thing playing on my mind is that Jo's website is, by her own admission, a jumble of clues; the hair band is a ring shape, I think the key represents the locket, we see an image of the Trophy Room displaying Tom Riddle's award (I still think this is a Horcrux, but am quite likely to be wrong), Jo has a diary on her front page, we have a library with an array of books...

If HRH can figure out how to open the screaming book, they may be able to find out how to locate and destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes. Maybe there's a simple trick to opening it - like with the Monster Book of Monsters?

schoff - Jan 4, 2006 3:08 am (#1418 of 2969)

If HRH can figure out how to open the screaming book, they may be able to find out how to locate and destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes.

HBP US Ch 23 p 496

"No...well...you'd be hard pressed to find a book at Hogwarts that'll give you details on Horcruxes, Tom, that's very Dark stuff, very dark stuff indeed," said Slughorn.

Riddle may have come across the word in the library, but not much more, so I don't think it would help HRH either. That's also assuming that DD or Slughorn didn't remove the books once they realized what Riddle had done.

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 4, 2006 5:33 am (#1419 of 2969)

I thought it had something to do with Grindelwald, Aurora. Although it is a good idea to pursue every avenue.

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 4, 2006 5:55 am (#1420 of 2969)

Aurora Gubbins wrote on Jan 4, 2006 in message #1417

I can't help but wonder where TR found out about Horcruxes. He needed to have discovered something about them in order to consider the possibility of making more than one. Was it something to do with the screaming book in the Restricted Section of the school library?

I have actually done quite a bit of thinking on the subject of what he knew, though not so much about where from.

Basically I have come to the opinion that Tom, before he approached Professor Slughorn, knew that Horcruxes were devices that would keep you alive by encasing a bit of your soul therein.

This is based on two things.

First the actual scene as Harry sees it in the Pensieve. Harry detects how ‘Riddle wanted the information very, very much; perhaps had been working toward this moment for weeks’, and when Professor Slughorn informs him, ‘Just so that [he] understand[s] the term’, that a ‘Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul’, Riddle reacts with a carefully controlled voice, but clear excitement, ‘I don't quite understand how that works, though, sir.’

This is the point where Tom began to wheedle for new information. Later, as Professor Slughorn becomes increasingly indiscreet, Tom reacts with apparent hunger and visible longing and greed.

Later on, Dumbledore summarises the events, stating that ‘Tom Riddle was doing all he could to find out how to make himself immortal’ and that he ‘particularly wanted [...] an opinion on what would happen to the wizard who created more than one Horcrux.’

The first part of Dumbledore's summary shows that Voldemort did not know how to make a Horcrux, which is supported by the actual memory of the interview (where we see that he does not know how to split his soul, nor how to encase the soul-bit in a Horcrux), while the second part shows that he did know enough to form the idea of creating several Horcruxes.

It is very possible that Tom was quite sure that he would be able to find the details of the creation elsewhere (I have no suggestions as to where, but as Dumbledore told us in CoS, Voldemort ‘sank so deeply into the Dark Arts, consorted with the very worst of our kind’ after leaving Hogwarts, so we might assume that he had some ideas even in his sixth year), but I think it's clear that Slughorn was the only source that was available to him at that point in time.

As to where he would have found out more than what was available in the school library (‘of the Horcrux, wickedest of magical inventions, we shall not speak nor give direction’ though of course more informative books may have been removed from the library in the intervening half century), I do not know. Quite clearly he was good at researching odd information he had found his Gaunt family a year and a half (or possibly just a half year) earlier, and that may even have put him in possession of extra-curricular information.

Regards,

Troels

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 4, 2006 6:59 am (#1421 of 2969)

The only place I would not discount in Hogwarts is the Room of Requirement. We are not quite versed on its bounds.

Solitaire - Jan 4, 2006 7:06 am (#1422 of 2969)

How old was Riddle when he first approached Slughorn about the Horcruxes? When did he make his first one? Didn't he say he wanted to preserve his "15-year-old self" in the Diary? Did he go back and "retrieve" that self later, when he was a few years older, in order to create that Diary? Or did he make the Diary when he was 15? Just wondering ...

Solitaire

Mrs Brisbee - Jan 4, 2006 7:19 am (#1423 of 2969)

Riddle was sixth year when he asked Slughorn about Horcruxes. He had the Gaunt ring, so he had already murdered his father and grandparents, but he was still a Prefect, not Head Boy.

I believe diary Tom was 16. The diary would have run from January 1943(?) to December 1943(?)(We were discussing dates in the Problems With Book Six thread. Actual year is a bit fuzzy). Tom's birthday was on New Year's Eve.

I wonder too when exactly he created the Diary Horcrux. Dumbledore alludes to it being the first, but it seems more likely the Gaunt ring would be, because that would be a trophy that was easy to hide.

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 4, 2006 7:21 am (#1424 of 2969)

Tom was seventeen when he approached Slughorn.

Dumbledore summarises his findings up to (but not including) the Hokey memory as having shown Harry ‘reasonably firm sources of fact for my deductions as to what Voldemort did until the age of seventeen’, where the last source (in terms of Tom's life) is the Slughorn memory, which must then be of a seventeen-years-old Tom.

Also, Dumbledore, after seeing the real memory, speaks about Tom (in the memory) as being of ‘the same age as [Harry was then], give or take a few months,’ which fits well with this being shortly after Tom's seventeenth birthday (New Year's Eve) and a couple of months before Harry's (I guess that it might also have been shortly before Christmas, when Tom was almost seventeen). About the middle of Tom's sixth year at Hogwarts in any case

Tom opened the chamber in his fifth year, and conserved in the diary a memory of his sixteen-years-old self, though I don't think this necessarily means that he was sixteen when he created the diary (I would claim that I, at thirty-nine, still contain the memory of my sixteen-years-old self), and we have no idea how long time there were between his creating the diary and making a Horcrux out of it. On the other hand, it might just as well be that he did create the diary before he turned seventeen, in which case he waited some time before he made a Horcrux of it.

I normally put the Hokey memory at least five years after Tom left Hogwarts (it was ten years from that memory and until he applied for the DADA position to the new Headmaster, Dumbledore), and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he had created his first two Horcruxes only after leaving Hogwarts.

As for when Tom killed the Riddles and obtained the Peverell ring, that is a matter of interpretation. The book (Dumbledore) states ‘in the summer of his sixteenth year’. This is literally when Tom was fifteen (his first year was from his zeroeth to his first birthday), but apparently many, though far from all, British people apply this ‘erroneously’, so we cannot be sure whether Tom was fifteen or sixteen until and unless Rowling tells us specifically (most native English-speakers seem to prefer the interpretation that is natural for themselves. As a non-native speaker, I prefer to use the correct interpretation and note the ambiguity whenever possible).

Regards,

Troels

Solitaire - Jan 4, 2006 10:39 am (#1425 of 2969)

Thanks ... I was curious.

haymoni - Jan 4, 2006 10:43 am (#1426 of 2969)

All this age and date stuff hurts my head.

Figuring out when things happen based on the emergence of the Play Station or when Nicholas Flamel turned 600 just bothers me.

I really don't care what the year is - Harry Potter seems pretty timeless to me.

It's just confusing to use phrases like "in his 16th year" - just tell me how old somebody is and get on with the story!!!

It's Tonks - Jan 4, 2006 10:44 am (#1427 of 2969)

Hmmm...where did TR learn about Horcruxes? Draco mentioned that Lucius wanted him to go to a different school that "actually taught the Dark Arts..." but that his mom wanted him to stay closer to home. Just how deeply into the Dark Arts would a school teach? Just because DD won't have any mention of them at Hogwarts doesn't mean all Headmasters are as noble. Would they draw the line at teaching Horcruxes? Could TR have visited a different school and used the restricted section of their library? I know that each school's location is supposedly secret but he was a pretty powerful wizard and might have been able to locate it. Just a thought. Seems JKR just slipped that bit of info into the story, maybe it will have more meaning in the HP7?

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 4, 2006 10:47 am (#1428 of 2969)

I initially believed that the diary was Riddle's first Horcrux. I believe this because it was the first one shown, but also, TR was set on continuing Salazar’s work, which became secondary once he decided on setting his goal on immortality. When Riddle stole the Peverell ring, I think he was sorry he hadn't used that instead of the diary, because it did have special meaning to him. This is what I believe sparked the idea of more than one Horcrux, (not moving the one from the diary, but rather, creating more than one) which prompted him to approach Slughorn. The timeline seems to fit this line of thinking, but I wouldn't bet the house on it!

Solitaire - Jan 4, 2006 12:33 pm (#1429 of 2969)

HH, I think that conclusion makes sense ...

Maud Merryweather - Jan 4, 2006 12:40 pm (#1430 of 2969)

I’m sorry if this was discussed earlier and I’m changing the current subject of conversation by bringing up old stuff; the idea came to me after the poll on JKR’s site.

So: the Philosopher’s Stone gives you immortality if drunken regularly and it can also provide you with a body. A Horcrux conceals a fragment of your soul within a magical object. If you were in need of your fragment of soul, I suppose you can take it back from the Horcrux. This would not normally be done, but after the killing curse rebounded on Voldemort, JKR offers the possibility of him using one of the Horcruxes he had made previously, instead of using the Stone. Dumbledore mentions nothing of this possibility in HBP. My question is whether a Horcrux could provide you with a body of flesh and bone (apart from the fact that it gives back a part of your soul). Apparently the Stone can.

What do you think ?

Choices - Jan 4, 2006 6:32 pm (#1431 of 2969)

Something called the Elixir of Life is made using the Philosopher's Stone. The Elixir is what one drinks and they must already have a body - the Elixir does not give one a body, it only extends their life for as long as they take the Elixir. When Dumbledore destroyed Flamel's Philosopher's Stone in book one, Flamel and his wife continued to take the Elixir until it was gone, and then they died. Dumbledore said it lasted long enough for them to get their affairs in order.

I think when Voldemort was killed, the piece of soul in his body flew off and hid in a distant forest, inhabiting small creatures, snakes, etc. Then Voldemort ran across Quirrell and took up residence on the back of Quirrell's head. Later of course, Voldemort had a rebirth and got a new body with a little help from his "friends" and relative. It is believed that the Horcruxes he had created were what kept his soul earthbound. Without them, his soul would have flown off to the "next great adventure". The Horcruxes are what keeps the soul viable and earthbound until a new body can be obtained. Voldemort could not have used the Philosopher's Stone because he never got it. It was in a vault at Gringotts and Quirrell failed to steal it for Voldemort. So, using the Stone was never an option. The Stone was taken to Hogwarts for safekeeping and at the end, after Quirrell died and Harry had the Stone, Dumbledore got it and destroyed it. Dumbledore had placed a charm on the Stone to ensure that only someone who wanted to find the Stone, find it but not use it, could find it. Harry fit the requirement and found the Stone. So, without the Stone, Voldemort had to go to Plan B, so to speak. He used Horcruxes to hide bits of his soul so that if anything happened to him, he would not die. When the AK backfired, Voldemort's body died, but the piece of his soul was spared because of the Horcruxes. The rest is history - we know at the end of GOF he held the rebirthing party in the graveyard and now ..... He's back!!!

TomProffitt - Jan 4, 2006 6:51 pm (#1432 of 2969)

Very nice summation. That's pretty much how I had things figured.

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 5, 2006 1:13 am (#1433 of 2969)

haymoni wrote on Jan 4, 2006 in message #1426

All this age and date stuff hurts my head.

I have a strong suspicion that you share that with Rowling

haymoni: Figuring out when things happen based on the emergence of the Play Station or when Nicholas Flamel turned 600 just bothers me.

I really don't care what the year is - Harry Potter seems pretty timeless to me.

Bravo!

I really think that that is the way we should read it. Obviously doing the maths and the autistic detailed analysis doesn't bother me all that much, but the more I do of it, the more certain I am that it not only doesn't matter, but it actually detracts from the story.

It is becoming increasingly likely, in my opinion, that Rowling does not have a clear and detailed time-line for e.g. Tom Riddle's early years (until, say, twenty-five) in place, and that events are all ‘about then’.

But why do I bother about it then, you might reasonably ask? I'm weird, that's why Once I get a feeling of inconsistency, this elusive hunch that something isn't completely right, then I have to dive in and get all details under control in order to find out just exactly where that nagging feeling comes from. Only when I have done that can I once more go back and enjoy the story, ignoring any odd feelings.

haymoni: It's just confusing to use phrases like "in his 16th year" - just tell me how old somebody is and get on with the story!!!

LOL! The problem is that people don't agree on how old exactly that somebody is but if we can just say ‘fifteen or sixteen’, then there'll be no problem (Other, of course, than that those of us who care about it won't know whether it was before or after he opened the chamber. My problem is that I can't help caring, while I, at the same time, am convinced that not caring is not only the best thing, but also helps you understand the story better: we're like that, sometimes, capable of holding on to two inconsistent feelings/thoughts at once )

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 5, 2006 1:40 am (#1434 of 2969)

Maud Merryweather wrote on Jan 4, 2006 in message #1430

[.. .]

So: the Philosopher’s Stone gives you immortality if drunken regularly and it can also provide you with a body.

Yes. That is the implications of PS. Voldemort, with the help of Quirrell, is desperately trying to get hold of the Philosophers' Stone, because it will help him get a new body. (As Choices points out it is really about the Elixir of Life, which is made by the help of the Stone.)

Maud Merryweather: A Horcrux conceals a fragment of your soul within a magical object.

Yes. That encased soul-piece apparently ‘anchors’ (for lack of a better word) the soul-piece that is in the body in the material world if the body is killed. We do know that the piece of Voldemort's soul that inhabited his body when he went to Godric's Hollow lived on in some kind of spectral existence.

Maud Merryweather: If you were in need of your fragment of soul, I suppose you can take it back from the Horcrux.

I don't think we can say either way whether a soul-piece encased in a Horcrux can normally be retrieved (or even leave the Horcrux). The destruction of the Horcrux seems to destroy also the soul-piece, so that, at least, doesn't work.

Maud Merryweather: This would not normally be done, but after the killing curse rebounded on Voldemort, JKR offers the possibility of him using one of the Horcruxes he had made previously, instead of using the Stone. Dumbledore mentions nothing of this possibility in HBP.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

When Voldemort was hit by the Avada Kedavra!, his body was killed, as would be expected, but due to the existence of his Horcruxes (one would have done the trick), he didn't die: I.e. his soul didn't leave the material plane. This was only made possible by the existence of one or more Horcruxes, and that is the use the wizard can have of his Horcruxes. It doesn't (as I have seen suggested) use up a Horcrux or anything. We do not know whether the Horcruxes are needed beyond the moment of death (of the body), though Dumbledore's comment that the soul-piece in the body must be the last to be attacked can be read to imply that the Horcrux is only needed at the moment of death.

Maud Merryweather: My question is whether a Horcrux could provide you with a body of flesh and bone (apart from the fact that it gives back a part of your soul). Apparently the Stone can.

The Horcrux cannot rebuild a body for you. Voldemort doesn't use any Horcrux when he rebuilt a body in GoF, and the Horcrux-memory in CoS needed to take ‘life’ from Ginny in order to leave the Horcrux and begin to gain substance (I.e. a body). I don't think that it is very well explained what exactly it is he took from Ginny it wasn't her body, obviously, and yet he was capable of becoming sufficiently substantial to actually use Harry's wand, and it is suggested, I think, that he would have become fully corporeal upon Ginny's death. We are possibly talking about some unspecified ‘life-force’ here.

Regards,

Troels

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 5, 2006 1:54 am (#1435 of 2969)

HungarianHorntail11 wrote on Jan 4, 2006 in message #1428

[...] When Riddle stole the Peverell ring, I think he was sorry he hadn't used that instead of the diary, because it did have special meaning to him. [...]. The timeline seems to fit this line of thinking, but I wouldn't bet the house on it!

The time-line is sufficiently unclear to support nearly anything we might come up with

My main problem is that I think Rowling went to some trouble to show us very clearly that Tom did not know how to split his soul, nor how to encase a soul-bit in a Horcrux when he approached Slughorn, which was obviously after he had stolen the Peverell ring.

This, in my opinion, is shown by Tom's increasing excitement (excitement, apparent hunger, greedy expression, obvious hunger) as they begin to discuss these questions to which he doesn't know the answer, and which is much earlier than the discussion about the number of Horcruxes. It is also stated explicitly in Dumbledore's summary afterwards, ‘Tom Riddle was doing all he could to find out how to make himself immortal.’ (my emphasis)

Regards,

Troels

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 5, 2006 8:25 am (#1436 of 2969)

Thanks, Solitaire !

Troels wrote: This, in my opinion, is shown by Tom's increasing excitement (excitement, apparent hunger, greedy expression, obvious hunger) as they begin to discuss these questions to which he doesn't know the answer, and which is much earlier than the discussion about the number of Horcruxes.

Troels, my interpretation of his increasing excitement was that he wanted to get past the "basic part" to the meat of his endeavor, which was multiple Horcruxes. For instance, his questioning specifically aims towards 7, hardly arbitrary. He must have thought this through to have come up with the "most magical number", which would lead me to believe that he had already known the basics. Now he wanted to learn about how far he could push it.

Big V seems a greedy character to me and I can envision him feeling as though he missed out by not using the ring. But let's say the ring came first and then he thought up the enchanted diary idea (though I do think it is the other way around), either way, it is a good catalyst for him to push the limits of Horcruxing'. He wants it all. So, back to my previous post, a light bulb could have gone off and the genius decided to explore the possibility of multiple Horcruxes.

Edit: Sorry, I just reread this post and meant to write boundaries, not bounds.

nts. First, it implies that Harry became a Horcrux without LV’s knowledge. This could have happened unintentionally. I rule this out, as do most contributors here, because making something a Horcrux is said to require a spell. It is unreasonable to suppose a spell was uttered by accident or that LV would afterwards be ignorant of Harry’s state. Well, then perhaps someone else did it? This would suggest the motive of making Harry a ‘booby trap.’ I found the most reasonable suspect to be Snape, and for a while, I was totally convinced of it--the Sectumsempra chapter being the biggest ‘clue.’ But eventually, with the help of other thoughtful contributors on this blog, I think this possibility was discounted to the point of being totally ruled out. As a scenario, I find it interesting and even appealing. It creates a Jacobean set of twists in which Harry ends up betrayed even by Dumbledore. However, I’m convinced it is totally wrong.

I think there is definitely more to these two events, the rebounding curse and DD’s connection with HRH going through the trapdoor, than has been explained. However, I think the connection is through Lily, not through LV. The curse rebounded and her protection ‘lingered,’ because of something very special about Lily. I think those who have suggested that Lily was an unspeakable, are very close to it, and very close to the ultimate resolution of the series.

JILL HUBER- Nov 14, 2005 3:00 pm (#1316 of 2969)

In response to Blot in #1315...I never suggested that Voldemort was the one who made Harry a Horcrux, rather that someone else did as you suggested. One thing we must consider is, how many people have that much knowledge of magic especially dark magic to know how to create a Horcrux...I would say that there would be 2 people who knew for sure: Grindelwald and Dumbledore. Any suggestions as to anyone else who may have known?

Choices - Nov 14, 2005 6:15 pm (#1317 of 2969)

Jill - Are you suggesting that perhaps someone else made Harry a Horcrux, but they used a piece of Voldemort's soul to do it? The complexity of that piece of business boggles the mind. How does one get a piece of someone else's soul in order to make a Horcrux? Is that even possible? Can you explain your idea or point me to where you have previously explained it?

Choices - Jan 5, 2006 10:56 am (#1437 of 2969)

Maud - "So: the Philosopher’s Stone gives you immortality if drunken regularly and it can also provide you with a body."

Troels - "Yes. That is the implications of PS."

Troels - could you point me to the line that says the Elixir of Life or the Philosopher's Stone can provide one with a new body? I was not under the impression that drinking the Elixir could create a body for the drinker. I thought the drinker only obtained immortality by drinking the Elixir and remained immortal for as long as he/she continued to drink it. Please point me to where it says the Elixir can also give the drinker a new body. It would seem logical to assume that in order to drink the Elixir, one would already have to have a body.

Maud Merryweather - Jan 5, 2006 2:19 pm (#1438 of 2969)

Troels, I agree.

Nevertheless, let me rephrase what bothered me: If a Horcrux cannot give you a body (only a soul-piece if that’s possible, but that soul-piece wouldn’t bring a body with itself), then why even ask why Voldemort wanted the Stone, if we already know that the Stone can give you a body. The logical answer would be that Voldemort wanted the Stone for the body which he could not obtain by using a Horcrux. That’s why JKR’s third poll question(‘Why did Voldemort want the Stone if he had already had his Horcruxes ?’) didn’t make sense to me at all, although I hope this post makes sense to you.

Choices, I was under the same impression. The Elixir of Life, made with the help of the Philosopher’s Stone, can make you immortal if you drink it regularly for all eternity. I didn’t think it could give you a new body or anything like that, just prolong your life indefinitely. But I had to think again after reading HBP. Here’s what Dumbledore says:

‘While the Elixir of Life does indeed extend life, it must be drunk regularly, for all eternity, if the drinker is to maintain their immortality. Therefore, Voldemort would be entirely dependent on the Elixir (: ). I believe that he would have found the thought of being dependent, even on the Elixir, intolerable. Of course he was prepared to drink it if it would take him out of the horrible part-life to which he was condemned after attacking you, but only to regain a body. Thereafter, I am convinced, he intended to continue to rely on his Horcruxes: He would need nothing more, if only he could regain a human form.’

Maybe Quirrell was to drink the Elixir and in time Voldemort’s possession would have become complete, annihilating poor Quirrell’s mind, memory, heart, who knows, even soul (if something like this is possible) and he would have been the body Voldemort was so desperate to get.

Esther Rose - Jan 5, 2006 2:32 pm (#1439 of 2969)

This goes a few posts back but as far as how Voldemort found out about Horcrux. He was not given nor did he want the same treatment going into Diagon Ally as Harry did. He went unchaperoned. It would be easy to imagine that Tom Riddle ventured out to Knockturn Ally and mixed in with the dark magic crowd. It's also easy to imagine that Tom would find a way of earning an income there. Even better than that it would be easy to imagine that Tom would be able to buy or attempt to steal dark magic books on his own for some school break reading.

Choices - Jan 5, 2006 6:11 pm (#1440 of 2969)

Dumbledore - "Of course he was prepared to drink it if it would take him out of the horrible part-life to which he was condemned after attacking you, but only to regain a body."

Maud - that is interesting and I'm not entirely sure exactly what Dumbledore meant by that. Nicolas Flamel and his wife are the only two known examples that we have of people who drank the Elixir of Life and it certainly kept them going for a long time. But, as far as we know they both had bodies when they started to drink the Elixir, so that does not tell us anything for sure about the Elixir having the power to create a body. How does a spirit drink the Elixir, and if it is indeed possible for a spirit to drink it, how does the Elixir work to create a human body? That would be very interesting to know. I had always thought that Voldemort wanted the Philosopher's Stone for use after he had a rebirthing and attained a new body. Then he would have made the Elixir of Life and used that indefinitely for immortality. The Horcruxes would be a back up in case the Elixir failed or was contaminated in some way. JKR certainly has not given us much information on how the Philosopher's Stone works exactly, so I guess it is left up to our imaginations.

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 6, 2006 12:58 am (#1441 of 2969)

Good catch, there, Choices, thanks (from HBP ch. 23 ‘Horcruxes’! I was about to make a comment that I said it was the implication, meaning that it wasn't stated specifically (it is implied that if Voldemort gets the Stone, then he will return, and there is never any suggestion that he would need anything else in order to ensure his return; this is strengthened in GoF).

As for how he would have drunk it, given his sorry state, I have no idea. How did they give the mandrake potion to Sir Nicholas in CoS? Through a plot-hole as I've seen suggested?

As for the answer to Rowling's FAQ-question specifically, I think we know all, or most, of what we need.

If we consider the full paragraph from which Choices quoted Dumbledore:

‘While the Elixir of Life does indeed extend life, it must lie drunk regularly, for all eternity, if the drinker is to maintain the immortality. Therefore, Voldemort would be entirely dependant on the Elixir, and if it ran out, or was contaminated, or if the Stone was stolen, he would die just like any other man. Voldemort likes to operate alone, remember. I believe that he would have found the thought of being dependent, even on the Elixir, intolerable. Of course he was prepared to drink it if it would take him out of the horrible part-life to which he was condemned after attacking you, but only to regain a body. Thereafter, I am convinced, he intended to continue to rely on his Horcruxes. He would need nothing more, if only he could regain a human form. He was already immortal, you see. .. or as close to immortal as any man can be. But now, Harry, armed with this information, the crucial memory you have succeeded in procuring for us, we are closer to the secret of finishing Lord Voldemort than anyone has ever been before. You heard him, Harry: ‘Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces. .. isn't seven the most powerfully magical number. . .’ Isn't seven the most powerfully magical number. Yes, I think the idea of a seven-part soul would greatly appeal to Lord Voldemort.’

(Dumbledore, HBP ch. 23 ‘Horcruxes’)

This does somewhat contradict the suggestion in GoF that using the Philosophers' Stone would have been advantageous to Voldemort:

‘There was no hope of stealing the Philosopher's Stone any more, for I knew that Dumbledore would have seen to it that it was destroyed. But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortal. I set my sights lower I would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength.’

(Lord Voldemort, GoF ch. 33 ‘The Death Eaters’)

Here it is, I think, suggested that using the Philosopher's Stone would grant Voldemort an immortality that he does not have from using the bone-flesh-blood potion in GoF. It may be that Rowling has changed tracks on this, but if we are to make sense of it, the conclusion would have to be that Voldemort would have gained an immortality of the flesh in addition to the immortality of the soul that his Horcruxes ensures. In other words, he would have created an immortal body to house his undying soul. That would, of course, mean that Dumbledore wasn't entirely right, which goes against all I believe, so I am inclined to think that she's changed her opinion on this the underlying ideas, or ‘Potterverse facts’ if you will, upon which Voldemort's statements in GoF were based, have changed, or otherwise his character has changed, so that now he would reject the dependence on the Elixir of Life.

But whether or not it would have made his body immortal, and whether or not he would have wanted that dependence on the Elixir, I think Dumbledore's statement summarises very clearly that the main purpose for Voldemort to want the Philosophers' Stone was that he wanted a new body something he could not get using his Horcruxes.

Regards,

Troels

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 6, 2006 1:52 pm (#1442 of 2969)

My understanding of Voldy’s option to use Philosopher's Stone/Elixir prior to rebirth was just as he used the unicorn's blood --as a means to survive and strengthen without a body. He used Quirrell's body to ingest the unicorn's blood so it may be that he could've used Pettigrew's body to ingest the PS/Elixir. Or, we know Pettigrew used certain spells in order to get Vold to the point of drinking Nagini's milk/venom, so it could be that with a little help from Pettigrew in some way he could've taken the Elixir until rebirth.

Choices - Jan 6, 2006 6:34 pm (#1443 of 2969)

I may be mistaken, but when Quirrell attempted to steal the Philosopher's Stone for Voldemort (book one), I think Wormtail was still in hiding. He did not rejoin Voldemort until the end of book three. Had Voldemort not left Quirrell for dead at the end of PS/SS, he might also have had to drink the Elixir of Life for Voldemort. With Quirrell gone, I don't know who Voldemort would have gotten to do that, but since he failed to get the Stone, I guess it is not important.

haymoni - Jan 6, 2006 6:43 pm (#1444 of 2969)

I think Voldy was going to take over Quirrell's body.

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 6, 2006 8:18 pm (#1445 of 2969)

Choices, you are correct, Wormtail was still in hiding during book 1. However, I was addressing the idea of how could Vold drink Elixir without a body. I think it could've been done in the same fashion as drinking the unicorn's blood --by taking over another's body and/or however Pettigrew apparently created a means to give Vold enough life-force to take Nagini's milk.

TomProffitt - Jan 6, 2006 10:50 pm (#1446 of 2969)

There is also the possibility that by drinking the Elixir of Life that it would have (unintentionally from Riddle's point of view) "healed" his soul and brought it back into a single piece, thus defeating the prior ground work of the Horcruxes (until he could make more).

Linedhel - Jan 8, 2006 12:28 pm (#1447 of 2969)

I have only one query: A killing curse doesn't destroy your body(as it happened with the Riddles, for instance), but when the Killing curse rebounded upon Voldemort, his body was destroyed. Why? We know, that having Horcruxes prevents you from dying and so it did, because Voldemort lived(as a 'soul', 'mere shadow and vapor', or how you would like to call it).But why was his body destroyed, when this normally doesn't happen? Does a Horcrux only protect your soul and in order to do so, must one sacrifice his/her body?

Choices - Jan 8, 2006 12:46 pm (#1448 of 2969)

Consider (since we don't know for sure) that somehow the AK was changed by the rebound, or perhaps it was combined or interacted with the protectiveness (love) that Lily's sacrifice placed on Harry. Something in that highly charged situation caused the curse to change and Voldemort's body was destroyed as a result.

Detail Seeker - Jan 8, 2006 1:26 pm (#1449 of 2969)

Actually, we just know, that Voldemort’s soul was separated from its body. If the body vanished or just died, as it should have, we do not know.

The reflection by Harry seems to have defocused and partially "mistuned" the AK, so that parts of the energy were sufficient to destroy Godric’s Hollow. One can safely assume, that larger parts of the "mistuned" energy hit Voldemort’s body directly, causing it to be blown into pieces- therefore, a body in one part might not have been found. Another theory would work on defocusing alone. It would assume, that parts of the AK-energy reached Voldemort directly, killing his body instantaneously, while defocused parts hit him reflected but not absorbed by e.g. the house walls, so arrived by some fractions of a second later, when Voldemort’s body was already dead matter. we have learned, what the AK does with that. This only necessitates, that the laws of geometrical optics apply to magic energy as well as to other energies, so that total reflection actually appears, if the spell hits a surface under too large an angle.

We have not explicitly been told, if a body of Voldemort or at least recognisable parts of him have been found or not - as well as of Lily and James for that matter.

At least, the remaining body was not in a state to be used by Voldemort’s soul, as it is, when people without Horcruxes die. Horcruxless people’s souls "go on" or become ghosts, while Voldemort’s soul, tied by the Horcruxes, could not leave and so was in need for a new body.

So, Linedhel, there is not necessarily a mismatch to what we know about the AK.

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 8, 2006 5:08 pm (#1450 of 2969)

I imagine that once Vold started splitting his soul, his body consequently became "unstable" or easily fragmented as well. If you consider the physical body intertwined with the emotional/soul body then it would naturally make sense, to me anyway.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:44 pm

TomProffitt - Jan 8, 2006 5:47 pm (#1451 of 2969)

" ... then it would naturally make sense, to me anyway." --- me and my shadow 813

I can see that in a way, but it's Jo's definitions that matter. I just assumed that the old body was no good once the AK had done its work on it.

vickilh42 - Jan 8, 2006 8:46 pm (#1452 of 2969)

Detail Seeker wrote: "We have not explicitly been told, if a body of Voldemort or at least recognisable parts of him have been found or not - as well as of Lily and James for that matter."

Here's some canon..... Re: James and Lily's bodies

POA paperback pg 365: "And when I saw their house, destroyed, and their bodies...I realized what Peter must have done..." -Sirius

re: Voldemort's body after the rebounding AK I don't recall any canon except for Voldemort claiming to have been "ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost". This doesn't, IMHO, mean that his body was destroyed, just that his soul was separated from it. He goes on to say that "for I had no body", "I lost my powers and my body"(GoF p651-2).

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 9, 2006 1:20 am (#1453 of 2969)

Detail Seeker wrote on Jan 8, 2006 in message #1449

Actually, we just know, that Voldemort’s soul was separated from its body. If the body vanished or just died, as it should have, we do not know.

Well, actually we do have a clue:

‘But what happened to Vol sorry I mean, You-Know-Who?’

‘Good question, Harry. Disappeared. Vanished. Same night he tried ter kill you. Makes yeh even more famous. That's the biggest myst'ry, see. .. he was gettin’ more an’ more powerful why'd he go?’

(Harry and Hagrid, PS ch. 4 ‘The Keeper of the Keys’)

This wouldn't make much sense if Voldemort's body had been found lying about, though of course it might have been removed by the same person who secured his wand. On the other hand, I would not preclude the possibility that Harry will suddenly find some use for the body of Voldemort which got buried somewhere I wouldn't consider Rowling incapable of such an inconsistency (we've seen worse).

Detail Seeker: The reflection by Harry seems to have defocused and partially "mistuned" the AK, so that parts of the energy were sufficient to destroy Godric’s Hollow.

Or the house, at any rate

The funny thing is that this curse seems to have had far more energy, or ‘effect’ at any rate, than your average killing curse. Not only did it have the desired effect (of killing Lord Voldemort, albeit that was prevented from being completed by the Horcruxes), but it also had the energy to devastate the house, and possibly (as you say, we don't know) destroy his body.

Detail Seeker: One can safely assume, that larger parts of the "mistuned" energy hit Voldemort’s body directly, causing it to be blown into pieces- [...]

I'm not sure that such deliberations, however natural they feel to me, are useful other than for providing ourselves with a ‘sensible’ explanation: this is a scientific mind asking, and I have long since stopped to expect Rowling to consider her statements in that light.

Detail Seeker:

[...]

We have not explicitly been told, if a body of Voldemort or at least recognisable parts of him have been found or not - as well as of Lily and James for that matter.

vickilh42 has already posted about the bodies of James and Lily, which were found by the arriving friends, whereas Voldemort's body wasn't, as Hagrid says, wasn't.

Detail Seeker: At least, the remaining body was not in a state to be used by Voldemort’s soul, as it is, when people without Horcruxes die. Horcruxless people’s souls "go on" or become ghosts, while Voldemort’s soul, tied by the Horcruxes, could not leave and so was in need for a new body.

Good point about the body not being around for Voldemort's soul to repossess, so to speak.

As for the Horcruxless people, they just die, and their soul always pass on when hit by the Avada Kedavra. Sir Nicholas wasn't very clear in OotP when he spoke about how he became a ghost, but it is now clear that the ‘I’ of which he speaks is of the same order as the Fat Lady's. Snape puts it very eloquently in HBP, so there should be no doubt: ‘A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth.’ The ghost is an imprint of a soul that has departed, not the soul itself. This fits quite well with some theories for real-world ghosts (by those who believe in them), though these tend to be of the less autonomous souls. Rowling has, however, in her FAQ described ghosts as belonging to the same group of imprinted memories as paintings and maps.

Detail Seeker: So, Linedhel, there is not necessarily a mismatch to what we know about the AK.

Spells have different effects depending on the circumstances, and in particular the emotional force that is put into them. A very good example of this is the Disarming Charm: when used coolly and ‘correctly’, it will disarm the target, letting the attacker catch the wand (Lupin in the Shrieking Shack in PoA), while at other times it will blast the target away (several examples of that, starting with Snape blasting Lockhart off his feet in the duelling club in CoS). The Patronus Charm is another, very obvious, example of a spell which has vastly different effects based on the emotional state of the caster, as is the Cruciatus Curse (showcasing that this rule also applies to the Unforgivable Curses).

Regards,

Troels

Esther Rose - Jan 9, 2006 1:51 pm (#1454 of 2969)

This discussion usually brings me back to the idea of mirrors.

If light is pointed at a mirror it would bounce back reflect. If an AV curse is strong enough and misses it's intended target and catches an object the result usually is that the object shatters. What would happen if an AV curse hits a mirror and the mirror shatters? Would the light from the AV curse then be split into many different directions causing devastation?

Anyways, what if Voldemort's original body was not anywhere to be found because it was trapped somewhere? (A mirror perhaps.)

What if I am making no sense at all today. =) Today is my day full of HP questions.

Detail Seeker - Jan 9, 2006 2:37 pm (#1455 of 2969)

If the impulse of the AK has a duration longer than the time the mirror needs to shatter, then I would agree with you, Esther Rose. This is about, what I meant by talking about a defocused" reflection,

It need not be a mirror as we know it, as anything, that does not totally absorb the energy of the AK will mirror parts of the energy (as does the wall of the billiard pool with the ball, thus allowing ricocheting)will do the trick.

Esther Rose - Jan 10, 2006 7:51 am (#1456 of 2969)

I agree that the defocused reflection need not be a mirror Detail Seeker but it was my first thought because JKR seems to be extra cautious when talking about mirrors and Harry Potter simultaneously. =) It seems to me that she does not trust herself to answer any questions on the topic of mirrors. I will have to do some reading this weekend to see exactly where mirrors are mentioned in the story.

I am beginning to think that perhaps Vapormort was the nonsubstance reflection of Voldemort and somehow the original body of Voldemort and the soul piece encased in it is trapped within the mirror. In other words, the reflection and the original body switched places. This would make Vapormort not man, not ghost not anything really except a reflection. Especially chilling when you think how photographs can travel to other photographs. Perhaps Original Body Voldemort can do the same thing. Maybe he now has the ability to travel to any mirror as he pleases. Even more chilling this would give Voldemort the ability to hold a watchful eye on his Death Eaters. Namely, Draco during his sixth year at Hogwarts. Notice where Draco is in Sectumsempra. In the boys bathroom, in front of a cracked mirror.

I would think that if I am right, the Mirror of Erised would probably be the only way to extract mirror trapped Voldemort if Harry decided that Mirror trapped Voldemort was worth retrieving. Imagine, two fleshed out Voldemorts roaming around England. YIKES!!

Rosariana - Jan 10, 2006 7:23 pm (#1457 of 2969)

Perhaps the reason why James and Lily's house was destroyed was because Voldemort wasn't using any old AK on Harry, he was using AK + the Horcrux spell. Dumbledore said Voldemort intended to use Harry's death to make his final Horcrux. I imagine the Horcrux spell is a very powerful one, and when deflected like that (by the power of love, no less) it could be very destructive.

As for what happened to Voldemort's body, well I would love to ask JKR about this. My theory is that Pettigrew, being the Secret Keeper who led Voldemort to the Potters, was nearby when it all happened (just outside perhaps) and he took Voldemort's body and wand and hid them someplace (maybe transfigured them?) before Sirius arrived on the scene. They were ready for him alone to retrieve thirteen years later.

I have always wondered how Wormtail made that sick-baby body Voldemort inhabited in book 4. Perhaps he somehow used the original corpse to make it? How else could Voldemort claim to have his "old body" back?

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 11, 2006 5:59 pm (#1458 of 2969)

I don't know if this has already been discussed, but could that tiara in the Room of Requirement be a Horcrux and, if so, it reminded me that perhaps Harry will have no problem touching the Horcruxes because of his connection with Vold.

It seems strange JKR would mention such a random item without using it later for something important... and it may be the Ravenclaw relic that Vold thought was well hidden? And if there was a curse on it like the ring, again perhaps Harry is immune.

Choices - Jan 11, 2006 6:25 pm (#1459 of 2969)

Strange that JKR would mention a tiara in the ROR and then have Molly mention lending a tiara to Fleur for the wedding. Could there be a connection? Maybe she just mentioned one so we would pay attention when she mentions another. She sure keeps us guessing.

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 11, 2006 7:13 pm (#1460 of 2969)

Choices, I agree. I thought of the Molly tiara as well and although I entertained the idea of it being a Horcrux (imagine Fleur putting on a cursed headdress)... I don't think the Weasley house would be a place Vold would keep a piece of his soul. I could see him wanting to keep a piece of himself within Hogwarts, as he considered it his only true home... But why JKR decided to mention two tiaras within book 6 is a mystery...

Rosariana - Jan 11, 2006 11:10 pm (#1461 of 2969)

Well spotted, me and my shadow813! That never once occurred to me, but I have been wondering about that last Horcrux and the tiara seems a likely possibility.

If it is a Horcrux, I wonder how it made its way to the Room of Requirement?

And if it's the same as the one Molly mentioned, that could make for an interesting wedding. But none of the Weasleys have been in Ravenclaw as far as we know, and it doesn't really make sense for Godric to have had a tiara... unless he did drag on weekends Wink

Steve Newton - Jan 12, 2006 5:48 am (#1462 of 2969)

How could it have made its way to the ROR. Voldemort worked at Borgin and Burkes for many years. They had a cabinet that linked to Hogwarts. Voldemort could have visited many times over the years.

haymoni - Jan 12, 2006 7:10 am (#1463 of 2969)

I doubt Molly would offer a tiara if she didn't know where it was.

I'm thinking they are 2 different tiaras, but maybe when Harry sees it on Fleur, he'll remember the tiara in the ROR.

Shamrock - Jan 12, 2006 7:52 am (#1464 of 2969)

Pettigrew lived in the Weasleys for many years as Scabbers. since he was so "loyal" to Voldemort he could have known about the Horcruxes and kept some safe there.

just a thought

haymoni - Jan 12, 2006 8:10 am (#1465 of 2969)

I am picturing a rat running around Hogwarts with a tiara balanced on his back.

TomProffitt - Jan 12, 2006 9:01 am (#1466 of 2969)

It is strongly implied in Dumbledore's lessons that Riddle did not confide in anyone the secret of his Horcruxes. This seems to be born out in the note from RAB. I doubt Riddle would confide secrets in someone who has already turned traitor on his allies before.

Rosariana - Jan 12, 2006 2:34 pm (#1467 of 2969)

This is exciting -- I feel like we actually found the last Horcrux! w00t w00t!

scampers off to reread the bits of HBP with the tiara in them*

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 12, 2006 6:24 pm (#1468 of 2969)

Well I think it may be that there are two tiaras and JKR is using the Molly tiara to remind Harry (and us) in book 7 about the RoR tiara...

I agree that Vold could've used the cabinet to sneak a bit of his soul into Hogwarts as his own little bit o' love for the place. Can you believe?

mike miller - Jan 13, 2006 7:27 am (#1469 of 2969)

I'm not sure about the tiara idea. Let's recap Dumbledore's theory about Voldemort's Horcruxes (a little of my own interpretation as well):

The Diary - Destroyed by Harry

The Ring - Destroyed by Dumbledore

The Hufflepuff Cup - My guess is it's hidden in the trophy case at Hogwarts, placed there by Voldemort when he came back to ask Dumbledore for the DADA job. A nod by JKR to Edgar Allen Poe and the "Purloined Letter", hidden in plain sight.

The Slytherin Necklace - My guess is it's soon to be found by our hero's under the boiler off the kitchen in #12 GP.

Unknown Item (Possible Ravenclaw artifact) - Could be the tiara, but since I place the Cup at Hogwarts I don't think 2 items would be hidden in the same place. This one will take a big part of book 7 to work out.

Nagini - Hanging around with Voldemort.

The tiara could very well be the lost Ravenclaw item. However, I'm trying to figure out how our hero's would discover the hidden Horcruxes. I think the R.A.B. clues is obvious and easy to get them started and the Cup being in the trophy case might be remembered by Ron and also be a reason for Harry to return to Hogwarts. Finding the last Horcrux could easily take up half the book given how much effort it took Dumbledore to find out what we know so far. Pure speculation on my part!

Rosariana - Jan 13, 2006 10:36 am (#1470 of 2969)

Mike miller - very good points, especially about the cup. How does that saying go? A leaf among trees is hardest to find? Or something like that. I think it makes sense for the cup to be hidden among other trophies.

I don't see why two Horcruxes can't both be at Hogwarts, though. Too easy, perhaps? I think this is a good way to get Harry to return. I was worried we'd never see the place again.

I predict that Harry will destroy the locket first, the cup and the tiara at school, and then all that will be left is Nagini and Voldemort himself. He could go for the last two on the same night, since they are probably together.

mike miller - Jan 13, 2006 2:28 pm (#1471 of 2969)

Rosariana - You could very well be right. I was purely speculating; and, my speculation is often off-track. I think the only thing I predicted correctly about HBP was that Buckbeak would somehow save Harry ala the POA movie. Hogwarts just seems the right place for a genuine Hufflepuff artifact; but, the same could be said for Ravenclaw. It's just when JKR used the same plot element, it plays out in a completely different and unexpected way; I.e., Polyjuice Potion.

The unknown Horcrux still bothers me a bit. I see a great deal of the book being devoted to finding the final Horcrux before going after Nagini and Voldemort himself. There's lots to do that we already know about (wedding, visit to #4PD, visit to Godric's Hollow) and some that we can easily predict (visit #12GP if we're right about the locket) but I think JKR will have a bit more story to give us. I just can't see us having all of the clues before book 7 even begins. I would also remind everyone and JKR is a master of the red herring.

Soul Search - Jan 13, 2006 3:08 pm (#1472 of 2969)

After reading HBP I was convinced that a major storyline of book 7 would be the hunt for Horcruxes. After all the discussion about Horcruxes I now feel that the hunt will consume far fewer pages. (Instead, we will see the Harry and Snape relationship develop.)

There are enough clues so that Harry will not have to search far for the three object Horcruxes. (Nagini will be with Voldemort, probably at the Riddle House.)

The locket's location is, of course, related to Mundungus. (Maybe at #12.)

My first choice for the Ravenclaw item is the tiara. I can see Fleur wearing the Weasley tiara at the wedding and Luna dropping the information that there is a picture of Rowena Ravenclaw in their common room wearing one just like it. Harry then knows that the RoR tiara is the one he needs. (Luna lives by, would be invited.)

Second choice for the Ravenclaw object is the necklace. It was at Borgin and Burkes and is deadly. It is now at Hogwarts.

The search for the cup is less certain, but likely involves the Smith connection.

A lot easier than I first thought, but he will still will need help. He doesn't know how to destroy a Horcrux. I don't think it is as simple as destroying the object, like the diary.

Solitaire - Jan 13, 2006 8:12 pm (#1473 of 2969)

Second choice for the Ravenclaw object is the necklace. It was at Borgin and Burkes and is deadly. It is now at Hogwarts.

Wouldn't Dumbledore have given that necklace a pretty thorough "stripping down" (to use the term McGonagall used regarding Harry's Firebolt) to determine if it was a Horcrux? He has been so on top of things that I can't see him not checking it out ...

Solitaire

TomProffitt - Jan 13, 2006 8:50 pm (#1474 of 2969)

I'm of the opinion that we've seen all of the Horcruxes by now. I just haven't figured out (in three readings of HBP) what that last Horcrux is. The tiara doesn't feel right to me, not enough significance placed upon it. Perhaps we should review Tom Riddle quotes from earlier books to discover it.

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 13, 2006 9:01 pm (#1475 of 2969)

I agree that fewer pages will be devoted to Horcruxes and more to personal grievances and resolving them... or not.

I feel certain that the HBP book in RoR will be crucial in the destruction of the Horcruxes, as will Snape, to the shock and horror of Harry, for even if DD is alive he will not be present physically as we know the wizard needed to be removed from the picture... ooh, that's funny because he was removed from the picture but now he lives in a picture in his former office...

Rosariana - Jan 13, 2006 9:07 pm (#1476 of 2969)

I agree we've most likely seen them all. I just don't think JKR would make the final Horcrux something that we haven't even glimpsed prior to book seven. She usually goes for that "Oh, I should have spotted that!" reaction.

The tiara works for me -- I feel like if she had put any more emphasis on it she may have made it too obvious. It's very like her to casually mention something in passing that becomes important later.

Today I reread the scene with the tiara. You know the room it is hidden in is going to be important because Harry is fleeing in desperation, looking for a hiding place before he faces Snape and punishment for what he did to Malfoy, and the pace is very fast until Harry comes to this room. JKR slows everything down to give a two-paragraph description of it and everything in it. She mentions the Vanishing cabinet (which we already know was important) as casually as she mentions the tiara -- which Harry sets atop a dummy-head on the cabinet where his book is hidden to make it more distinguishable. JKR cleverly averts our attention from it, making us think its only purpose is to help Harry find the book again later.

I think just the right amount of attention was given to the tiara. Its not at all obvious but we know it's there and so does Harry, so if it turns out to be a Horcrux it won't be coming out of left field. She did leave us a clue.

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 13, 2006 9:18 pm (#1477 of 2969)

I agree Rosariana, and I think it's interesting that Harry actually handled the tiara and did not receive any adverse reaction. Of course, we don't know the whole story of how DD got the blackened hand, but it may be the curse on the Horcrux is similar to the necklace...and if so, as I stated earlier, reveals to us that Harry's connection with Vold will again prove in his favor... This reminds me of DD saying to Harry in the cave "your blood is more valuable than mine". Did he say that because of Lily's protection or because of the connection with Vold?

Solitaire - Jan 14, 2006 1:35 am (#1478 of 2969)

"your blood is more valuable than mine"

I wondered about that, too, Shadow. Was it because Dumbledore thought one who gave the blood might die in the adventure ahead? Was it a fear of leaving behind some of Harry's blood (which happened anyway) that might be used in some horrible way by Voldemort? That statement worried me ...

Solitaire

Esther Rose - Jan 14, 2006 5:50 am (#1479 of 2969)

But if the Locket at #12 Grimmauld place is a potential Horcrux, Harry being able to touch the tiara doesn't quite mean all that much. It seems that the way that the Locket at #12 Grimmauld Place was described, many people tried to open it without having any negative effects. Although, no one wore the necklace or the tiara. That might be the key. Just like the diary was not dangerous until it was used.

Also, If the Riddles were killed in their own home and their deaths were the used to create Horcruxes then why wasn't their home destroyed? Or is it not necessary for a Horcrux spell to destroy everything that surrounds it? OR perhaps their deaths were not to be made a Horcrux. It seems that Tom Riddle Jr. was practicing the Horcrux spell at the orphanage. (The way I am reading on how all of those Inferi got into the cave.)

Soul Search - Jan 14, 2006 7:05 am (#1480 of 2969)

Some thoughts.

We have been wondering how Harry finds the cup and learns about and finds the Ravenclaw Horcrux. Well, Voldemort is the one person that knows about both. Harry has some sort of mental connection with Voldemort.

What situation would cause Voldemort to think about his Horcruxes so strongly that Harry would receive useful images?

I have been wondering how Snape convinces Harry that he is on Harry's side. I think Horcruxes might be the key.

In HBP Snape got a big buildup as the best one to go to for curing injuries inflicted by dark curses. Dumbledore went to Snape when his hand was damaged. Snape was sent for Katie Bell. Dumbledore explained Snape's dark arts curative skills to Harry. Dumbledore wanted Harry to get Snape after the cave. All that has to be a foreshadowing.

So, Harry, or someone, gets seriously hurt destroying a Horcrux. Snape restores them. Harry is convinced Snape is on his side.

Choices - Jan 14, 2006 10:09 am (#1481 of 2969)

Esther Rose - "Or is it not necessary for a Horcrux spell to destroy everything that surrounds it?"

I think you are thinking of the AK curse that backfired and destroyed not only Voldemort, but the Potter's house at Godric's Hollow. We have never seen a Horcrux created and do not know the results of that incantation on the surrounding structures, but we have not been told that it causes any destruction.

The Riddles were murdered in their home, but it is possible that Tom Riddle did not make the ring into a Horcrux until he returned to the Gaunt house or even later.

Esther Rose - Jan 14, 2006 10:27 am (#1482 of 2969)

Perhaps the reason why James and Lily's house was destroyed was because Voldemort wasn't using any old AK on Harry, he was using AK + the Horcrux spell. Dumbledore said Voldemort intended to use Harry's death to make his final Horcrux. I imagine the Horcrux spell is a very powerful one, and when deflected like that (by the power of love, no less) it could be very destructive.

I agree with you Choices but my response was to the above statement made by Rosariana a few days before. I apologize for not adding it to my post.

I will be reading the series again this weekend to see if I can pick out more info. This would be a great weekend for me to do it too. I have been battling the flu all week and am on a dog-sitting job. =)

Nathan Zimmermann - Jan 14, 2006 10:57 am (#1483 of 2969)

In GoF chapter one Voldemort asked Wormtail to milk Nagini. There are three possible scenarios that I can envision based on the request.

First, Voldemort needed Nagini's venom for some unknown purpose, Second, Voldemort's ability to maintain himself in his diminished capacity was waning and he needed to milk Nagini in order to refresh himself. Third, Voldemort needed to accomplish both Nagini's venom and to refresh himself.

Choices - Jan 14, 2006 11:37 am (#1484 of 2969)

Sorry I misunderstood Esther Rose. Hope you feel better soon!!!

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 14, 2006 2:24 pm (#1485 of 2969)

Soul Search, I posted something along those lines on Harry's thread. In beginning of HBP, DD tells Harry that Vold must now be using Occlumency against Harry. So the tables are now turned in Harry's favor. He isn't being probed by Vold mentally, rather he is in the position to view Vold's thoughts. Top that with the fact that Harry is gifted in Legilimency -- we saw him view Snape's memories during their Occlumency lessons. So Harry could go into Vold's memories and not only see which items are Horcruxes but where they are hidden, etc.

Then I see the potions book & Snape's unique abilities as something Harry will have to *swallow his pride* and ask for help.

Esther Rose - Jan 14, 2006 8:13 pm (#1486 of 2969)

Does anyone think that there might be Horcrux information in the potion book?

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 14, 2006 8:24 pm (#1487 of 2969)

Esther Rose, that's exactly what I meant in my above post. And I've mentioned it on other threads but I don't think there's a general feeling this will be the case. However, I do because otherwise why would we be left with Harry having to and wanting to retrieve it in book 7 - combined with Snape being the only person who could relieve DD's Horcrux injuries.

Esther Rose - Jan 15, 2006 6:42 am (#1488 of 2969)

Well there you go. A very good reason to go back to Hogwarts. To retrieve Snape's Horcrux and DADA notes. In this way Harry is forced to trust Snape. (or at least his notes) Hopefully finding out that Snape is not such a Voldemort supporter.

Soul Search - Jan 15, 2006 8:37 am (#1489 of 2969)

me and my shadow 813,

I don't think Harry is skilled at Legilimency. The scenes he saw in Snape's mind were more a backlash of Snape using Legilimency and Harry's attempts to block it.

The connection between he and Voldemort does not require Harry to use Legilimency. Harry saw into Voldemort's mind before he even heard about Legilimency. The connection is something different, and may not even be able to be blocked by Occlumency.

When first reading OotP, I thought that Harry might have actually learned some Occlumency from Snape, but it didn't appear he had because the connection with Voldemort was of a different order.

Esther Rose,

I don't think the potions book will have anything about Horcruxes, per se, but it might have some useful spells or potions for curing the affects of dark spells that might protect Voldemort's Horcruxes. I conclude this with a little trepidation; it suggests Harry will need such information.

And some wild speculation. What if the potions book does contain specific information about Horcruxes. Like how to create one. Has Snape created a Horcrux for himself?

Esther Rose - Jan 15, 2006 8:55 am (#1490 of 2969)

Soul Search the more I think about it Snape's Horcrux notes do not have to actually be in the potions book. After all Snape now has/had an office he could hide his notes in as well. Raising an even bigger question. Is the Room of Requirement the most important room to Harry right now or is it Snape's Office? Harry has spent an entire year reading Snape’s potion book and should now be able to read his writing quite well. The room of requirement is an important room however; I think Harry would need to visit Snape's office before he leaves Hogwarts. Getting to the information Snape has left behind before another professor takes over the room seems extremely important right now.

Or hopefully Snape's notes will be moved to the room of requirement.

Soul Search - Jan 15, 2006 9:09 am (#1491 of 2969)

Very good thought Esther Rose. And, Harry is so fixated on Snape that he may very well sneak into his office to see what can be found. Even before leaving Hogwarts.

Of course, we know from the GoF stairway scene that Snape places protections on his office. Could be interesting.

Flo - Jan 15, 2006 11:33 am (#1492 of 2969)

Hello everybody,

I hope I am putting my post in the appropriate folder. It has been suggested that the locket Horcrux is the one that is mentioned in Order of the Phoenix, at the moment when the Weasleys & Harry do some house cleaning. I've reread that chapter (English version), and it seems to me that the locket was put with other items in a rubbish bag - it therefore seems to have been thrown away. Do you agree ? (I am not an English native speaker so maybe my understanding is wrong)

mike miller - Jan 15, 2006 12:32 pm (#1493 of 2969)

Flo - I agree with the idea that the locket is the same one mentioned in Order. My guess is that Kreacher recovered the locket among other things and it is currently in his little "cubby whole" under the boiler just off the kitchen of #12 GP.

Choices - Jan 15, 2006 1:28 pm (#1494 of 2969)

My thinking too, Mike. We know what a scavenger Kreacher is, so it's highly likely he has stashed the necklace away in his little hidey-hole off the kitchen.

Solitaire - Jan 15, 2006 1:50 pm (#1495 of 2969)

This goes back to a different aspect of the Horcruxes, but ... When Harry stabbed the Basilisk fang into the Diary, memory Riddle seemed to feel something. Why? If he felt something then, why would he not feel something when Dumbledore destroyed the ring? Is it because he had not yet made his final Horcrux at the time the diary was destroyed, and therefore his soul was slightly more intact? Was the fragment in the diary bigger ... because it was his first Horcrux? Or did he feel something only because some part of him was present and saw what happened? Just wondering what others think ...

Solitaire

Choices - Jan 15, 2006 1:53 pm (#1496 of 2969)

Solitaire - "Or did he feel something only because some part of him was present and saw what happened?"

That would be my guess.

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 15, 2006 3:01 pm (#1497 of 2969)

I agree. My sense was that Riddle felt the fang because he was "feeding" off of Ginny in order to become a physical presence. She was slowly dying as he became stronger, then when the fang stabbed the diary, Riddle's form was destroyed and Ginny was restored.

This has haunted me because JKR said in Mugglenet interview we saw the soul piece of the diary "take form" then be destroyed. Does this mean each Horcrux, during the destruction process, will unleash the soul piece and it will immediately look for a body? If so, can it only "feed" off a body via feelings as in Ginny confiding into the diary?

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 15, 2006 5:01 pm (#1498 of 2969)

I read some old posts about the Grey Lady. It seems there was earlier speculation that she -the Ravenclaw ghost- will be involved with tiara and Harry. I wonder if it's her tiara, if she is/was Rowena's granddaughter, and the tiara was passed down to her.

The more I think about it, the more this seems to fit. Molly's tiara is there to remind the reader, and Harry, about the one in RoR. Maybe Luna will say something like "That looks just like the one I saw my great great-grandmother wearing in a photograph", which will get Harry's mind working. When he gets to the RoR, the Grey Lady will be there waiting for him.

hawick girl - Jan 15, 2006 7:47 pm (#1499 of 2969)

Soul Search said in post #1489:

I don't think Harry is skilled at Legilimency. The scenes he saw in Snape's mind were more a backlash of Snape using Legilimency and Harry's attempts to block it.

I would disagree. I think that the shared animosity of Harry and Snape made it impossible for him to learn from him. A prime example is that he had so-so to bad grades in Potions with Snape as a teacher, but without Snape there to distract him he gets better grades (yes, with the HBP's potion book, but he still would have learned--in that he was open to learning from Sluggy, and he still had to follow the instructions of the improvised/improved potions). Although it could be said that Snape was still teaching him through the HBP's potion book.

In Snape's DADA classes, Harry didn't fare too well academically. It was his best and generally favorite subject. I guess one could say that he could learn from Snape as long as Harry didn't know that it was Snape that he was learning from. Snape can't teach Harry 'in the flesh', but apart from it, he can.

I think that Dobby will help Harry find and destroy the Horcruxes. I wonder what he knows about Lucius' opinions, activities, and tendencies towards Voldie, and what knowledge, gossip, and/or rumors the house elves of Hogwarts have. Remember that Dobby is 'proud to keep the secrets of DD'. What does he know?

Hmmmmmmmmm... Intriguing, me thinks.

Midori - Jan 15, 2006 7:55 pm (#1500 of 2969)

I am sorry to break discussion, but there are 2 ideas came to my mind, I'd like to hear your comments about:

1. what if... LV offered Lily a chance to live because he intended to make a Horcrux from her? I mean -to rip a soul piece using a Harry's murder and encase torn part into Lily (ok, I know, sounds strange and I cannot figure out all motivations but ...) This makes sense a bit, taking into account that Lily can be considered as Gryffindor 'object', also this can be somehow "interlaced" into unique case with rebounded AK, love protection and weird fact of LV giving somebody a chance to survive...

The thing I couldn’t understand and that was running through my mind periodically- that phrase from JKR interview:

MA: So no one - Voldemort or anyone using Avada Kedavra - ever gave someone a choice and then they took that option [to die] -

JKR: They may have been given a choice, but not in that particular way.

Which way? I thought, there weren’t many "Horcrux-makers" in history, and this way of giving a chance- to live but as a Horcrux - may be really unique case...And such terrible opportunity -to live with a soul piece of enemy inside(assisting him to live forever), caused by her son's death, could perfectly 'raise' that old magical protection surrounding Harry.

2. Dumbledore says that :

he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux

but how? as far as I remember, 1st chapter of GoF-

...that he never heard the words the thing in the chair spoke as it raised a wand. There was a flash of green light, a rushing sound, and Frank Bryce crumpled. He was dead before he hit the floor.

I.e. LV killed Frank by Avada Kedavra (as we can interpret flash of green light and incantation by LV), so it wasn’t Nagini who killed old man.

If it was snake who killed Frank, LV couldn’t make a Horcrux from this death, right? (unless an order to kill other person is considered same rank as direct murder and rips soul too).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:52 pm

Solitaire - Jan 15, 2006 8:29 pm (#1501 of 2969)

I can't see Voldemort making a Horcrux of Lily, particularly in light of what Dumbledore said about the problem with turning living things into Horcruxes (they can think and act for themselves). Considering Lily fought against everything Voldemort stood for, it seems unlikely.

I do think it might be possible that he turned something from GH into a Horcrux, though. Remember that he killed James. Jo said James had to die, so perhaps he was an important "kill" for Voldemort. What if Voldemort turned something at GH into a Horcrux that night ... before he killed Lily--or even after he killed her--and attempted to kill Harry?

About Riddle and the Diary ... it does make sense that he would feel pain, as he had begun to gain substance as Ginny grew weaker.

Solitaire

Edit: There has been speculation that James was a descendant of GG. If this turns out to be true, then perhaps he had some artifact that belonged to GG in Godric's Hollow. That would certainly have made a wonderful Horcrux. Just a thought ...

Rosariana - Jan 15, 2006 9:38 pm (#1502 of 2969)

Midori, maybe what Dumbledore meant when he said Voldemort used Nagini to kill Frank Bryce wasn't that Nagini killed the old man, but that Voldemort killed him on the snake's information. Remember, "Nagini informs me that there is an old Muggle standing outside the door." So Nagini told Voldemort that Frank was there and then Voldemort killed him.

Midori - Jan 15, 2006 10:17 pm (#1503 of 2969)

Solitaire, well, ok... but it still remains unanswered such nonsense, why did he offered Lily chance to live...as for Dumbledore opinion, its pretty logical, agree, but I guess Riddle is 'inventive' person and disposed to various experiments (unicorn blood, PS, different 'style ' Horcruxes- usual objects as ring and interactive diary, for example), so finally that idea of making a live creature a Horcrux come to him (with Nagini or earlier- as I suggested). If don’t talk about 'morality' of such act, the idea of alive Horcrux looks original and unexpected.

I read those theories about bloodline of Potters, yes, but I am afraid I don’t share it much. Even if LV must kill only Potters, life of Lily didn’t mean anything to such person as he is, so he didn’t bother himself saying her step aside. He had to have more significant reason.

Rosariana, thanks, that’s suitable explanation)

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 15, 2006 11:09 pm (#1504 of 2969)

Solitaire, I have mulled over the Godric relic thing over and over, and DD said the only relic is the sword...I'm sure he would have known if it had been at G'sH or not and/or if there was another relic. Of course, DD is not perfect but wouldn't he tell Harry if he thought it was a Horcrux?

Midori, my sense is Voldemort offered Lily a chance to live because Snape convinced him she would be more valuable alive than dead.

Solitaire - Jan 15, 2006 11:30 pm (#1505 of 2969)

Dumbledore said he was confident "that the only known relic of Gryffindor remains safe." It probably is the only relic ... it certainly is the only known relic, which means there could possibly be another. That little word known troubles me.

As to his offer to let Lily live ... since I have never trusted Voldemort, I have never put much store in that offer. It isn't as though one could trust him. Besides, I keep thinking about Jo's remark that James had to die. Why would James have to die and Lily not have to die?

Solitaire

Soul Search - Jan 16, 2006 8:01 am (#1506 of 2969)

The events at Godric's Hollow were well discussed on this thread, but quite some time ago. I thought a review might open the discussion for additional ideas.

Voldemort was fixated on creating Horcruxes using objects significant to the four Hogwarts founders. He had created Horcruxes with the locket, cup, and Ravenclaw object (tiara, necklace, whatever.) There appears to be a long time period, as much as thirty years, from the creation of the fifth Horcrux to Godric's Hollow. He was searching for a Gryffindor object.

Dumbledore mentions that when Voldemort came to Godric's Hollow, he was planning on using Harry's murder to make the sixth Horcrux. The sword was at Godric's Hollow (an heirloom of the Potters, or he brought it with him.)

Dumbledore knows Gryffindor's sword is not a Horcrux because he retrieved it from Godric's Hollow and it has been in his control ever since. (Not because he has had it for a long time, as was my first read of the passage.)

Voldemort settled for Nagini as the sixth Horcrux, perhaps thinking that it was more important to achieve his "seven part soul" than using founders' objects. Nagini was handy, and so was Frank Bryce.

This scenario is also the core for the concept that Harry's scar is a Horcrux. When Voldemort tried to AK Harry, he had also set up the Horcrux-making spell. With his and Lily's spells floating around, the magic got confused and Voldemort was AK’d and Harry got the Horcrux-wound that became his scar.

Solitaire - Jan 16, 2006 8:48 am (#1507 of 2969)

I still hope the "Harry's-scar-is-the-last-Horcrux" contingent are wrong.

Choices - Jan 16, 2006 9:33 am (#1508 of 2969)

Soul Search - "I don't think Harry is skilled at Legilimency."

I agree. We know Harry, prior to coming to Hogwarts, knew nothing about the Wizarding World. Since he arrived at Hogwarts he has not had any lessons in Legilimency - I say this because the story is told from Harry's point of view and he hasn't mentioned any lessons except the Occlumency lessons with Snape that were failures - nor has he shown us any clues that he can do Legilimency, at least none that I have picked up on.

Nathan Zimmermann - Jan 16, 2006 10:20 am (#1509 of 2969)

"You will milk her before we retire, Wormtail" said the second voice. "I will need feeding in the night. The journey has tired me greatly," page 19 of the GoF large print edition printed by Thorndike Press.

This passage from GoF would seem to indicate that Nagini was made a Horcrux prior to Frank Bryce's death otherwise why would Nagini need to be milked to feed Voldemort?

Choices - Jan 16, 2006 11:02 am (#1510 of 2969)

I guess it's possible, but I really don't think that milking Nagini of her venom has anything to do with her being a Horcrux. Quite a few years passed between the time the Potters were killed and Frank Bryce's death in GOF - about 12 and a half years - and Voldemort was living his less than normal life as a spirit inhabiting small creatures. I don't think he would have been able to create a Horcrux during this time since he couldn't even hold a wand most of the time. (I do realize that by the time he killed Frank he was able to hold a wand.) I just think he was existing on unicorn blood and Nagini's venom to keep him alive until he could regain a body.

Nathan Zimmermann - Jan 16, 2006 12:08 pm (#1511 of 2969)

Choices, it was never specifically mentioned in GoF that Nagini was milked for her venom. Also it is seem strange to me that anyone including Voldemort could survive on snake venom.

Choices - Jan 16, 2006 6:05 pm (#1512 of 2969)

"You will milk her before we retire, Wormtail" said the second voice. "I will need feeding in the night. The journey has tired me greatly," page 19 of the GoF large print edition printed by Thorndike Press.

Nathan - "This passage from GoF would seem to indicate that Nagini was made a Horcrux prior to Frank Bryce's death otherwise why would Nagini need to be milked to feed Voldemort?"

Nathan - "Choices, it was never specifically mentioned in GoF that Nagini was milked for her venom. Also it is seem strange to me that anyone including Voldemort could survive on snake venom."

Choices - "Is it not generally understood that when a snake is "milked" its venom is extracted? We have discussed in the past that the drinking of snake venom (Nagini's) might have contributed to Voldemort's increasingly snake-like appearance."

Choices - "Nathan, I am really confused because in the following post that you made - you mention Nagini being milked for her venom..... ..... "

"+ Horcruxes #1483 - Nathan Zimmermann Jan 14, 2006 10:57 am In GoF chapter one Voldemort asked Wormtail to milk Nagini. There are three possible scenarios that I can envision based on the request."

Nathan - "First, Voldemort needed Nagini's venom for some unknown purpose, Second, Voldemort's ability to maintain himself in his diminished capacity was waning and he needed to milk Nagini in order to refresh himself..."

Help me see what you are saying Nathan.

Nathan Zimmermann - Jan 16, 2006 7:59 pm (#1513 of 2969)

Choices, I apologize for confusing you. I will attempt to clarify my point. What I meant to state was that there are several possible interpretations of the quote regarding the milking of Nagini. The passage "You will milk her before we retire, Wormtail" said the second voice. "I will need feeding in the night. The journey has tired me greatly," page 19 of the GoF large print edition printed by Thorndike Press is open to at least three interpretations

Interpretation 1: Nagini was milked solely for her venom and that Nagini's venom was used to refresh Voldemort.

Interpretation 2: Nagini was transformed into a Horcrux prior to the death of Frank Bryce and she was milked in order to allow Voldemort to refresh his spirit by imbibing or otherwise consuming some of his essence that was contained within Nagini when she was made into a Horcrux.

Interpretation 3: Nagini was milked for both venom and some of Voldemort's essence.

Of the three interpretations I described concerning the aforementioned quote from GoF, I believe that the first interpretation can be discarded. I doubt that Nagini's venom in and of itself can have a nourishing or sustaining effect on anyone including Voldemort, unless, she had previously been transformed into a Horcrux. It seems to me that of the two remaining interpretations each is equally feasible.

What I am saying is that the aforementioned quote from GoF seems to refute Dumbledore’s statement in HBP that Nagini was created a Horcrux as a result of the death of Frank Bryce.

Solitaire - Jan 16, 2006 10:11 pm (#1514 of 2969)

Nagini's venom might not help the average person ... but then Voldemort is not the average person. What would kill even a normal Witch or Wizard might have the opposite effect on him. I don't think Dumbledore's suggestion can be discounted just yet, as he is so often used by JKR to convey truths. Just a thought ...

Solitaire

loopy4loopin - Jan 17, 2006 2:29 am (#1515 of 2969)

This may belong on a different thread but it occurred to me here..... if Harry's scar is a Horcrux, why didn't that spell come out during priori Incantatem?

Loopy

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 17, 2006 7:02 am (#1516 of 2969)

loopy4loopin wrote on Jan 17, 2006 in message #1515

This may belong on a different thread but it occurred to me here..... if Harry's scar is a Horcrux, why didn't that spell come out during priori Incantatem?

Much as I'd like to grasp at any opportunity to reject the Harry-Horcrux suggestion (which I find only just short of baseless), the Priori Incantatem cannot be used for that purpose.

First of all most of the supporters of the idea suggest that the creation of the Horcrux was accidental: a freak accidental effect of the magical surge brought about by the unprecedented situation with the rebounding Avada Kedavra. Thus the idea is that no spell was cast, and therefore, obviously, no spell could appear.

Secondly the Priori Incantatem effect omits several spells we know were cast. This includes (but isn't necessarily restricted to) the rebounding killing curse, any spells cast to torture Bertha Jorkins (‘She was fit for nothing after my questioning, quite useless.’), the Imperius Curse(s?) on Bartemius Crouch Sr (‘My father was placed under the Imperius curse by my master.’), the spell Voldemort used to make Harry bow to him, an Imperius Curse on Harry and a couple of Cruciatus Curses on Harry. This doesn't even include any common household spells or travelling spells cast during that year.

With that much missing, the presence or absence of a particular spell in the Priori Incantatem effect proves absolutely nothing.

Regards,

Troels

mike miller - Jan 17, 2006 8:04 am (#1517 of 2969)

Nathan - In my opinion, only the first explanation is likely to be true for 2 reasons. First, milking a snake has the universal meaning of extracting the venom for some other purpose. Second, we do not know exactly what Peter does with the venom. It may be a key ingredient in a potion that can only be added just prior to drinking to have it's effect. We know that "Vapormort" has "occupied" snakes in the past, so he may derive some strength form their venom directly. I just don't think JKR is trying to hide anything in that reference, JM2KW.

On the other hand, JKR has made it clear that Dumbledore is one of our sources for the truth (in spite of the fact that he does make mistakes). Dumbledore's explanation of how and why Nagini was made a Horcrux fits the circumstances. Voldemort had one last Horcrux to make, and what better significant murder to use to make his final Horcrux than killing his prophesied undoing? We all know that did not work out as planned. Voldemort was willing to accept a mortal body again and so he was willing to finish his seven part soul before embarking on his renewed path toward Wizard World domination.

The real questions I have are: What relic or object was found at Godric's Hollow still intact and not possessing part of Voldemort's soul? Godric's sword? Is that why Dumbledore is confident the unidentified relic is Ravenclaw?

Weeny Owl - Jan 17, 2006 10:27 am (#1518 of 2969)

Voldemort settled for Nagini as the sixth Horcrux, perhaps thinking that it was more important to achieve his "seven part soul" than using founders' objects. Nagini was handy, and so was Frank Bryce.

That made me think of something... if Voldemort did use Frank Bryce's death to make his last Horcrux, then wouldn't Wormtail have been a witness to it? Perhaps not... Voldemort could have sent him on an errand, but considering how sneaky Wormtail is and him eavesdropping on Snape, Narcissa, and Bella, it's possible that Wormtail knows that Voldemort has made at least one Horcrux.

Since Wormtail has a life debt to Harry, perhaps he will be one of Harry's sources about Horcruxes.

Choices - Jan 17, 2006 10:39 am (#1519 of 2969)

Mike - post #1517 - I agree with you.

Nathan - Thanks for your explanation. I understand now what you are saying. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Mike's reply - I think Voldemort used Nagini's venom in a potion that did sustain him and refresh him, and I think she was made a Horcrux after the death of Frank Bryce.

Esther Rose - Jan 17, 2006 10:49 am (#1520 of 2969)

I agree with Choices and Mike.

Frank Bryce was probably used for two things. One to make Nagini a Horcrux and Two to let Nagini have dinner afterwards. As I understood it, Nagini needed to eat as well. Harry would have understood Nagini if she spoke and she was the one that returned from a mission and notified Voldemort about peeping Frank.

Choices - Jan 17, 2006 11:05 am (#1521 of 2969)

I tend to think Nagini was not only scoping out the area, but hunting for mice/rats, or what have you, to eat. I think Frank Bryce's body was found since Dumbledore saw the write-up of his death in the Muggle paper, so I doubt Nagini feasted on him.

Esther Rose - Jan 17, 2006 11:22 am (#1522 of 2969)

Hrmmmm, I suppose your right Choices. (DARN!!)

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 17, 2006 5:12 pm (#1523 of 2969)

I think we could categorize the magical-ness of Nagini's milk along the same lines as unicorn's blood. No, she's not "pure and innocent" like a unicorn but she might be as magically powerful. Also, as mike miller and others posted, Vold has a strong connection with snakes and it seems plausible that, at least in his sub-human form, he'd gain nourishment from a reptilian "mother".

Berty Bott - Jan 17, 2006 6:26 pm (#1524 of 2969)

Has anyone any good theories on what it takes to destroy a Horcrux? Something on another thread made me wonder if someone had to give up their life to destroy one. Somebody mentioned that Regulus may not have been murdered but died in the act of destroying the locket. Also, Dumbledore may have died in the act of destroying the ring, but then of course Snape put a stopper in death for him so he could carry on a bit longer. The diary..... .well that’s harder to define. Ginny was nearly dead, Harry was nearly dead, and Riddle was nearly alive. I don’t know how that fits in with the theory. Harry WOULD have died if it wasn’t for Fawkes. Does that count?

Rosariana - Jan 17, 2006 6:28 pm (#1525 of 2969)

Well, it wasn't because of the diary that Harry nearly died. The basilisk takes credit for that one.

K Stahl - Jan 17, 2006 7:11 pm (#1526 of 2969)

Someone on another thread mentioned tossing the Horcrux through the same curtain that took Sirius. There is always that room full of love at the ministry. Perhaps marinating it in love potion might have some effect.

Solitaire - Jan 17, 2006 11:56 pm (#1527 of 2969)

Choices, did DD see a write-up about his death or about his disappearance? I thought it was the latter. I thought he told Harry he saw a connection between Bryce's disappearance and that of Bertha Jorkins. I'll have to dig out my GoF ...

Okay, here goes, near the end of Chapter 30 ...

Bertha Jorkins has vanished without a trace in the place where Voldemort was certainly known to be last. Mr. Crouch too has disappeared ... within these very grounds. And there was a third disappearance, one which the Ministry, I regret to say, do not consider of any importance, for it concerns a Muggle. His name was Frank Bryce, he lived in the village where Voldemort's father grew up, and he has not been seen since last August. You see, I read the Muggle newspapers, unlike most of my Ministry friends."

Dumbledore looked very seriously at Harry.

"These disappearances seem to me to be linked ..."

Solitaire

edited

Esther Rose - Jan 18, 2006 7:06 am (#1528 of 2969)

Woo hoo! My Nagini ate Bryce theory lives!

Eeew!

Choices - Jan 18, 2006 10:10 am (#1529 of 2969)

LOL It does appear that your theory remains a possibility.

mike miller - Jan 18, 2006 5:37 pm (#1530 of 2969)

Of the three disappearances, Barty Jr. is responsible for his father and I'm not sure Voldemort was strong enough to have used Bertha's murder, so we're left with Nagini.

Now as to the destruction of a Horcrux, I'm not sure exactly how it's accomplished. However, whatever spell, incantation you undertake there is a slight delay before the curse is released. When Dumbledore and Harry go to persuade Horace to return to Hogwarts, Slughorn comments on Albus' blackened hand.
When Dumbledore and Harry go to persuade Horace to return to Hogwarts, Slughorn comments on Albus' blackened hand.

"Well, maybe you ought to think about retirement yourself," said Slughorn bluntly. His pale gooseberry eyes had found Dumbledore's injured hand. "Reactions not what they were, I see."

"You're quite right," said Dumbledore serenely, shaking back his sleeve to reveal the tips of those burned and blackened finger; the sight of them made the back of Harry's neck prickle unpleasantly. "I am undoubtedly slower than I was. But on the other hand..." He shrugged and spread his hands wide, as though to say that age had its compensations, Harry noticed a ring on his uninjured hand.....

I think Horace new exactly what had happened since I think Dumbledore had already be given the "modified" memory during his first attempt to recruit Slughorn. I'm hoping that Harry's youth and quick reflexes will spare him any lasting injuries.

Midori - Jan 18, 2006 11:27 pm (#1531 of 2969)

What if Horcrux spell, plus killing a person - to make a Horcrux, releases a powerful flash of magical energy, and it influences on surrounding stuff extremely destructive?

I took 2 quotes, from PS, Hagrid tells about house in Godric's Hollow:

..."Took yeh from the ruined house myself, on Dumbledore's orders..."

And other two, from HBP, Dumbledore -about house of Morfin Gaunt:

"I stumbled across the ring hidden in the ruin of the Gaunt's house...

..... .that I might one day take the trouble to visit the ruin, or that I might be keeping an eye open for traces of magical concealment..... "

There were always speculations about cause of house in GH was described after as ruined. And why Gaunts house was ruined? This makes me think, that probably, Horcrux was made in Morfin 's house, as same as accidental one was created in GH.

Esther Rose - Jan 19, 2006 7:42 am (#1532 of 2969)

But no one we know of currently was murdered in the Gaunt house. (I am not saying that Voldemort didn't murder someone to make a Horcrux at the Gaunt's. Just that we don't know if this is true or not.) Plus, the Gaunt house seemed to be a board away from ruins even when the three Gaunts were living in it. I thought the house was in ruins do to the age and the lack of upkeep.

The Riddles were murdered in their home weren't they?

Rosariana - Jan 19, 2006 9:58 am (#1533 of 2969)

Yes they were, and there is no mention of damage to the Riddle House. But we do not know if any of the Riddles were used to make a Horcrux. I'd say they most likely were NOT, because Tom Riddle killed them BEFORE he asked Slughorn about Horcruxes.

Of course there is the possibility that he had already made just ONE Horcrux before questioning Slughorn about whether a person could have more than one, but it doesn't seem likely to me, as Riddle seemed curious about the Horcrux spell.

Choices - Jan 19, 2006 12:23 pm (#1534 of 2969)

I agree with you Esther Rose - The Gaunt house was pretty much "ruined" when Harry and Dumbledore visited it in the memory.

Rosariana, I am thinking Tom just pretended ignorance of the Horcrux spell to get more information out of Slughorn. I really think he had made one by then and was basically wanting to know about making multiple Horcruxes. He just didn't want Slughorn to suspect he had already created one since it involved murder.

haymoni - Jan 19, 2006 12:37 pm (#1535 of 2969)

He told Harry that he preserved his 16-year-old self in the diary.

He was 16 during his 5th year.

I'm guessing he did.

K Stahl - Jan 19, 2006 2:28 pm (#1536 of 2969)

Tom Riddle is secretive and would not give hints of his intentions if he did not have to. I believe that when he asked Slughorn about the Horcruxes he was at the beginning of his quest to know how to make a Horcrux. He had probably taught himself to do the Avada Kedavra and would teach himself to make a Horcrux when the time came. After all, he had killed and ripped his soul with no apparent harmful effect; at least none from his perspective.

Geber - Jan 19, 2006 4:59 pm (#1537 of 2969)

Mike suggested that being quick and agile was important if one is to avoid death or injury while destroying a Horcrux. Near the beginning of the first book we learn that Harry is a natural seeker, which suggests he would be good at destroying Horcruxes if he knew the right procedure.

Perhaps the link between Horcrux destruction and Harry being a seeker was something JKR invented early in the process of creating the books.

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 19, 2006 6:36 pm (#1538 of 2969)

I have been confused about how Riddle could create the diary Horcrux about the same time as he asks Slughorn about Horcruxes. I have an idea that might remove the timing constraints I have seen as a roadblock.

Riddle preserved his 16-year-old self in the diary. This does not require that the Horcrux was created in the diary at the same time. Of course, the easiest assumption is that the preservation of the 16-year-old self is the Horcrux.

I could envision a scenario where they are not quite the same. Wizards’ portraits don't require a soul bit to move and emulate the wizard they represent. The marauder's map has a lot of personalities and it doesn't have a soul bit. Either of these items could have a Horcrux added. Then they would have the ability to siphon off someone else’s soul to bring themselves to life like the Riddle diary.

This scenario would allow Riddle to make the Horcrux after he has thoroughly researched it (questioned Slughorn, etc...) and doesn't constrain his first murders to the creation of the diary Horcrux.

What do y'all think? Betelgeuse

Midori - Jan 19, 2006 8:35 pm (#1539 of 2969)

I was wondering why Riddle didn’t modified memory to Horace? Its VERY compromising memory. I can suggest that he couldn’t do it, probably while Riddle was at school Slughorn was more powerful and experienced wizard than Tom, so Riddle didn’t dare. But later? He was teaching till 1970-1975 at least - not 'on the run', and before Dumbledore become headmaster I guess Riddle could have possibility to erase that memory to Horace. Why not? It’s so weird for such 'accurate' evidence annihilator as Riddle is usually.

Solitaire - Jan 19, 2006 11:26 pm (#1540 of 2969)

The Lexicon says Slughorn began teaching the same time as Dumbledore and retired from Hogwarts at the end of the 1980-81 school year. Perhaps he was too well protected by Dumbledore for Riddle to get to him at Hogwarts. After that, he probably went into hiding between the time he left Hogwarts and the time Voldemort was vaporized. JM2K ...

Solitaire

haymoni - Jan 20, 2006 5:34 am (#1541 of 2969)

Perhaps Tom thought he had been so clever in his questioning of Sluggy that it wouldn't matter.

I too had raised the question of Preserving Self = Horcrux.

I think the red glint in Diary Tom answers the question though.

We just need to know how it's done. When the basilisk killed Myrtle, did Tom have the diary handy? Was it his plan all along to use whomever the basilisk killed first?

I really wish I had JKR's email address!

mike miller - Jan 20, 2006 6:51 am (#1542 of 2969)

I think the first Horcrux was the diary, created during the summer between Tom's 5th and 6th years at Hogwarts. This is the same time when he killed his father and grandparents (the significant murder used to create the Horcrux) and framed Morfin. Tom talked to Slughorn during his sixth year since we are told he was not the oldest in the group but its unquestioned leader. His conversation with Horace revolved around multiple Horcruxes, so I think it's safe to assume Tom already knew what they were.

Check my post #441 on this thread to see who Tom killed and which Horcrux was made with each murder. (Sorry I'm so technologically challenged that I can't insert a link)

Solitaire - Jan 20, 2006 7:17 am (#1543 of 2969)

Here is a link to post #441.

His conversation with Horace revolved around multiple Horcruxes, so I think it's safe to assume Tom already knew what they were.

I tend to agree with this theory.

Solitaire

Troels Forchhammer - Jan 20, 2006 8:35 am (#1544 of 2969)

I would say that I think it is safe to say that Tom did not know how to split one's soul and how to encase the split-off soul bit in a Horcrux, and that this is shown very clearly.

I argued that case in more detail in post #1420, but essentially I find Dumbledore's specific comment that Tom was seeking information on how to make himself immortal to be very convincing. ..

It is to me clear that Rowling intended Tom's excitement to match his lack of knowledge of the topic, and the excitement set in much earlier, at a point where Tom would not have shown any excitement if he was coolly guiding the conversation towards only the topic of more Horcruxes.

/Troels

Choices - Jan 20, 2006 10:32 am (#1545 of 2969)

In the Horcruxes chapter, Dumbledore tells Harry that what Voldemort particularly wanted from Slughorn was his opinion about what might happen to a wizard who split his soul more than once. Dumbledore says no book would have given him this information because it had never been done before. In my opinion, if Tom Riddle is wanting to know about splitting his soul more than once, he has, in all probability, already split it one time. Now he wants more. He wants to go farther down the road towards immortality than any other wizard has ever gone.

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 20, 2006 11:14 am (#1546 of 2969)

Mike Miller: "His conversation with Horace revolved around multiple Horcruxes, so I think it's safe to assume Tom already knew what they were."

Yes, I agree that he knew what Horcruxes were. I'll go back and reread this but if my memory serves me well, Tom asked Sluggy how to do it and Sluggy said that there is a spell, I do not know. This also implies that Tom knew of Horcruxes, but not how to do it yet. Tom was most interested in whether 7 Horcruxes would be more magically powerful according to Dumbledore's analysis.

I also agree that the diary was the first Horcrux. I just don't know if he knew how to make a Horcrux prior to putting his memory in the diary.

Haymoni: "I think the red glint in Diary Tom answers the question though."

Yes, this evidence does conflict with the my idea that diary Tom's soul did not have to be "implanted" at the same time the diary's magical memory was created. Maybe the red gleam was a result of the murders he had performed up to that point and not as a result of his "less than 100%" soul?

In summary, the red gleam in the eyes of Diary Tom conflicts with Toms question of how to perform the spell in Slughorn's memory. At this point, I tend to think that the soul bit was implanted later. It just feels right to me. I agree with Troel's that JKR is not supremely analytical with timelines so it could be either situation. I just feel like Tom didn't know how to do it at the time of Slughorn's memory.

Betelgeuse

Choices - Jan 20, 2006 11:29 am (#1547 of 2969)

More thoughts about Horcruxes from the Horcruxes chapter in HBP - Dumbledore tells Harry about the ring and says......

"And a terrible curse there was upon it too."

We know the ring belonged to the descendants of Slytherin, as did the necklace - could it be that these two Horcruxes in particular had the most severe/dangerous curses upon them because they came from Slytherin or his line. Perhaps they had evil curse upon evil curse on them. The other Horcruxes made from other founder's items may not be as difficult to destroy because they are not doubly cursed, so to speak.

Dumbledore says that his own enormous skill and Snape's timely action kept him from dying after destroying the ring Horcrux, and he feels that it is worth losing a hand to destroy one seventh of Voldemort's soul. I think Dumbledore thought he was doing away with the two most dangerous Horcruxes - the ones connected to Slytherin. I think he "died" without realizing that the necklace he went through heck to get, was a fake.

Esther Rose - Jan 20, 2006 12:23 pm (#1548 of 2969)

I don't know if I can safely say that Tom knew or did not know the process of creating a Horcruxes when he asked Slughorn about the subject. I would think that if Tom was really pressed to find information from Slughorn he would never let on what he already knew or already had done up to that point regarding the very subject he was inquiring about. Asking general questions like "What is a Horcrux?", "How do you make one?" would seem (or were) innocent enough for Slughorn to fall into the trap of telling Tom the information Tom really wanted to know. If Tom would have gone up to Slughorn and asked him "Can you make more than one Horcrux?" right away, Slughorn might not have answered any of the questions at all. I don't think Tom would have wanted to burn the reputation of being a "favored student" just yet.

As far as Dumbledore not knowing that the locket he retrieved from the basin was fake before he died (or faked his death). I am not so sure I would agree with that either. Would Dumbledore have figured out that the locket was a fake when he looked at it in the basin. Dumbledore did mention that magic leaves a trace. I would think he would know almost right away if the locket was encasing a soul bit or just a locket.

haymoni - Jan 20, 2006 12:39 pm (#1549 of 2969)

Could he see it clearly with all the Skanky Gatorade there?

I'm sure he wasn't feeling too well. He may have just been glad to see that a locket was there at all.

Choices - Jan 20, 2006 2:22 pm (#1550 of 2969)

Esther Rose - "I would think that if Tom was really pressed to find information from Slughorn he would never let on what he already knew or already had done up to that point regarding the very subject he was inquiring about. Asking general questions like "What is a Horcrux?", "How do you make one?" would seem (or were) innocent enough for Slughorn to fall into the trap of telling Tom the information Tom really wanted to know. If Tom would have gone up to Slughorn and asked him "Can you make more than one Horcrux?" right away, Slughorn might not have answered any of the questions at all. I don't think Tom would have wanted to burn the reputation of being a "favored student" just yet."

That's exactly what Tom did - he played dumb. He acted like he didn't know anything in order to get more information out of Slughorn. But, as Dumbledore said, his main objective was to find out if you could make more than one Horcrux. That says to me that Tom already had one Horcrux to his credit, and wanted to know about making more. Since he was moving into uncharted waters, he wanted Slughorn's opinion on the matter.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:08 pm

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 21, 2006 9:00 am (#1551 of 2969)

After doing some research, I think my ideas were the result of a misunderstanding of the timeline of events.

According the Lexicon, Riddle visited Little Hangleton (and then committed 3 murders) in the summer of 1942. During the next school year, Riddle questions Slughorn about Horcruxes. The next summer, he makes his diary.

My confusion came from the assumption that Riddle used the murder of his father and grandparents for the creation of Horcruxes. I do not feel like a year can pass before a person creates a Horcrux. I was wrongly assuming that the murders and the diary creation occurred the same summer.

If the interpretation of "summer of his 16th year" were the summer when he was 16 rather than the summer of the year when he turned 16, then the murders would be useable for the creation of a Horcrux. I know this has been discussed and I don't remember if any agreement was reached. I'm assuming there is a very good reason for the Lexicon to have made the timeline as they did so I'll leave it at that until I have time to check it out myself.

Betelgeuse

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 21, 2006 6:17 pm (#1552 of 2969)

Esther Rose and Choices, I agree with those explanations that Riddle was playing Slughorn in an effort to gain information on multiple Horcruxes (sorry Troels, no offense). Harry even confirms this, in my mind, when he comments on how good Riddle is at extracting information from people with his wile, using just the right inflection at just the right time, etc.

haymoni - Jan 21, 2006 9:38 pm (#1553 of 2969)

Betelgeuse - I think something is wrong with that timeline.

Tom Riddle turned 16 during his 5th year at Hogwarts.

He tells Harry that he preserved his 16-year-old self in the diary, which means he created the diary in the 2nd half of his 5th year at Hogwarts.

I think he killed the Riddles that following summer. He went to Morfin, got the ring and then headed over to the Riddles'. The question is, did he make the ring a Horcrux at that time or did he just take the trinket? Whatever the case, he took possession of the ring the summer before his 6th year.

He had to be in his 6th year when he is wearing the ring and talking to Slughorn, because he is with older boys.

Mrs Brisbee - Jan 22, 2006 4:50 am (#1554 of 2969)

Tom was born on New Years Day, so he would still be sixteen until halfway into his 6th year. So he could have created the diary after he talked to Slughorn, had murdered his father's family, and opened the Chamber and killed Myrtle. All that could easily fall into the year he was sixteen.

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 22, 2006 9:17 am (#1555 of 2969)

I've read the timeline and (believe it or not) the whole discussion here. The timeline makes sense if you don't think Tom knew how to make a Horcrux when he murdered Tom Sr.

I don't think I'll have much to add over the discussion that's already taken place.

Betelgeuse

Choices - Jan 22, 2006 10:12 am (#1556 of 2969)

Dumbledore tells Harry that once Voldemort turned the ring into a Horcrux he did not want to wear it anymore, so when we see him in the memory with the ring on, we know it isn't a Horcrux yet.

vball man - Jan 22, 2006 9:12 pm (#1557 of 2969)

My confusion came from the assumption that Riddle used the murder of his father and grandparents for the creation of Horcruxes. I do not feel like a year can pass before a person creates a Horcrux. I was wrongly assuming that the murders and the diary creation occurred the same summer. - Betelgeuse

I wonder if it isn't a matter of a "mending of the soul" of sorts. Perhaps with confession and repentance, forgiveness can occur, mending the soul.

Without this mending, the soul would remain torn, and a Horcrux could be made at any point. Just an idea.

haymoni - Jan 23, 2006 6:22 am (#1558 of 2969)

We just need to know more about how a Horcrux is created. If it has to be done very shortly after the murder, that's one thing.

If the trinkets were important to Tom, were the murders important too?

Would he have killed just anyone to make a Horcrux or was it important to kill certain people?

Too many questions, Jo! I wish you'd shed some light on this topic!

Esther Rose - Jan 23, 2006 7:50 am (#1559 of 2969)

I always thought that the Inferi in the water in the cave were all of the people at the orphanage (plus some others) and that Voldemort used them as practice until he could successfully complete the Avada Kedavra and then the Horcrux spell.

Could you imagine someone actually had to be Voldemort's first AK victim and it not working the first few times? Yikes.

Could you imagine being the orphanage director in the cave watching all of the kids at the orphanage being put to their death? Double Yikes.

mike miller - Jan 23, 2006 8:25 am (#1560 of 2969)

I find myself in agreement with many on these topics (Solitaire - thanks for creating the link, Choices, Esther Rose and Haymoni); and, I question the timeline Betelgeuse references.

You cannot start Hogwarts unless you are already 11 years old. Until recently I had always thought Hermione to be the youngest because of her birth date; however, the apparition lessons cleared that up. This means that Tom was already 11 when he started Hogwarts and would be 16 during the summer after his 5th year. The summer he murdered his father and grandparents and about the same time he created Diary Tom.

There is still the questions of how long after the commission of a murder can you still split off a piece of your soul; and, if Diary Tom is not a "soul bit" as Dumbledore tells us, then what was he? I think Tom used only significant murders and significant artifacts to create Horcruxes (see post #441); and, he used the murder of father to create Diary Tom. The ring was made a Horcrux later since Tom was wearing it during his conversation with Horace.

Choices - Jan 23, 2006 10:08 am (#1561 of 2969)

vball man - "Without this mending, the soul would remain torn, and a Horcrux could be made at any point. Just an idea."

I agree with you vball man. And I also think Mike is right about Tom using significant murders to create his Horcruxes and significant items to put his soul pieces in. Dumbledore told us how Tom thought of Hogwarts as his home and how he would have liked to use an item from each of the founders to create his Horcruxes.

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 23, 2006 4:43 pm (#1562 of 2969)

So much time has been spent analyzing the timeline around TR's 16th birthday. I am wondering if those specifics are so important. We really do not have enough info. regarding Horcrux making, even with a precise timeline. What we do know is that DD told Harry what to go after and according to JKR, he is never very far off the mark. It may be more advantageous to pursue it from another direction. After all, there's more than one way to skin a cat!

mike miller - Jan 23, 2006 7:28 pm (#1563 of 2969)

HH11 - You may be right about the timeline not being dramatically important. After all, isn't a timeline almost math; and, we know how much JKR likes math.

I do think that understanding what Voldemort was up to is necessary to identify the missing pieces. We know Tom was a loner, he liked to collect trophies and he was drawn to and found significance in the Hogwarts founders being he was related to one. We know of significant murders that Tom and later Voldemort has committed and we know some significant artifacts that seem to have come into Voldemort's possession. As we attempt to find the missing Horcrux, and I think there is only one if Dumbledore was right about Nagini, it will have to fit this pattern.

La Signora - Jan 25, 2006 10:20 pm (#1564 of 2969)

Here's a curly one - I wonder if someone has already put this in. You know how in the prophecy it said LV would mark him... as his equal. And DD has always said there is 'some kind' of connection between HP and LV although it always sounded ambiguous. Ok, let's say that Harry was protected by his mother's love and the spell rebounded, rah rah ok, but why would a bit of LV get into Harry with a rebounding spell?... if he wasn't putting a bit of himself in there on purpose!

What I mean is, all this connection they have could simply be a result of Harry being an LV Horcrux. He may then have tried to kill him and perhaps it is impossible for you to kill your own Horcrux, so it didn't work.

Do we know for sure than HP's scar is from LV trying to AK him, or could the mark have been before that? When he makes Harry a Horcrux? Even if it is only minutes before and then LV tried to AK him. I'm just not sold on Harry didn't die because his mother loved him and died for him. I think there is more to it than that and the idea that he is a Horcrux might be explain it.

I was very curious about the fact that despite Dumbledore continuing lessons in 6, he gave up the idea of teaching Harry Occlumency. This made me retrack Voldemort's connections with his Horcruxes. It seems he doesn't know if one is destroyed, he didn't know about the book. They seems quite independent from him. It also seems he didn't know that Harry was 'reading' his thoughts either. Why not? If Harry knew he was in LV's head? Is the connection only one way? Once he realised that Harry was reading him, he tricked Harry into thinking Sirius was in danger, but is that the same as a two-communication. Did he just plant the thought of Sirius in danger in his own danger knowing that Harry would read it and come running. There are a few holes in this I know... but ah well..... for instance, Tom Riddle in the diary didn't know anything about life after he became the Horcrux at 16. He only knew about Harry because Ginny wrote it to him. This still shows how distinct the Horcruxes are from Voldemort though.

I do have another weird idea though. If Riddle (as the diary Horcrux) had succeeded with Ginny, would there have been 2 Voldemorts (if we say the other had already materialised and wasn't just a spirit)? I had the Matrix Agent Smith clones flash before my eyes.

Last thing... I remember in PoA when Sirius write to Harry and tell him he sent him the broom, that he tells Harry his vault number in Gringotts. At the time I thought it a bit of a weird insert, but perhaps Harry will remember and look for the locket there... I imagine it was the Black family vault.

haymoni - Jan 26, 2006 6:26 am (#1565 of 2969)

Weren't the vault numbers close to each other?

For some reason that is sticking with me - no books at hand to verify.

Maybe when Harry goes to get money from his vault, he'll open up the other.

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 26, 2006 11:24 am (#1566 of 2969)

I have a problem with a Horcrux not being fairly time limited to the death used for its creation.

Dumbledore also mentioned that "significant" deaths were used for Horcruxes. I think the reason many have used Voldy's father and grandparents was because they would have been significant to Voldy. It seems logical that at least on of these deaths would be used for a Horcrux. If the timeline turns out correct, Tom Riddle Sr. may not be used for a Horcrux. That seems wrong to me. It just doesn't fit the descriptions of Voldy in HBP and the significance of the scenes observed in the pensieve.

I think the "soul tearing" is analogous to a physical injury. Right after the injury (tearing), the soul bit can be ripped off and put into a Horcrux. After some time (weeks, months?), the soul will sort of heal, but leave a nasty scar where the tearing took place. The "soul bit" would not be removable at this point. Yes, the soul has healed somewhat, but the soul is still damaged to where it is never going to be the same again.

Dumbledore mentioned that Harry's death would have been used for the sixth Horcrux. Dumbledore mentions that Frank Bryce was probably used to make Nagini the sixth Horcrux since Harry's murder attempt failed. This is circumstantial evidence, i.e., proves nothing by itself, that the Horcrux was probably made soon after the murder. I just don't know why Frank's death

I think this eventually will be a subject where we will agree to disagree.

Betelgeuse

P.S. I hope I didn't ramble too much. I don't have time to edit.

haymoni - Jan 26, 2006 11:40 am (#1567 of 2969)

I wonder what trinket Voldy would have used to house the Harry Horcrux.

Maybe he'll find it at Godric's Hollow.

Choices - Jan 26, 2006 11:43 am (#1568 of 2969)

I think in other posts or threads, we have discussed the splitting of the soul and come to the conclusion that remorse or repentance is needed for the soul to heal. Voldemort has no remorse for any of his murders, so I do not believe his soul has healed at all. When he murders and his soul splits, it remains split because he is not at all sorry for what he has done.

hawick girl - Jan 26, 2006 1:30 pm (#1569 of 2969)

Yep, Choices, I totally agree. I think that healing is analogous to repentance in the "soul mending" metaphor.

Also, if there is a timeline so close that you have to make a Horcrux immediately after (bringing the object with him), wouldn't it be foolish to remain at a murder scene to complete a 'nasty bit of magic' where magic leaves traces. Not including the magical law enforcement people showing up on the scene. An example of this is how long did it take Fudge (or was it Barty Crouch Sr.)to get to Sirius and Pettigrew's fracas--Sirius was still there wasn't he? would you want to stick around to make a Horcrux in a situation like that? I suppose that they are different situations in that one is in a village at night in a private home killing 2 people, and the other is in broad daylight in public, killing 12 people. I wonder what the response time is of the magical law enforcement wizards?

La Signora - Jan 27, 2006 3:56 am (#1570 of 2969)

How old was LV supposed to be when he knocked off his folks? Was it at 16, the age claimed for his memory in the diary? Does anyone know if this Horcrux thing is fair dinkum anyway? (Yes, I am Australian) I mean, is this something JKR made up or is it 'real' magic? If so, I doubt she would diverge from what is truly known about them. Pity I'm a Muggle. I'd ask the local witch... but she'd just adjust my memory anyway.

haymoni - Jan 27, 2006 6:42 am (#1571 of 2969)

Right after the book came out, I tried searching the web for the word "Horcrux" and all I found were references to HBP.

Another question for Jo!

Choices - Jan 27, 2006 1:00 pm (#1572 of 2969)

It could have been based on something the Egyptians did. They placed the organs of a body in jars and they were buried with the corpse I believe. I hope I am remembering this correctly - you might check out some information concerning Egyptian burial customs.

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 27, 2006 5:54 pm (#1573 of 2969)

Choices, that is an interesting point about Egypt -- because Hor-crux could be a conjunction of Horus (Egyptian hawk-headed god) and the Crux obvious reference.

haymoni, has it been discussed about Godric's Sword having been at Godric's Hollow up until that night - then DD took possession of it?

haymoni - Jan 27, 2006 8:11 pm (#1574 of 2969)

I haven't heard that one.

I thought somewhere Jo said that James was NOT a descendant of Godric Gryffindor, so it seems odd that it might be in his possession. Godric's Hollow is a town...it's possible that the house they were "hiding out in" contained the sword.

Or are you suggesting that Voldy brought it along as a trinket? It's kind of big, though. I can't imagine Voldy lugging it around on his way to the Potters. Even if he "Accio’d it - he'd still have to carry the thing for a little while.

I kind of like thinking that it just magically appeared in the Sorting Hat and clunked Harry on the head. Like "Duh"...here's what you need!

Dumbledore seemed to be familiar with it though...mmmm...maybe it hung in the Dumbledore household as a relic of a certain ancestor????

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 28, 2006 1:53 pm (#1575 of 2969)

Yes I'm implying that Lily and James were hiding out in a house that was affiliated with Godric Gryffindor. This to me would add protection along with Fidelius Charm, non-apparition, etc. I am not under the impression that the house was their own rather was provided for them, possibly by DD which would make sense to me.

This being the assumption, it could be that Vold was told by Wormtail the details of their hideout, and Vold presumed there would be a GG "relic" of some sort with which he could create a Horcrux. After killing James and Lily, he'd have time to prepare the Horcrux spell for the sword first, then attempt to kill Harry. It's possible the rebounding AK caused a chaotic mess of energies and Vold's soul piece entered Harry via scar rather than into the sword. After the house was burnt/destroyed and Hagrid arrived on the scene, the sword would have been sitting there as I don't feel the damage would necessarily have melted steel. So Hagrid returned the sword to DD and it now lives in Headmaster's office. That's my little theory for now.

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 28, 2006 6:11 pm (#1576 of 2969)

I don't think the sword was in Godric's Hollow. Dumbledore had it in his office in the pensieve scene where Voldemort came back to ask for a job. I don't see a reason to send it off to Godric's Hollow.

Betelgeuse

haymoni - Jan 29, 2006 6:04 am (#1577 of 2969)

Mmmm...I missed that! Another reason to re-read HBP!!!

Quidditch Mom - Jan 29, 2006 8:51 am (#1578 of 2969)

This has likely already been discussed to death...but I'd appreciate if someone could set me straight / point me to some posts.

The sorting hat is a relic of Gryffindor - the hat stated in it's start of term song in Goblet of Fire that GG took the hat off his head (US hardcover p. 177). We are told several times that the Sorting Hat "lives" in the headmaster's office.

In one of the HBP Pensieve scenes, Harry thought he saw the slightest twitch of Voldemort's wand when LV asked Dumbledore for the DADA job. So, was LV cursing the DADA position just then, or making the Sorting Hat into a Horcrux, or something else?

Choices[/b] - Jan 29, 2006 10:01 am (#1579 of 2969)

Probably cursing the DADA position since JKR has stated that a hat who sings songs before hundreds of people isn't likely to be a Horcrux.

Solitaire - Jan 29, 2006 10:09 am (#1580 of 2969)

wouldn't it be foolish to remain at a murder scene to complete a 'nasty bit of magic' where magic leaves traces. Not including the magical law enforcement people showing up on the scene

Perhaps Voldemort had some way to render himself invisible and the location Unplottable or impenetrable until he finished his dirty work ... so that he would not be interrupted. Or perhaps, knowing about the Fidelius Charm (and other possible concealment charms on the house in GH), he may have felt he would be safe enough.

Solitaire

Quidditch Mom - Jan 29, 2006 11:45 am (#1581 of 2969)

Choices post #1579: So was JKR saying that the Sorting Hat would "know" it was a Horcrux and would blab the fact?

If that's true, wouldn't Harry "know" if he was a Horcrux, too?

How else might JKR's statement about the hat be interpreted?

Choices - Jan 29, 2006 12:05 pm (#1582 of 2969)

I think basically what JKR was saying is that Horcruxes are usually hidden and kept very secret so as not to be discovered. The Sorting Hat is a bit too "public" to make a safe Horcrux.

I am not of the opinion that Harry is a Horcrux. Dumbledore has known Harry since he was a baby - I think if Harry had a soul bit in his head Dumbledore would have noticed. After all, magic leaves traces..... very distinct traces. Harry would probably have noticed also, but then again, sometimes Harry isn't too perceptive. LOL

Weeny Owl - Jan 29, 2006 12:42 pm (#1583 of 2969)

I agree with you on that, Choices.

If Dumbledore can sense the magic in the caves, and if he is actively searching for Horcruxes, chances are likely that he would have already felt something from Harry or used some of those odd instruments in his office to make sure that no part of Harry was a Horcrux.

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 29, 2006 3:23 pm (#1584 of 2969)

I have to issue a correction. I thought I remembered that Harry saw the sword in the pensieve when Dumbledore met Voldemort. I reread that scene but I did not see any reference to the sword.

Maybe that will teach me to check my facts prior to posting.

Betelgeuse

Solitaire - Jan 29, 2006 3:40 pm (#1585 of 2969)

Betelgeuse, I got to wondering about that sword yesterday, when I was chatting with Boop. I looked back in CoS and could not find any mention of Harry having seen the sword in Dumbledore's office the first time he was ever there--the time he pulled the Sorting Hat onto his own head and it talked to him.

I began to wonder ... was the sword in evidence in Dumbledore's office at that time? Or had it always been magically concealed inside the Sorting Hat, until the time Fawkes brought the Hat to Harry in the Chamber, and the hat released the sword onto his head? If the sword had always been concealed in the Hat, did Dumbledore even know it existed and was there?

When I saw your previous post, it seemed to account for the sword's previous "residence" in Dumbledore's office. Now, my questions are back. Any ideas?

Solitaire

Choices - Jan 29, 2006 5:49 pm (#1586 of 2969)

In HBP Harry sees the "ruby encrusted sword that reposed in a glass case" behind Dumbledore's desk. I have no proof, but I believe that it has been there for a long time. It is a treasured relic of Godric Gryffindor and I think the head's office has been it's home for many years. In OotP, Terry Boot asks Harry if it's true that Harry killed a basilisk with that sword in Dumbledore's office. He said one of the portraits had told him about it when he was in there "last year" (Harry's forth year). Just my opinion.

Solitaire - Jan 29, 2006 6:29 pm (#1587 of 2969)

The fact that Terry saw the sword in Dumbledore's office in his fourth year does not tell us how long it has been there. Had it been there all the time--out in the open in Dumbledore's office--when Harry was in his second year? Or did it only appear after Harry pulled it out of the Sorting Hat? Fawkes brought the Hat to Harry in the Chamber, and Dumbledore was away from Hogwarts at that time. If the sword had been sitting in Dumbledore's office, who concealed it in the Hat ... Fawkes? McGonagall? Snape? Or had it always been concealed in the Hat, waiting for a "true Gryffindor" to discover and use it? Inquiring minds--well, mine, anyway--want to know! LOL

Solitaire

edited by me

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 29, 2006 7:50 pm (#1588 of 2969)

I had been so sure that the sword was mentioned as being in the headmaster's office. I don't know where I got the idea and it's bugging me a lot now. I'm reviewing HBP for any sword references in the pensieve scenes. I'll go back and look in CoS and others to see if I can find where I got the notion.

Please note that I get these thoughts and sometimes there is no canon evidence for them. It's happened before and I was embarrassed by my assumption. I'll keep looking.

Betelgeuse

lapland - Jan 29, 2006 8:17 pm (#1589 of 2969)

I've never seen any comments to my previous post so I assume it was too long. I cannot see anything inside DD office as being made into a Horcrux even if it was there as you have hundreds of eyes viewing from the portraits.

We know LV visited the office on at least three occasions, but we have never seen him outside the room. There is a griffin doorknocker outside DD office. Is this a symbol of GG? Could this be the Horcrux that is a symbol of the founders? Was GG the first occupant of the office?

Solitaire - Jan 29, 2006 9:23 pm (#1590 of 2969)

Don't be embarrassed, Betelgeuse ... your assumption is probably what most people think. In the end, you will probably be right ... but I want to know for certain.

Lapland, I went back and read your post #1349. It's hard to say whether Voldemort would have tried to create a Horcrux right there under Dumbledore's nose. I don't think so, but I could be wrong. He is certainly arrogant enough to have attempted it. I do not remember when the doorknocker was last mentioned. It seems an odd thing to turn into a Horcrux, as so many could have potential access to it. Also, it does not seem to have any special magical significance. Hard to say ...

Solitaire

La Signora - Jan 29, 2006 10:03 pm (#1591 of 2969)
Edited by Jan 29, 2006 10:04 pm

Weeny Owl et al re: Harry as a Horcrux

If DD was hypothesizing that Harry was a Horcrux, how on earth could he tell him that? It'd be a bit of bad news to break.

"Sorry kid, but the evilest man in the world has put a bit of his soul in you. I know it's a lot to ask, but it would be really nice if you could commit suicide so we can get rid of him".

I don't know. DD not telling Harry he is a Horcrux, for me, isn't evidence that he might not be! Harry as a Horcrux is the best explanation that I can find of the prophecy - neither can live while the other survives (or something like that)

Weeny Owl - Jan 29, 2006 11:30 pm (#1592 of 2969)

I'm not saying Dumbledore would have told him, but in all of his speculating, he was very specific as to Voldemort not making a Horcrux of a living being, especially one with its own willpower. Nagini may be a snake with a mind of her own, but she can hardly compare to a human.

Choices - Jan 30, 2006 10:00 am (#1593 of 2969)

Solitaire - "The fact that Terry saw the sword in Dumbledore's office in his fourth year does not tell us how long it has been there."

It definitely does not..... I was simply citing two instances that I remember where the sword is mentioned being in the office.

It has always seemed odd to me that Fawkes brought the hat to Harry along with the sword. Maybe it was just a way of carrying the sword easier or maybe the sword was hidden in the hat waiting for that "true Gryffindor" - but then, over the past 1000 years has there not been any "true Gryffindor's" at Hogwarts, who put the hat on and found the sword? What was really meant by that "true Gryffindor" comment??? Has it just been waiting there all these years for Harry? Maybe so. This is when we really need HOGWARTS - A HISTORY.

Aurora Gubbins - Jan 30, 2006 11:21 am (#1594 of 2969)

I think the sword was waiting for someone to really need it.

Having re-watched the PS movie I still think the Award For Special Services Riddle received when attending Hogwarts is a Horcrux, it's shown when Hermione shows Harry the shield with his father's name on as being the Seeker for Gryffindor some years earlier. As for the 'hiding a leaf in the tree' train of thought, as Hagrid said "There ain't no safer place than Gringotts, except maybe Hogwarts", what safer place to store a valuable piece of oneself than on full view?

haymoni - Jan 30, 2006 11:26 am (#1595 of 2969)

The award to Tom is there??? I never noticed that.

Guess I'll have to watch SS one more time!!!

Soul Search - Jan 30, 2006 12:08 pm (#1596 of 2969)

Choices, I don't think HOGWARTS - A HISTORY would help us; if there was any mention of the sword, Hermione would have brought it up by now.

But, I do like the idea that the sword has been concealed in the hat for a long time.

I have never quite been satisfied with Fawkes arriving in the nick of time with just what Harry needed. Why bring the hat? How did Fawkes get the sword out of the case and put it in the hat? Was Dumbledore actually there? How could a long sword fit in even a large wizards' hat? Too many questions.

Now, if the sword was magically concealed in the hat, it all becomes easier. And, Dumbledore's telling Harry about pulling the sword out of the hat and being a true Gryffindor is easier to accept. Did Dumbledore even know that the sword was in the hat? (He didn't put it back.) Dumbledore (nor Fawkes) put the sword in the hat because it had always been there.

Of course, in true JKR style, accepting that the sword had been in the hat brings up a couple of more questions.

If Gryffindor concealed the sword in the hat, did the other founders also conceal some personal item in the hat? Did Tom Riddle discover this. Is that why he decided on a Horcrux object for each Hogwarts founder? Did Tom Riddle visit Dumbledore (in his office, where the hat is always kept) because he knew what he wanted was in the hat? Had he already stolen the Ravenclaw object from the hat? (Dippet may have been easier than Dumbledore to circumvent.)

And, if the sword was in the hat, what was the object that Voldemort was intending to use at Godric's Hollow for his sixth Horcrux? I had convinced myself that it had to be the sword.

La Signora - Jan 30, 2006 4:48 pm (#1597 of 2969)

To Weeny owl:

I take your point about it not being a good idea - making a living thing your Horcrux - given that it can think for itself, however, under the circumstances of the prophesy, Voldemort may have decided to take that risk and make Harry a Horcrux to safeguard him against Harry killing him.

I reread the bit about the Snake last night and I few things jumped out at me:

DD - I think I know what the sixth Horcrux is. I wonder what you will say when I confess that that I have been curios for a while about the behaviour of the snake, Nagini?

(This is clutching at straws, but he doesn't actually say he think it is Nagini... keep reading)

HP: The snake? You can use animals to make Horcruxes?

DD: Well, it is inadvisable to do so because to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business. However, if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was at least one Horcrux short of his goal of 6 when he entered your parents’ house with the intention of killing you.

So DD does say that LV was one Horcrux short of six when he arrived at the potters. How he calculates that I don't know, but I thought it adds to the idea that Harry is one, and that James was the AK used to make the Harry Horcrux.

DD goes on to say that LV used Nagini to kill the old Muggle man and that then it may have occurred to him to make her into his last Horcrux. Two sentences before however, it says that LV uses significant murders to make his Horcrux. But who else has he killed since? There was Bertha (?) in the forest, the Muggle man, and Cedric... I don't think any of them were significant enough for him to make a Horcrux.

It still makes more sense to me that Harry is a Horcrux. It’s risky, but it’s the ultimate safeguard against the prophecy. Plus the whole 'mark him as an equal' part of the prophecy and the transfer of some powers, all indicates to me that a bit of Voldy is in Harry.

Solitaire - Jan 30, 2006 5:37 pm (#1598 of 2969)

Nice one, Aurora! That does sound like it would be significant to Voldemort ... not the least because he really fooled everyone.

Solitaire

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 30, 2006 6:04 pm (#1599 of 2969)

La Signora, I agree that Harry is a Horcrux, but that it happened inadvertently. It makes sense yet it seems too easy, so I am wondering if we will see this theory come to fruition.

I've posted this before here, but I wanted to post it again:

One last comment regarding the fact that I think Harry is inadvertent Horcrux. I emailed Round Pink Spider with my thoughts and in her reply, I thought she brought up a great quote supporting this from SS: Yes, we think that Harry is an involuntary Horcrux as well. Do you remember when Dumbledore told Harry that, when Voldemort attacked him, he accidentally transferred some of his own powers to Harry? Do you remember what Harry said?

‘Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?’ Harry said, thunderstruck.

‘It certainly seems so.’

Hint, hint! I think Harry is the ‘something belonging to Godric Gryffindor.’ It probably wasn’t what Voldemort intended, but I think that’s just how it worked out.

Remember, Harry is sorted into Gryffindor but the hat seemed split on this and wanted to put him in Slytherin. When most family members are kept the same - for instance, the Weasleys, Creeveys, etc. - why would the hat put Harry into Slytherin when his father wasn't? In addition, I think Harry pulling the sword out of the hat is a type of King Arthur situation, in a sense. It seems more and more as though he could be a true heir.

me and my shadow 813 - Jan 30, 2006 6:37 pm (#1600 of 2969)

My feelings on this topic coincide with HungarianHorntail. Harry/scar is the "unintended" Horcrux of a Horcrux spell gone haywire at Godric's Hollow. It might be that JKR is leaving us a clue with Harry asking DD "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" but I don't think DD actually realizes Harry is the last Horcrux. JKR has informed us that when DD makes a mistake, it's a huge one. This would fit that description perfectly for me, for we'll need a huge DD mistake in book 7.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:11 pm

Aurora Gubbins - Jan 31, 2006 1:34 am (#1601 of 2969)

I just don't see Harry/Horcrux in spite of the supporting evidence given by loads of people. Yes, we've known for a long time that LV transferred some of his powers into Harry as a baby, but why would LV want Harry dead in the graveyard (GoF)? LV was going to kill Harry himself, after taking Harry's blood to revive his body. The only thing left after this is that the object has to be destroyed before the soul part can be removed for transferring into another object, but then again it does put the soul part in danger of destruction when the object concealing it is destroyed - or do you have to transfer it temporarily back to the body it came from? Oh! Questions! Questions!

As for giving us hints, tips and clues on Jo's website, I believe we can see representations of the Horcruxes there and we certainly don't see Harry there.

I just don't think Harry is a Horcrux. Sorry guys - I'm still not convinced.

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 31, 2006 4:58 am (#1602 of 2969)

OK one more post on GG's sword,

The reason I thought that the sword was in DD's office comes from the pensieve scene where Voldy is asking DD for a job. At the beginning of the scene, Harry sees that DD's office looks exactly as the present day office except the snow outside and on the windows. This does not say that the sword is in the office. It implies that it is, IF Harry notices it. Harry notices Fawkes and the instruments on the table. I think we all know that Harry has missed this type of thing many times before.

Does anyone remember where the case that holds GG's sword is located in the office? Maybe if it is very prominent we can judge whether it was there or not.

I guess this means that we still don't know if LV had a chance to get to the sword. He may have been trying to get at if from the Potter's. We just don't know since Harry has overlooked details before. I think JKR probably wants us to ponder this situation.

Betelgeuse

Steve Newton - Jan 31, 2006 5:49 am (#1603 of 2969)

Good reasoning BB.

Solitaire - Jan 31, 2006 7:18 am (#1604 of 2969)

In CoS, the Sorting Hat sat on a shelf behind Dumbledore's desk. He simply does not mention the sword here.

There was also an enormous, claw-footed desk, and, sitting on a shelf behind it, a shabby, tattered wizard's hat - the Sorting Hat.

He does mention it in Chapter 30 of GoF.

Harry looked up at the walls behind the desk. The patched and ragged Sorting Hat was standing on a shelf. A glass case next to it held a magnificent silver sword with large rubies set into the hilt, which Harry recognized as the one he himself had pulled out of the Sorting Hat in his second year. The sword had once belonged to Godric Gryffindor, founder of Harry's House. He was gazing at it, remembering how it had come to his aid when he had thought all hope was lost

It's hard to know if it was there before or not. Since it was the Sorting Hat that had interested him in CoS, perhaps he just did not notice the Sword. But I still wonder ...

Solitaire

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 31, 2006 7:58 am (#1605 of 2969)

I will clarify my standpoint, Aurora and me and my shadows 813, I think that neither Big V nor DD knows about Harry being a Horcrux (it was an accident - Big V has neither knowledge of nor feelings linked to his Horcruxes' status). (Well, DD may know now - wherever he is and perhaps part of the book will include him trying to bring this to Harry's attention.) I also remember how Harry felt when he used the Extendable Ears to eavesdrop from outside of the hospital door. If he is a Horcrux, when he finds out, he will be a bit more prepared mentally. I am not asking anyone to agree with me. I am simply sharing my point of view.

Soul Search - Jan 31, 2006 9:19 am (#1606 of 2969)

After careful review, I am convinced that Gryffindor's sword had been magically concealed in the sorting hat. It made its first appearance in the storyline when Harry pulled it out of the hat in the Chamber of Secrets.

Fawkes arrives in the Chamber, singing and "gripping a ragged bundle. ... It dropped the ragged thing it was carrying at his feet, then landed heavily on Harry's shoulder." Seems unlikely a sword could be in a "ragged bundle" and no "clank" or sound when the bundle hit the stone floor. Riddle identifies the Sorting Hat and both he and Harry look at it. "Patched, frayed, and dirty, the hat lay motionless at Harry's feet." No mention of a long sword sticking out. So, the sword wasn't simply wrapped inside the bundle, or anything.

Harry is in dire straits with the basilisk. Its tail has swept the sorting hat to Harry. Harry puts the hat on his head and asks for help. "... the hat contracted, as though an invisible hand was squeezing it very tightly.

Something very hard and heavy thudded onto the top of Harry's head, almost knocking him out. ..., he grabbed the top of the hat to pull it off and felt something long and hard beneath it.

A gleaming silver sword had appeared inside the hat, its handle glittering with rubies the size of eggs."

So, Harry, a true Gryffindor, put on the Sorting Hat, which had been Godric Gryffindor's, asked for help, and the hat produced Godric Gryffindor's own sword.

I also reviewed the movie. There is a sparkling in the hat and the hilt of the sword appears. Previously, when I saw this scene, I thought the movie was taking a bit of dramatic license, but no, they got it right (more or less.)

This is the first appearance of the sword in the storyline. Even when Harry first visits Dumbledore's office in CoS and talks to the hat, he doesn't notice a "gleaming silver sword" on a shelf near it. The sword was not in Dumbledore's office until Harry brought it back from the Chamber.

Where did my thoughts go astray? I think I didn't pay much attention to the sword until Dumbledore asserted that it couldn't be a Horcrux. I jumped on that, erroneously deciding that Voldemort had been planning on using Gryffindor's sword and Harry's death to make his sixth Horcrux at Godric's Hollow. That, now, couldn't be the case.

Which means there could still be a candidate Horcrux object at Godric's Hollow. For Harry to find, when he visits.

Some questions still remain:

If the sword wasn't to be the sixth Horcrux object at Godric's Hollow, what was? Does this throw off Dumbledore's assessment of the remaining Horcrux objects? If, for example, Voldemort was planning on using the cup, then it didn't become a Horcrux, but something else had already been used.

If Gryffindor concealed the sword in the hat, did the other founders also conceal some personal item in the hat? Did Tom Riddle discover this. Is that why he decided on a Horcrux object for each Hogwarts founder? Did Tom Riddle visit Dumbledore (in his office, where the hat is always kept) because he knew what he wanted was in the hat? Had he already stolen the Ravenclaw object from the hat? (Dippet may have been easier than Dumbledore to circumvent.) Did Voldemort draw a "true Slytherin" object from the hat?

Some good speculation material, to keep us going on our Horcrux hunt.

Betelgeuse Black - Jan 31, 2006 11:01 am (#1607 of 2969)

Solitaire,

I specifically checked CoS for the scene where Riddle talks with Prof. Dippet in the headmaster's office for any mention of the sword. No luck there. I was looking for any instance where the sword could show up in the distant past. There is no mention of the sword in the HBP pensieve scene where DD talks with Voldemort about a job.

My feeling is that the sword was not related to the headmaster's office but it was something of Dumbledore's. It could have been received by Dumbledore after the Godric's Hollow murders. I don't know. My assumption had always been that the sword was DD's and not the Potters. It's just a feeling that mainly comes from JKR's comments that Harry is not an heir of Gryffindor. I think the Potters would be heirs of Gryffindor if they had the sword.

I feel like the sorting hat got the sword from DD's office. Again, that's just the prejudice of my assumptions I made when reading the books the first time. I could be completely wrong about this one. The sword could have been "brought" to Harry by the sorting hat from its hiding place. Who knows? Jo knows...

Too much information, running through my brain... Accio butterbeer! Betelgeuse

haymoni - Jan 31, 2006 11:05 am (#1608 of 2969)

It makes sense that the Sorting Hat would provide aid in the form of something from one of the 4 founders. Since Harry was wearing the Hat, he got something of Gryffindor's.

JKR says that there is a bit of the 4 founders in the hat. Who knows where the sword came from?

I have to re-read that section in COS again. I am too movie-contaminated to add much to this discussion.

Steve Newton - Jan 31, 2006 11:13 am (#1609 of 2969)

If there is a bit of the 4 founders in the hat does that mean that there are 3 more good things to come out?

haymoni - Jan 31, 2006 11:15 am (#1610 of 2969)

Maybe somebody from the other 3 houses should put the hat on and ask for help!

Mattew Bates - Jan 31, 2006 11:22 am (#1611 of 2969)

Just a bit of food for thought... something similar has been mentioned before, but I had some new thoughts on it after re-reading OotP.

Harry may have been accidentally made into an Horcrux at Godric's Hollow, but I think it is unlikely that he is one any more. Harry's mother placed very powerful magical protection on Harry, one that Voldy always underestimates. Because Voldy could not abide to possess Harry even for a short time at the end of OotP, Harry would be an inhospitable home for a Bit-bit. I'm guessing that a soulbit placed in Harry would have withered and died shortly thereafter. The Diary still exists, however ink stained & damaged, but it is no longer home to a soulbit. The powers that Voldy transferred to Harry could be similar to ink stains left on the diary - the only trace that he was ever there. So it's possible that Harry has already destroyed one more Horcrux than anybody - even Voldy - knows.

Steve Newton - Jan 31, 2006 11:26 am (#1612 of 2969)

Matthew, although there is some evidence that Harry might be a Horcrux I have never liked the idea. Not sure why. I like your reasoning.

Choices - Jan 31, 2006 11:50 am (#1613 of 2969)

I'm with you Steve - I just don't like the idea and I can't fathom how Dumbledore could not know if Harry was a Horcrux. The man would have to be stupid (and he ISN'T) not to know if a bit of Voldemort's soul was in Harry's scar. Magic leaves traces..... .and all that jazz!

Weeny Owl - Jan 31, 2006 4:04 pm (#1614 of 2969)

Since this is JKR we're talking about, we just can't say something would never happen, but I agree with Choice as far as Dumbledore's intelligence and magic leaving traces. Dumbledore has been searching for Horcruxes for at least a year, and he wouldn't discount Harry being one. He's the one who said some of Voldemort's powers had transferred to Harry, so that would probably be the first place he'd look. He could probably perform some spells that Harry wouldn't even notice.

HungarianHorntail11 - Jan 31, 2006 4:25 pm (#1615 of 2969)

I really like the idea of the sword having been hidden in the hat, esp. if DD hid it in there; however, I am not sure how this can help us, unless DD has another surprise for him to pull out. Harry was helped in an extreme situation that I cannot envision Riddle to have been in with regard to receiving an object from the sorting hat.

Matthew, Lily's very powerful magical protection saved Harry from certain death. With regard to the Horcrux, I do not envision the soul bit floating around inside of Harry freely, rather it is encapsulated and free from the effects of anything around it - unless the container becomes 'damaged', for lack of a better word. If it was there and then destroyed before he even knew about it, there wouldn't be much reason to even mention it in the story.

I took the "magic leaves traces" bit to mean that if magic had been performed say, on a rock, that DD or an astute wizard could tell. Harry is a plethora of "magical traces".

Choices - Jan 31, 2006 5:51 pm (#1616 of 2969)

Maybe the "in essence divided" question was a test to see if some of Voldemort's "essence" or soul was in Harry. Just a thought.

sph12 - Jan 31, 2006 8:01 pm (#1617 of 2969)

"Could the basilisk have been a Horcrux as well? For Harry's sake I hope it was. That + the Horcrux taken by R.A.B. ( if he/she really got the opportunity to destroy it) makes 4 destroyed. That leaves 2 more + LV. Unfortunately for Harry I think there are unfortunately still 4 left. I believe that LV did find a Gryffindor thing to seal his sole in."

Essie, According to the prophecy, only one can live, not both. Therefore, is it possible for both to also die?

sph12

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 1, 2006 8:04 am (#1618 of 2969)

Choices, FWIW, "essence divided" may have been when DD took his suspicions (which seem to have stemmed from the peculiar diary incident) to heart and began pursuing the idea that Big V made Horcruxes. It seems to me that in HBP, the Horcrux pursuit was in its infancy stage. In Book 5, DD was unsure of the nature of the connection between Big V and Harry, therefore, kept his distance. I think he had theories, but was not certain. He was certain that it was potentially dangerous, though, and did not teach Harry Occlumens, himself. (BTW, I think his assigning Snape the lessons speaks magnitudes about Snape's Occlumens ability - alluding to the idea that this ability may have been thoroughly tested and passed.) Even if he suspected this, DD is not the type to go running to Harry with something so terrifying as being a Horcrux without being 100% sure.

Soul Search - Feb 1, 2006 10:03 am (#1619 of 2969)

sph12,

While I don't see any canon suggestion that the basilisk was a Horcrux, the Chamber of Secrets would be a perfect hiding place for a Horcrux. Only a Parselmouth could get in; only Voldemort had entered the Chamber for a thousand years. Seems ideal. On a reread of that part of CoS, however, there wasn't a hint of any possible Horcrux object. Unless I missed something.

HungarianHorntail11,

There can be no doubt that Harry's scar is an important element of the storyline. It is not just a scar. In my mind there is overwhelming evidence that Harry's scar was inadvertently made a Horcrux at Godric's Hollow. Voldemort doesn't know it.

The only counter argument I can come up with is Dumbledore not mentioning the possibility when listing the potential Horcrux objects to Harry. It is important, because if Harry destroys all the other Horcruxes and kills Voldemort, Voldemort's soul still won't "go over."

Dumbledore, surely, must at least suspect Harry's scar is a Horcrux. He did mention that he thought Voldemort was intending to make his sixth Horcrux at Godric's Hollow. Was that a hint?

Dumbledore has repeatedly not told Harry something he really should have known: he was a wizard, a prophecy had been made about him, Sirius was his godfather and betrayed his parents (mistaken,) etc. Dumbledore has been a bit overprotective. So, his not telling Harry about his scar Horcrux fits.

I don't see that Harry's scar being a Horcrux is his ultimate doom. Harry released the diary Horcrux without harm to himself. Dumbledore's arm was damaged from the protections on the ring, not by the Horcrux within it. Harry just needs to find a way to release his scar Horcrux without damage to himself.

haymoni - Feb 1, 2006 10:24 am (#1620 of 2969)

Why was Voldy allowed to come back to Hogwarts? He should have been escorted through the place, especially OUT of it, since Dumbledore didn't give him what he wanted.

"By the way, Dumbledore, I need to use the facilities. On my way out, I'll stop at that deserted girls' lavatory. I prefer to perform bodily functions alone, as I am the great Lord Voldemort."

"Sure, Tom. Go ahead."

Weeny Owl - Feb 1, 2006 2:39 pm (#1621 of 2969)

I wondered about that myself, haymoni, but I thought that perhaps Dumbledore had the portraits watching to see what Tom Riddle did.

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 1, 2006 5:02 pm (#1622 of 2969)

Soul Search: Dumbledore, surely, must at least suspect Harry's scar is a Horcrux. He did mention that he thought Voldemort was intending to make his sixth Horcrux at Godric's Hollow. Was that a hint?

I do think that was a hint from JKR alluding to the idea that a Horcrux spell had been set in place that evening.

It does fit along with DD's precedent with regard to keeping Harry in the dark about some things, however, I feel as though he was not sure, even if he had suspected this.

I agree that if Harry is a Horcrux, this does not necessarily mean he is doomed, although I don't think JKR would miss such an opportunity to lead us in that direction for effect.

I feel as though it will tie in with the ouroboros and end as it started; Big V casting AK at Harry. He is hit by a curse in the exact spot where the Horcrux entered (his scar)knocking him unconscious, destroying the Horcrux himself and this somehow rebounding onto Big V, killing him. Harry seems to be following this pattern where his bravery brings him to the forefront of danger, yet he emerges spiritually whole. I still don't see him AK’ing Big V at the end.

Choices - Feb 1, 2006 5:46 pm (#1623 of 2969)

HH, as much as I hate the idea of Harry being a Horcrux, I have to be honest and admit that I can see it happening as you describe in your last paragraph above. Your idea is certainly thought provoking.

Soul Search - Feb 1, 2006 7:40 pm (#1624 of 2969)

HungarianHorntail11,

That ending scenario does fit. Lily's protection is still in effect, regardless of Voldemort being able to touch Harry. Harry is not a killer, even of Voldemort. Harry couldn't kill Sirius when he thought he had betrayed his parents and stopped Sirius and Lupin from killing Wormtail.

I'll bet Harry doesn't even kill Nagini.

Do you also think the end will be at Godric's Hollow? That would fit too. Harry going there for a visit might be a prelude to that ending.

Weeny Owl - Feb 1, 2006 8:32 pm (#1625 of 2969)

I like that ending, Hungarian, and I can almost see Harry's scar as a Horcrux, but not the entire Harry.

I also don't see Harry every killing anyone, at least deliberately as in casting an Avada Kedavra. He could have killed Draco with the Sectumsempra, but it wouldn't have been deliberate.

I could see the ending at Godric's Hollow, Hogwarts, or the Department of Mysteries since we have yet to learn what exactly is in that locked room.

La Signora - Feb 1, 2006 11:17 pm (#1626 of 2969)
Edited by Feb 1, 2006 11:18 pm

Ok, I've got another idea for an ending based on HH's idea of another backfiring AK.

Everyone seems to think (and even DD and LV say) that the AK on Harry when he was little rebounded because of his mother's protection. But what if this was only part of the reason? What if it also rebounded because you can't destroy your own Horcrux? Maybe Voldy doesn't realise Harry is a Horcrux or rather, doesn't realise that you can't destroy your own Horcrux (after all, it is counter-productive).

So, LV AKs Harry and it rebounds and he dies, however he later decides that he forgot the power of old deep magic. Tom Riddle asks Harry why he didn't die. He learns that his curse rebounded because of Lily's love protecting him. So from this knowledge, he then decides he must use Harry's blood in the graveyard and in doing so he diminishes the protection of Lily's love on Harry and LV can now touch him.

Remember when DD has a triumphant glint in his eye when Harry tells him this. Maybe DD is happy because this is proof that LV doesn't realise that it is Harry's being a Horcrux which makes him invincible against LV's AK. LV now thinks he can AK Harry and successfully kill him because he has removed Lily's protection. Instead, DD knows that when LV tries to AK Harry again, it will rebound just like last time and kill him. We then have the problem of removing and destroying the Horcrux from Harry unharmed... but we'll find out about that later.

I'm sure love and protection will still be a big theme, because JKR won't be able to turn and say it was bunk, I just think it will turn out to be a bit more complicated. I'm sure Lily wasn't the first person to try and protect a loved one from being killed, after all, JKR has alluded to wizard wars etc. I think not being able to destroy your own Horcrux is a much better reason for the rebounding AK.

haymoni - Feb 2, 2006 5:38 am (#1627 of 2969)

I'm wondering if Harry finds all the Horcruxes and is trying to kill Voldy when he suddenly realizes that he may be an extra Horcrux that they hadn't thought of.

Hopefully by then he'll know how to extract the soul bit from himself and then be able to kill Voldy.

vball man - Feb 2, 2006 11:53 am (#1628 of 2969)

HH, your last paragraph idea about the 2nd rebounded AK destroying the last Horcrux and killing Voldie is an interesting one.

The advantage is that it allows Harry to not "become a killer." The problem is that it requires Harry to sort of give up the fight. I doubt that Harry would do that. He knows that the future of the wizarding world (and Muggle) rests on him facing and killing Voldie. So I don't see why he would give up the fight.

Presumably, if this is the end for Harry, he will come into this fight knowing that he has not destroyed the last of the Horcruxes. If he will not figure out where it is.

?? Could Hermione figure out the last Horcrux is Harry's scar? She might persuade Harry that this is the best plan - allow Voldie to destroy it - and she taunts him - convincing Voldie to really "do what he meant to do 17 years ago." Voldie then aims for the scar, to his ruin.

La Signora - Feb 2, 2006 9:37 pm (#1629 of 2969)

Nice one! Harry the Christ! Sacrificing himself, but knowing he won't really die, but save the world instead! This makes a lot of sense, because Harry won't have to give up any battle but instead be very brave and face an AK. Tops! If it doesn't happen like this, then ah... maybe it should! Maybe together we could write book 7 ourselves! Hee hee hee......

Solitaire - Feb 4, 2006 1:55 pm (#1630 of 2969)

Yes, the problem with Harry being the Horcrux is that he would have to destroy the part of Voldemort's soul within him before he could kill Voldemort. Otherwise, Voldemort will never die. Dumbledore has been so insistent about love as Harry's most powerful magic that I must feel the only way for Harry to rid himself of any vestiges of Voldemort that may linger within him is through love ... but how?

This also brings me to wonder ... is it possible for Voldemort's soul to have inhabited Harry all those years, given the fact that Voldemort was unable to possess him?

Solitaire

haymoni - Feb 4, 2006 6:26 pm (#1631 of 2969)

Maybe there couldn't be 2 Voldy's in Harry at the same time.

Solitaire - Feb 4, 2006 11:25 pm (#1632 of 2969)

Well, he could finally touch Harry after the rebirthing ... but he was unable to inhabit him, in OotP, once Harry's heart filled with emotion. This is why I wonder about the possibility of his soul being able to reside in Harry. It's the one thing that makes me question Harry-as-Horcrux.

Solitaire

Mrs Brisbee - Feb 5, 2006 5:34 am (#1633 of 2969)

I think so, because Harry was able to handle Tom Riddle's diary, and stand in close proximity to the Riddle that came out of the diary, without feeling even a twinge from his scar. For some reason it seems a soulbit removed from Voldemort's main soul does not cause harm to Harry. I'm not sure how Rowling views the soul, but perhaps the soul itself isn't considered evil, just what the entity Voldemort has done to it. Perhaps it is more lake a vessel that Voldemort's personality inhabits.

Solitaire - Feb 5, 2006 11:50 am (#1634 of 2969)

Perhaps the reason Harry could stand next to memory-Riddle was that he was a memory. Remember that he had plenty of twinges around Quirrell's turban. As to handling the Diary, that could be due to the fact that the diary itself was not a living thing.

When Voldemort fled GH following the attack on Harry, everyone seems to say it was the bit of his soul that remained in his body which fled. That bit of soul inhabited Quirrell later on, and it made Quirrell unable to touch Harry. That same bit of soul was in the reborn Voldemort, and though the blood allowed him to touch Harry's body, the love within Harry's heart seemed to make it impossible for him to inhabit Harry. That still gives me pause ...

Solitaire

Choices - Feb 5, 2006 4:32 pm (#1635 of 2969)

Well said, Solitaire. I completely agree with you.

Soul Search - Feb 5, 2006 9:09 pm (#1636 of 2969)

Solitaire, it gives me pause too. Voldemort/Quirrell couldn't touch Harry. Then Voldemort uses Harry's blood, and he can touch Harry, but not occupy him (without pain.)

Harry's scar hurt whenever Voldemort, even just the soul-bit occupying Quirrell, was focused on him, but not always when Harry was in class or just near Quirrell.

Why did Harry's scar hurt? Did Lily give him some sort of early warning mechanism? Did the soul-bit in Harry's scar want to get out and join the other bit?

Solitaire - Feb 5, 2006 11:36 pm (#1637 of 2969)

I still think it was Voldemort's powers that zapped into Harry, not his soul. JM2K, of course ...

Choices - Feb 6, 2006 10:55 am (#1638 of 2969)

Together we can chip in our 4 Knuts, cause I'm with you Solitaire.

K Stahl - Feb 6, 2006 11:02 am (#1639 of 2969)

Minor point: It was not the soul-bit (that slice of soul put in a Horcrux) that possessed Quirrell, but the surviving soul-core (that mangled part of soul left after having a piece sliced off).

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 6, 2006 4:26 pm (#1640 of 2969)

I'm still undecided about Harry's scar, but the one piece of canon that got me was Rita Skeeter's article in GoF. I've always watched JKR's use of repeating words in order to forge a connection. In this case, Rita said Harry's scar was a "relic" from the scene with Voldemort. This word is unusual, not a common word, and was used as the word for the vessel of a Horcrux. So, it's fishy. Any comments?

La Signora - Feb 7, 2006 12:56 am (#1641 of 2969)

Yeah Shadow, I'm with you there. I was reading a bit of CoS last night. DD says: he transferred some of his powers to you the night HE GAVE YOU THAT SCAR. I just thought it was an interesting choice of words, not 'the night he tried to kill you'. Maybe it's a nicer 'the night he murdered you parents', but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 7, 2006 3:32 pm (#1642 of 2969)

It makes perfect sense to me, given the theme I feel JKR is trying to put across, that part of Voldemort's soul would enter an "innocent" and "whole" boy. And, in this way be a catalyst for the destruction of the "mastermind" that committed such a terrible act of hate upon himself.

What we have here is a Brain/Mind (Vold) battling against a Heart/Soul (Harry). Harry has never been repulsed or ashamed that a part of Vold was transferred to him. This to me is the essence of Heart/Soul.

I just keep getting the image of the end of "Matrix" when Neo chooses to leap into the Agent's body, turning the body into light and then back into Neo himself.

Geber - Feb 7, 2006 5:08 pm (#1643 of 2969)

At one point, as DD was showing Voldemort's childhood to Harry in the pensive, he asked if Harry was beginning to feel sorry for Voldemort. I wonder if, at some point, Harry might actually forgive Voldemort, and that would cause some kind of reaction in the scar/Horcrux.

La Signora - Feb 8, 2006 2:12 am (#1644 of 2969)

Indeed maybe the whole thing is even more complicated than we sad people (who spend all this time theorising about it) even think.

Someone has said in here that DD was quoted as saying LV has a tendency to forget details. If you have been following my tirades, I have hypothesized that L.V’s original AK on Harry backfired because you can't kill your own Horcrux - a detail which LV has overlooked and could overlook again. It just struck me with your last two posts that maybe something even crazier has happened. What if there is some relationship between the Horcrux put inside you and death with which it was created?

So LV uses (Lily's and) James' deaths to split his soul (we are told he was less human after visiting Godric's hollow) and makes a Horcrux and puts this is Harry to safeguard him against his arch-nemesis should this child actually be capable of killing him. So the Horcrux in Harry was created by the destruction of his own parents. If love and forgiveness of LV are going to have something to do with this, then maybe forgiveness of the murders is what Harry will eventually have to use to extricate the Horcrux made by them and then destroy it.

But before that happens LV will destroy himself with another backfiring AK.....

I realise this is getting ridiculous. If JKR reads this, she must think we are all nuts.

Anyone ever considered that Harry's scar looks like it was made with a scalpel rather than the nice big burn mark you would expect from the lightning like AK? I am more convinced everyday that his scar ( or something behind it) is a Horcrux.

Aurora Gubbins - Feb 8, 2006 3:13 am (#1645 of 2969)

Dumbledore's knee had a scar in the shape of a map of the London Underground so those that know the map will realise it wouldn't be possible to have a scar that was a vague representation. Harry's scar is a curse scar, and so is clearly defined, not blurry or smudgy like a cigarette or a hot poker mark.

I don't know how it could be possible to create a Horcrux 'by accident' because if that were so, Tom Riddle wouldn't have had to search for information. Apart from that, if Horcruxes were made during any murder, there would be millions of murderers walking the earth. Even in the WW I don't see that being remotely possible.

A look at the PS DVD shows the screaming book to have something about death and God. I think that is the book that gave Tom the information about Horcruxes he needed. I know the general notion is that there is no such book at Hogwarts, but a book in the Restricted Section that screams it's binding off at you every time you open it isn't going to be a popular choice for a bit of light reading. Unless, of course, you know how to silence it. Hermione?

La Signora - Feb 8, 2006 3:57 am (#1646 of 2969)

Yeah, okay. You got me on the scar. I take it DD's scar wasn't for a knee replacement either.

I'm doubtful too of the idea that Horcruxes can be made by accident. It sounds like pretty serious stuff that can't just happen if you aren't focusing on it.

Choices - Feb 8, 2006 11:20 am (#1647 of 2969)

If I remember correctly, Dumbledore didn't just say he had a scar that resembled a map of the London Underground, he said it was a PERFECT map.

La Signora, I think you are speaking of Harry's scar as it was depicted in the movie and that is not considered canon. We have a description of it in the book, but it is not detailed enough to really get a picture of how it looked - we can only imagine.

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 8, 2006 4:43 pm (#1648 of 2969)

La Signora wrote -- "I'm doubtful too of the idea that Horcruxes can be made by accident. It sounds like pretty serious stuff that can't just happen if you aren't focusing on it."

It's been discussed on this thread that Vold could have intended to use the Potters' death for a Horcrux, that he killed Lily and James and then before killing Harry he prepared a Gryffindor relic to become the Horcrux. So the spell was conjured - was in the room you could say- but when the AK backfired chaotic energies sent his soul piece into Harry rather than the relic/object. It seems highly likely to me that Vold would want to create a Horcrux from the deaths of Harry of the prophecy and James who apparently was marked for death for some time.

This theory is not so farfetched given what we saw at the graveyard with Vold and Harry's wands behaving so uniquely. Just as we were spontaneously introduced to Priori Incantatem, we might be shown yet another phenomenon with Harry and Vold.

Solitaire - Feb 9, 2006 2:11 am (#1649 of 2969)

I thought Dumbledore said that Voldemort probably intended to make the last Horcrux from Harry's death, rather than from James's or Lily's ... although perhaps he planned to make one after killing James, too, since James seems to have also been an intended victim. But if he'd made his Horcrux from James's death already, before he got to Lily, surely she would have noticed if it had been Harry.

If Voldemort was planning to make a Horcrux from Harry's death, then whatever he was going to use would surely have been on his person at GH. If, as some have suggested, the intent to kill Harry did cause a rend in Voldemort's soul, then couldn't that part of the soul have gone into the item that had already been prepared to receive it? If it did--and no one else knows about the Horcruxes--isn't it just possible that at least one Horcrux and maybe even two are somewhere at GH ... or would Dumbledore already have gone there to check? Just wondering ...

Solitaire

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 15, 2006 7:37 pm (#1650 of 2969)

Solitaire, you raise a very good question - if the spell was in place, why didn't it just go into the intended object? To fit in with my line of thinking, I could only reply with the fact that Lily's sacrifice had something to do with it. The general consensus is that something went horribly wrong that evening, also that no one had ever survived an AK. If we weren't told someone in the story survived an AK, would we have believed it? So, if someone thinks Harry is a Horcrux, should you believe it?

The question with regard to Harry being the Horcrux that I cannot work into it is, how does Harry's blood in Big V figure into it? So far, if we're correct M&MS813, a bit of Big V is in Harry and a bit of Harry is in Big V. Hmmm. .. so what can we do with this??

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:13 pm

Choices - Feb 16, 2006 10:21 am (#1651 of 2969)

Solitaire - "If Voldemort was planning to make a Horcrux from Harry's death, then whatever he was going to use would surely have been on his person at GH. If, as some have suggested, the intent to kill Harry did cause a rend in Voldemort's soul, then couldn't that part of the soul have gone into the item that had already been prepared to receive it? If it did--and no one else knows about the Horcruxes--isn't it just possible that at least one Horcrux and maybe even two are somewhere at GH ... or would Dumbledore already have gone there to check? Just wondering ..."

Sorry, but I cannot see the feasibility of any of this. The facts we know are - you have to commit a murder to tear your soul, you have to say a special incantation and have an object/thing ready into which you plan to place the piece of soul. We can speculate until the cows come home about what "might" could happen, but until we are told directly in book 7 or by JKR, then speculation is all it is. I do not believe that mere intent can split the soul - canon says you actually have to commit a murder, not just think about it. There are presumably only 7 Horcruxes - Dumbledore seems to have accounted pretty much for all of them, either directly or indirectly. He says two are destroyed already (diary and ring), the locket is out there somewhere, one soul piece is in Voldemort himself, Nagini is probably one - so that leaves only two unaccounted for - we know there is the possibility of a Gryffindor or a Ravenclaw relic and also the Hufflepuff cup is still in contention. I think they are all pretty much nailed down, so the idea of Harry and/or James being used to make Horcruxes sort of runs over the 7 that Dumbledore figures Voldemort made.

Steve Newton - Feb 16, 2006 10:30 am (#1652 of 2969)

I mostly agree but Voldemort did commit a murder at Godric's Hollow. He sort of murdered himself. There were also the murders Lily and James. Lots of soul bits potentially floating around.

Choices - Feb 16, 2006 10:40 am (#1653 of 2969)

Steve - " Lots of soul bits potentially floating around."

For sure there are lots floating around, but no Voldemort to use them. You do raise an interesting point Steve. When the AK destroyed his body, how many Voldemort soul bits were there to go flying off? Originally, I had only thought of one, but if he had split his soul by the murders of James and Lily, technically there were more than one. Could the shock of his body being destroyed cause them to rejoin or did they remain separate and fly off? Now I've given myself a headache!! LOL

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 16, 2006 1:17 pm (#1654 of 2969)

Actually, I can see why Big V offered Lily the opportunity to step aside. With the Horcrux spell in place, he wanted to use Harry's murder for the Horcrux. Lily's murder not only messed up his plans, it wreaked havoc with Big V's seemingly well-oiled plans for immortality. That stubborn woman just wouldn't get out of the way.

Of course, this all hinges on the speculation that the spell must be made beforehand. It seems as though JKR purposefully kept the specifics of Horcrux making vague.

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 16, 2006 3:40 pm (#1655 of 2969)

Regarding how many fragments of Vold were floating around, I would think an incantation or some part of the spell would need to be conjured before the actual murder. Speculation of course, but there are plenty of people who kill but don't create Horcruxes. So if Vold intended to use specifically Harry's murder as the significant act for the Horcrux, I see it as valid that Vold had some control as to the number of fragments his soul became. It is possible he intended to make two Horcruxes that night, one from James's murder and one from Harry's, but in a literary sense, that doesn't fit for me at this point.

haymoni - Feb 17, 2006 10:00 am (#1656 of 2969)

Sorry to change things up a bit, but I was wondering about Voldy and how he needs a body.

Diary Tom had a body. He was getting stronger as Ginny got weaker, but how'd he get a body???

Did Tom do something special with the diary when he "preserved his 16-year-old self" so that he would have a body for his soul bit?

Will the other Horcruxes give Voldy a body?

If they will, then my question again becomes why didn't Voldy send Quirrell to get a Horcrux???

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 17, 2006 3:51 pm (#1657 of 2969)

haymoni, I don't have CoS handy but from what I recall, young Tom says he is only a "memory" that Harry can see. I don't think we are meant to believe he was a physical person, which is why he needed Ginny. If he succeeded in siphoning off Ginny, for lack of a better term, he would have become a physical-matter form. But, regarding your other question, "Will the other Horcruxes give Voldy a body?", I personally think so, in a way. We don't know what happened with the ring incident, but I've posted earlier how it may be that what DD experienced in the Cave was actually a fragment of Vold's soul enlivened. Does that make sense?

On another topic, someone had mentioned Grindelwald having made a Horcrux. I think this may be hinted at when Slughorn tells young Tom in the pensieve memory, Horcruxes chapter, "It's a banned subject at Hogwarts, you know...Dumbledore's particularly fierce about it..."

And on yet another topic (can you tell I'm rereading at the moment), I wondered why DD said, again in Horcruxes chapter, "he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man". Technically, I thought Vold himself AK'd Frank and Nagini only informed him of Frank's presence outside the door...

riddikulus - Feb 18, 2006 6:42 am (#1658 of 2969)
Edited by Feb 18, 2006 7:02 am

I'm not too convinced on the Harry/Scar is a Horcrux theory, but I found Jo's choice of words on her website interesting (FAQ->"About the books"->"What is the significance of Neville being the other boy to whom the prophecy might have referred?"):

"In choosing which boy to murder, he was also (without realising it) choosing which boy to anoint as the Chosen One - to give him tools no other wizard possessed - the scar and the ability it conferred, a magical window into Voldemort's mind."

Seems to suggest that the scar in and of itself conferred the powers (not necessarily the action that caused the scar).

Just food for thought.

TwinklingBlueEyes - Feb 18, 2006 12:28 pm (#1659 of 2969)

I wonder... what would happen to a Horcrux, and it's incased soul piece if it were simply tossed through the Veil?

haymoni - Feb 18, 2006 6:19 pm (#1660 of 2969)

That's good - Harry could collect the trinkets and chuck 'em into The Veil.

I want Bill to help though.

Aurora Gubbins - Feb 19, 2006 6:19 am (#1661 of 2969)

M&ms813: Vold DID AK Frank Bryce - Frank came out of the wand in the graveyard scene during the priori Incantatem.

Great idea about the Veil folks, but that still entails finding the Horcruxes in the first place.

Did anyone ever figure out if all the people in the graveyard PI spell were anything to do with Horcruxes? Maybe some of their murders contributed towards LV's goal? OR maybe they were the murders that weren't involved in the creation of the Horcruxes???

TwinklingBlueEyes - Feb 19, 2006 8:09 am (#1662 of 2969)

"Vold DID AK Frank Bryce - Frank came out of the wand in the graveyard scene during the priori Incantatem"

Just thought I'd mention, Cedric also came out of the wand, and he was AK'd by Wormtail.

For my part, as I mentioned several hundred posts ago, I think either Dumbledore or JKR was mistaken about Nagini killing Frank Bryce.

...toddles off trying to picture Nagini holding a wand and hissing Avada Kedavra...

Mrs Brisbee - Feb 19, 2006 11:16 am (#1663 of 2969)

Do we know that Dumbledore was even referring to Frank Bryce? I don't think he mentioned a name at all. Nagini may have actually killed some old Muggle man who wasn't Frank Bryce, since Frank was definitely AK’d by Voldemort.

Choices - Feb 19, 2006 11:43 am (#1664 of 2969)

The sentence about Nagini being used to kill Frank Bryce is misleading, I think. She informed Voldemort that Frank was there in the hall outside the room where Voldemort and Wormtail were - she did not help to kill Frank other than alerting Voldemort of his presence, then Voldemort AK'd him. She did not actively participate in his death, but she was an accomplice. Dumbledore says she was used to kill an old Muggle man and that death was probably used to make Voldemort's last Horcrux - the last Horcrux was originally to be made from Harry's death, but that failed and after a number of years he used the death of the old Muggle man to make Nagini a Horcrux. I think the timing is right for it to be Frank Bryce.

Aurora Gubbins - Feb 20, 2006 3:40 am (#1665 of 2969)

So who was used to make the other Horcruxes???

Choices - Feb 20, 2006 11:51 am (#1666 of 2969)

Do you mean whose deaths were used? I don't think we know exactly - we can only guess. All we know is that the deaths were somehow significant to Voldemort.

Nathan Zimmermann - Feb 20, 2006 12:46 pm (#1667 of 2969)

In OotP when Moody is showing the photo of the original Order of the Phoenix He mentions that Dorcas Meadowes was killed by Voldemort personally? So it is possible that her death was used to make one of the Horcruxes

Aurora Gubbins - Feb 21, 2006 1:37 pm (#1668 of 2969)

I can't remember who it was, but someone on an old post of mine (on this thread) pooh-poohed my notion that the screaming book in the Library Restricted section told all about Horcruxes because "you'd be hard pushed" to find a book on such a subject as it was forbidden at Hogwarts. Well, (PS, ch12) "Harry wandered over to the Restricted Section. He had been wondering for a while if Flamel wasn't somewhere in there...These were the books containing powerful Dark Magic never taught at Hogwarts and only read by older students studying advanced Defence Against the Dark Arts"

Ha! The very piece of information I was looking for to support my theory! Now, if Hermione can figure out how to open the book without it screaming its pages off...

haymoni - Feb 21, 2006 1:42 pm (#1669 of 2969)

What piece of info, Aurora?

I went back a few posts but I'm not making a connection.

Aurora Gubbins - Feb 21, 2006 2:57 pm (#1670 of 2969)

You need to go back a long way - too far for me to remember. I think it was Troels who said there was no such information (on Horcruxes) in the Hogwarts library and I think he vaguely suggested the screaming book was a red herring. The piece of info was the quote I made about Dark Magic not being taught at Hogwarts - well the subject of Horcruxes may not be TAUGHT at Hogwarts but that doesn't mean there isn't a book about it.

Troels - if you're out there - put me right?

Aurora Gubbins - Feb 21, 2006 3:14 pm (#1671 of 2969)

Haymoni: I just did a search for myself (that was weird!) and came up with post #1417 on this thread and the following few messages, particularly those of schoff (#1418) and Troels Forchhammer (#1420) so take a look and it may make more sense.

The point is, there has to be information on Horcruxes in the school library, otherwise TR would never have found out about how to make one in the first place. After a murder one needs to know the correct spell to cast in order to encase the torn portion of soul in the chosen object. There is general information in the library ("Of the Horcrux, wickedest of magical inventions, we shall not speak nor give direction") but there has to be something in the restricted section and it must be the screaming book that Harry finds on his nighttime search for information on Nicholas Flamel.

Am I making sense?

Soul Search - Feb 21, 2006 5:30 pm (#1672 of 2969)

I guess one question is did Hermione explore the restricted section. They are sixth years, and maybe can use it. Or she could have got blanket permission from someone.

My read was that Hermione's search had been extensive, including the restrictive section.

There are those thousands of books in the RoR storeroom. Some could have been in the library in Tom Riddle's time, and moved to the storeroom when Dumbledore became headmaster.

Lina - Feb 22, 2006 12:18 am (#1673 of 2969)

I don't have the book handy at the moment, so I can't make a real citation, but I have the feeling that Slughorn in his memory told Tom Riddle that he won't find any information on Horcruxes in Hogwarts. I find it more probable that Tom was at least visiting Borgin & Burkes during the summers and that he found there the information on Horcruxes.

haymoni - Feb 22, 2006 9:27 am (#1674 of 2969)

Lina - I agree.

I'm sure I posted somewhere that if young Tom was allowed to wander around London, he probably had a field day in Diagon & Knockturn Alley.

The Horcrux info may not have been at Borgin & Burkes, but I'm guessing that there is a Dark Arts bookshop somewhere in Knockturn Alley.

geauxtigers - Feb 22, 2006 2:54 pm (#1675 of 2969)

I think that Nagini is a Horcrux. I'm no snake expert but I think there is something to this quote from Goblet of Fire, "You will milk her before we retire, Wormtail,'... I will need feeding in the night"(CH1 Riddle House pg 7 of the U.S. hardback). Can you drink snake poison or is LV drinking it because it’s a Horcrux and he's "feeding off his soul" so to speak. Get my drift? This probably sounds mad to y'all but I thought I'd throw it out there because it just struck me as slightly odd seeing as I don't think I've ever heard of anyone drinking Snake venom before. I only noticed this after reading about Horcruxes in book 6.

Other Horcruxes that I think are out there: Slytherin's locket I think is the one found in 12 Grimmauld Place in OP and Mundungus had it when he was trying to sell things to Aberforth, (who I'm hoping now has it in safe hands), that day in Hogsmeade. Diary gone, ring gone and surely the soul in LV when his Spell backfired is gone, so that leaves 2 gone for sure, 2 mostly likely gone (locket and Voldy) and then 3 others... one of those 3 is in Voldy because he had a new one at end of GoF right? So that leaves Gryffindor and Ravenclaw and possibly Hufflepuff's cup. I think Ravenclaw's or Hufflepuff's will be at Hogwarts somewhere. Gryffindor's, (don't get mad at me but I feel that as of right now it cannot be ruled out), Harry being a Horcrux. in CS Harry says something along the lines of Voldemort left some of himself in me? and DD says along the lines of "it certainly seems so". that scared me because I don't want it to be that way! Is LV is trying to kill Harry because he knows that he risks having a Horcrux in a living being. But I'm not sure why he would be so worried about it seeing as he doesn't think anyone knows about his Horcruxes, so he may be going solely on the prophecy, but that just doesn't seem like a good enough reason for him to be so insanely obsessed with killing Harry. Okay have to stop this is way to long.

Belladonna - Feb 22, 2006 3:06 pm (#1676 of 2969)

In book one, following the sorting, Harry has a dream. In the dream, he is talking to Quirrell's turban. and it tells him he must swap to Slytherin house because it is his destiny.

Book two. While reading the diary. Harry senses something familiar, as if it is a long lost friend. (I don't have the book in front of me right now) I feel there is more than a transfer of power or ability.

I'm mostly convinced he may have been the recipient of an accidental Horcrux during the AK.

I'm looking through book one again. I'm convinced there are clues to the locations of all of the Horcruxes, maybe even one per book. I think I found one in Hogwarts one of the tunnels that has been collapsed.

geauxtigers - Feb 22, 2006 3:17 pm (#1677 of 2969)

That's a good idea Belladonna. I think there is most likely at least one Horcrux at Hogwarts and the tunnel is a convenient, non-obvious place.

Aurora Gubbins - Feb 22, 2006 3:22 pm (#1678 of 2969)

Lina: (HBP, ch23) Riddle says '"I came across the term while reading and I didn't fully understand it"

"No...well...you'd be hard-pushed to find a book at Hogwarts that’ll give you details on Horcruxes, Tom. That's very Dark stuff, very Dark indeed," said Slughorn'

Tie that in with the earlier quote from my post #1668 and that tells us it is possible (even likely) that there is some information in the Restricted Section. Tie that in with other bits of information (the screaming book which was in both the book and the movie, along with Madam Pince's strict adherence to the rules about no-one being allowed books from that particular part of the library - even Hermione).

I'd bet galleons that the screaming book was Tom's instruction book, even that someone made a mistake when using the same book and managed to encase a bit of themselves within the pages - hence the screaming. That said I do not think that it's a bit of Riddle in the book, but another, less able, wizard. If I'm right then it is likely that the same book will instruct it's reader on reversing the same spell.

Choices - Feb 22, 2006 5:50 pm (#1679 of 2969)

You could well be right Aurora, but I have always thought that the reason the book screamed was because someone (Harry) was in the Restricted Section without permission and any book he opened would have screamed to alert Filch or Madam Pince to the fact. Also, Harry was looking in the "F" section (Fifteenth Century Fiends, Flamel, etc.), not the "H" section for Horcruxes - not that that proves anything really. Just thought I'd throw it in. LOL

Aurora Gubbins - Feb 23, 2006 4:39 am (#1680 of 2969)

As far as I remember (without checking) the book was black and gold and there was no particular description of any title, however, it could be under 'F' for Flippin' Loud And Screechy Books, Forever, Finally Working Out All The Clues...I could go on! But I won't.

frogface - Feb 23, 2006 4:42 am (#1681 of 2969)

geauxtigers, I think the reason Voldy was drinking Nagini's venom was because it kept his baby form body alive. I don't have my GoF to hand but I'm pretty sure he used a potion made out of Nagini's venom and unicorn blood to create and sustain a temporary body.

Also it wasn't Voldy's soul that was destroyed when the AK backfired, but his body. The soul was what was torn from his body and left to go into hiding. So his new body still has the original soul bit inside.

Also I hate to pick apart your whole post lol, but why don't you think that the prophecy is a good enough reason to want Harry dead? After all, the prophecy states that if Harry doesn't kill Voldy, no one else will be able to do it. Seems like a perfect reason for me.

geauxtigers - Feb 23, 2006 1:48 pm (#1682 of 2969)

Frogface, I see what you mean about it was his body not his soul that was destroyed. I have GoF with me right now and I don't see anything (at least in ch1) about him drinking a potion, the only thing that suggest this, though it never says its a potion of any form, for all we know it could be pumpkin juice, "There is a little more in the bottle, my lord, if you are still hungry"(CH1 USHB). that suggest that he could be drinking, a potion, or venom or anything he wants.

About the prophecy, I personally don't think that its a good reason to kill someone, but as Dumbledore said I think in HBP, something to the extent of its only significant because Voldemort is making it, if he'd never heard it, he would have never tried to kill Harry. It would have gone unnoticed had Snape not heard it, but then well we wouldn't have a story so... but after all this is Voldy we are talking about.

frogface - Feb 24, 2006 4:15 am (#1683 of 2969)

He says something about a potion made to sustain him in the graveyard scene. You make a good point about what Dumbledore says about the prophecy, but like you said, it's Voldemort we're talking about here. While Dumbledore may believe in choice and making your own destiny, I doubt Voldemort does. I'm certain he believes it’s his fate to become immortal, and he IS listening to the prophecy. If he wasn't concerned about the prophecy then he probably wouldn't have tried to lure Harry to MoM. If you haven't read the interview JKR gave to Melisa and Emerson then I highly recommend you do. She says some interesting things about Voldy and his view of the prophecy. You should be able to find it on the leaky cauldron or Mugglenet

Solitaire - Feb 24, 2006 7:04 am (#1684 of 2969)

While Dumbledore may believe in choice and making your own destiny, I doubt Voldemort does.

If Voldemort truly believed it was his fate to become immortal, would he really have felt the need to kill baby Harry? I've always observed that when people begin to manipulate other people and circumstances, it is usually because they see the destinies they have mapped out for themselves being threatened.

In other words, instead of simply going about his business and waiting to see if greatness and immortality were his destiny, Voldemort chose to murder and terrorize others in his quest for power. When he realized someone was coming who could threaten his position and his immortality, he chose to get rid of that One (Harry) who could challenge his power and immortality.

Voldemort's choices from his earliest evil memories seem to have led him to the path he continues to pursue. His choices have determined what he is today--evil. JM2K, of course ...

Solitaire

haymoni - Feb 24, 2006 7:31 am (#1685 of 2969)

Solitaire - I think Voldy truly believes the prophesy - immortal or not, there's always a loophole somewhere and if there's a perfectly good prophesy out there stating that someone can "vanquish" him, Voldy is going to make sure it doesn't happen.

frogface - Feb 24, 2006 9:23 am (#1686 of 2969)

Good point Solitaire. If there aren't any already, I think I might made a thread of destiny/choice in the Harry Potter universe, seeing as its one of those subjects people can debate for hours. Also this is the Horcrux thread at we've sort of got off the subject

Choices - Feb 24, 2006 9:48 am (#1687 of 2969)

I think if Voldemort were fated to become immortal, then he could just sit back and it would eventually happen - immortality would just be thrust upon him (by Fate) without any effort on his part. But, he has made a conscious choice to become immortal - going to great lengths to make himself so. Thus the Horcruxes.

frogface - Feb 24, 2006 9:59 am (#1688 of 2969)

I have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think even Voldy would be that arrogant, I would say that he believes he's destined to succeed in becoming immortal. To actually succeed in something, you have to try.

haymoni - Feb 24, 2006 10:23 am (#1689 of 2969)

I think I'm having problems with the word "destined".

I don't think Voldy thought he was "destined" to be immortal.

If that's the case, he would have sat back and let it happen.

But he didn't. He actually took the steps needed to BECOME immortal, so I don't think immortality is his destiny - it's his goal.

He thought as a young child that his mother should have been able to live if she was a witch. I'm sure he felt his life would have been different if she had lived. As he got older, he wanted to make sure that he could live forever and went to great lengths to find out how this could be done.

I don't know.

Maybe I just don't believe in destiny.

frogface - Feb 24, 2006 10:28 am (#1690 of 2969)

I don't believe in it either Haymoni, and JKR seems to argue (through Dumbledore) that choice is more important. But what I'm trying to argue is that Voldemort probably does believe in fate. He believes that he's "meant" to be the ultimate dark lord. Of course he's also probably aware (as most people are) that things don't just happen, you have to do things to get what you want. I'm trying to say that maybe he believes he's destined to succeed in his attempts to be immortal.

Gerald Costales - Feb 24, 2006 1:41 pm (#1691 of 2969)

.*cough* Prophecy *cough* Destiny *cough* Fate. Aren't they all intertwined?

Could a wand be a Horcrux? If so, then it could be the reason Mr. Ollivander was kidnapped. Also, do we really know for sure that Mr. Ollivander crafted either the Yew Wand or Holly Wand? GC

PS Don't forget Fawkes' tail feather is the core for both Wands. And Fawkes along with Mr. Ollivander are missing in Book 6. GC

geauxtigers - Feb 24, 2006 3:10 pm (#1692 of 2969)

One of my favorite quotes that DD says is "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities" (CoS). I think it says it all, that you choose your own destiny and it all depends on the choices that you make in order to determine your destiny. If Voldy believes in the prophecy, then he most likely believes that it's his destiny to kill Harry, but as DD says in the quote, it all depends on which path you choose. In Voldy's case, he chose the "bad" path, not the "good" one, and Voldy believes its his destiny to kill Harry, while most People would never interpret that as their destiny to kill someone, it comes down to choices. Hopefully that made sense!

As for a wand being a Horcrux, I'm not sure, it’s probably possible to make a wand Horcrux. LV likes treasures as DD said and I can't imagine what kind of wand would be a treasure to LV. Obviously its not his own wand, because we know he still has it from the graveyard scene in GoF.....

me and my shadow 813 - Feb 24, 2006 5:41 pm (#1693 of 2969)

My impression of destiny or "Divine Will" and choices or "Free Will" is that it's all in the interpretation. If a prophecy was made that Tom Riddle would become immortal, I doubt that it would occur if he sat back and did nothing. If I was writing this series, I would make Harry become immortal at the end precisely because of the "destiny" of Vold marking him as an equal, coupled with his choices to remain whole and righteous in his actions.

JKR has stated in interviews about her fascination with Macbeth and the *interpretation* of prophecy. The interpretation is "Free Will" as no one can know exactly what is being said. There's a reason why all things that come in prophecy are in riddle form -- the interpretation must be left up to free will, because otherwise it couldn't be called "free" will...it would be "highly-influenced" will.

If Tom Riddle's free will was *against* killing, he would never have even considered interpreting the prophecy as he did.

I, too, love discussions about this topic but I don't think we'll get too far without getting into sort of banned topics for the purposes of this forum...

virginiaelizabeth - Feb 24, 2006 9:45 pm (#1694 of 2969)

I have always thought of destiny in the sense of good. Meaning, that one is destined to do great things, yet it cannot be someone’s destiny to kill another man, or steal something. Therefore, I don't think that it is LV's destiny to kill Harry, but more of his goal. I agree shadow that how you interpret the prophecy depends on how it is carried out. If LV had interpreted it as something good for everyone, and for himself, instead of interpreting it as ok not I have to go kill this kid or he will get to me first, then that is how the prophecy would have been carried out. I believe that the difference between fate and destiny is the choice that you chose. Fate will lead you down the path of a bad outcome, where as destiny will lead to a positive outcome. It all comes down to the choice that you make, and how you pursue that choice. Ok I think I'm starting to stray for the topic of this thread a little bit but I had to say my opinion. Now back to Horcruxes:

I can't think of any reason why LV would make a wand a Horcrux, it would have to be an extremely significant wand for him to do that. Whoa! an idea just popped into my head, could LV have possibly made Lily or James's wand a Horcrux after he killed them? Might be a bit of a stretch but you never know!

geauxtigers - Feb 24, 2006 10:13 pm (#1695 of 2969)

Virginia, why on earth would Voldy make Lily and James' wands Horcruxes? That’s really a stretch... unless..... drum roll please..... ... James is a direct descendant of Godric Gryffindor and that's Gryffindor's Horcrux! Ha ha, doubt it, just thought I say it seeing as you never know with JKR.

Solitaire - Feb 25, 2006 11:02 am (#1696 of 2969)

Yikes! That pink is really hard to read for some of us with bad eyesight! BTW, I don't think it is so far-fetched to think one of the wands could be a Horcrux.

Solitaire

Mattew Bates - Feb 27, 2006 3:40 pm (#1697 of 2969)

I think it is quite likely that the final Hogwarts' founder relic is a wand - but it would be a Ravenclaw relic. In the minor arcana of a tarot deck, there are four suits: swords, cups, coins/discs/pentacles, and wands/batons/staves. Two of the known Hogwarts' founders’ relics easily fit into these categories, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider Slytherin's locket a pentacle (opinions may vary, of course). If JKR is following this path of symbolism, then Rowena Ravenclaw's wand would be the "mystery founder relic" that Voldy managed to Horcruxify.

I have my doubts about this relic having been in either James or Lily's possession - I think Voldy had already made & hidden his Ravenclaw Horcrux, and was planning to make his Gryffindor Horcrux from the most Gryffindor of victims, Harry Potter. Besides, what better place to find Godric's relic than Godric's Hollow?

Solitaire - Feb 27, 2006 4:06 pm (#1698 of 2969)

Could Ravenclaw's wand be the one that lies on the faded cushion in Ollivander's window?

Solitaire

Choices - Feb 27, 2006 6:15 pm (#1699 of 2969)

Intriguing thought Solitaire - I am still very curious about that wand in the window.

HungarianHorntail11 - Feb 27, 2006 9:28 pm (#1700 of 2969)

Waving to Solitaire*

Yes. It was on a faded purple cushion. Purple can symbolize danger, or royalty (among other things, I'm sure, but these are the most obvious).

The fact that it was faded leads me to believe that at one time, this wand belonged to someone very influential. In a pinch, I could only come up with Salazar with regard to dangerous as well as influential. If that is the case, then I am a bit concerned about Ollivander's loyalties, esp. since his company made the back of Harry's neck prickle (not a direct quote, no dung bombs, please).

I do not think the wand is a Horcrux, as I do not think the "hide in plain sight" scene would work with this. Surely someone would have picked up on it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:20 pm

Pinky Prime - Feb 28, 2006 7:07 am (#1701 of 2969)

A wand as a Horcrux Hmmmmm...

Do wands find their way back to Ollivander’s shop via people like Mundungus? If so it could be why Ollivander turned up dead.

Nathan Zimmermann - Feb 28, 2006 11:00 am (#1702 of 2969)

Pinky Prime, Ollivander disappeared whether he is actually dead is a debatable proposition? the only adult wizards that died in HBP were Amelia Bones, Emmeline Vance, Igor Karkaroff, Hannah Abbott's mother, and Albus Dumbledore and Gibbon.

Hollywand - Feb 28, 2006 8:12 pm (#1703 of 2969)

Anyone want to sing "How Much is that Wanda in the Window?" with me?

Aurora Gubbins - Mar 1, 2006 2:27 am (#1704 of 2969)

Purple is also intended to convey truth. That said, things are often presented on either a red, purple or sometimes blue cushion, wedding rings, for example.

I don't think the cushion is relevant. The wand though...

Choices - Mar 1, 2006 10:22 am (#1705 of 2969)

The wand was on a faded purple pillow in a dusty window. So, we have faded, purple, pillow, window and dust..... what is the symbolism there? Calling RPS..... ???

haymoni - Mar 1, 2006 10:30 am (#1706 of 2969)

I think Ollivander just didn't update his display window.

They've been in business since BC - who needs fancy window dressings???

Choices - Mar 1, 2006 10:41 am (#1707 of 2969)

You could very well be right Haymoni. I have just been curious about that wand in the window for a long time, especially since there are some significant wands (Lily and James, etc) missing.

Nathan Zimmermann - Mar 1, 2006 1:02 pm (#1708 of 2969)

The color of purple is if I remember correctly a symbol for authority and the fact that the wand is placed on pillow has faded illustrates I believe a diminishment of authority. Wands on the other hand there symbolism has been debated in the literary symbolism thread amongst the many ideas discussed there is that wands are symbolic of power.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 2, 2006 4:12 am (#1709 of 2969)

Haymoni, the only stickler about that idea is that JKR went to great pains to crop her books anywhere she could. My gut feeling is that it was there for a reason.

Nathan, it seems as though we agree. The next step would be to figure out to whom it belonged and how it could help.

If indeed it is a Horcrux, that person should still be around. I think it would tangle the storyline too much.

haymoni - Mar 2, 2006 6:23 am (#1710 of 2969)

I didn't get the impression that there was any other place in Diagon Ally to buy wands.

If you're the only shop in town, you don't have to do too much to get business.

What I always thought was strange was that Harry & Hagrid were the only ones in his shop - if every 1st Year needed a wand and I'm guessing other kids break or lose theirs, you'd think there would be more folks in the shop.

Edit: Maybe Wizarding kids get their wands earlier or at least when the Hogwarts letters first go out. Harry was delayed a bit when doing his shopping.

K Stahl - Mar 2, 2006 9:09 am (#1711 of 2969)

"If you're the only shop in town, you don't have to do too much to get business."

This is true only if the government (i.e. The Ministry of Magic) uses its police powers to forbid others from offering wands, thus creating a coercive monopoly.

If there were no government coercion, then the only way that Ollivander could hold on to his non-coercive monopoly would be to provide better wands at a lower price than any potential competitor.

Choices - Mar 5, 2006 11:55 am (#1712 of 2969)

I think we may be given a hint as to one of the Horcruxes' hiding place in book one, chapter 9. Draco challenges Harry to a duel and tells him to meet him at midnight in the Trophy Room as "it's never locked."

Later this description is given of the trophy cases..... ."The crystal trophy cases glimmered where the moonlight caught them. Cups, shields, plates and statues winked silver and gold in the darkness."

The fact that the room is never locked would make it easy for Voldemort to slip in and hide the golden cup he stole from Hepzibah Smith among the other golden and silver cups and things in the trophy case.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 5, 2006 12:34 pm (#1713 of 2969)

You're on a roll, Choices. Anything strike you about when Ron was polishing them? Perhaps he will remember one that 'he could not open' hehe.

BTW, which one winked?

TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 5, 2006 5:44 pm (#1714 of 2969)

"BTW, which one winked?"

...toddles off giggling...

Choices - Mar 5, 2006 5:58 pm (#1715 of 2969)

"BTW, which one winked?"

LOL The one that is more than is suspected - the one that holds more than just fond memories.

Esther Rose - Mar 6, 2006 12:06 pm (#1716 of 2969)

You know, the more I read all of the theories and stuff, the more I am convinced that Harry is a Horcrux. Not just his scar either. I didn't want to believe it before but now I am pretty certain he is. :-/

And to go further I think the people who know/knew Harry is a Horcrux are Dumbledore, Sirius, Snape and possibly Hagrid.

haymoni - Mar 6, 2006 1:08 pm (#1717 of 2969)

If Harry is a Horcrux, I think he is an accidental Horcrux - the 8th Horcrux.

If that is the case, then after all of the known Horcruxes are destroyed, Harry will kill Voldy, but instead of him dying, Vapormort will appear and it will dawn on Harry that he, himself, is the final Horcrux.

He'll have to figure out how to rid himself of the Voldy soul-bit and then he will become The Man Who Lived.

Magic Words - Mar 8, 2006 11:43 am (#1718 of 2969)

That's an interesting idea, haymoni. It makes sense, if he is an accidental Horcrux, that Voldemort didn't know about, that Voldemort would continue the original plan and make 7 intentional ones. The only thing I'm wondering about is JKR's purpose in telling us the identities of all but one (something of Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's). It seems like that one must have great shock value, otherwise she'd just list it along with the others.

Round Pink Spider - Mar 9, 2006 9:26 am (#1719 of 2969)

Dumbledore suggested that there were six Horcruxes (the seventh part still being in Voldemort), so if Harry were extra, that would make him the 7th Horcrux, not the 8th. (See p. 503 in HBP.) But that would certainly be a very good number symbolically.

I don't usually visit here, but I had some information that I thought you folks would like. It doesn't answer the question of whether or not Harry is a Horcrux -- in fact, it raises more questions (like we needed more! ). But I think I found the reason that Harry's scar looks like a lightning bolt.

The Greeks believed that final purification and immortality could only be achieved through a real or symbolic death by Fire. Fire would destroy that which was passing and flawed, leaving perfection and immortality. Several heroes of Greek myth, most notably Heracles (Hercules), supposedly achieved immortality in this way.

Heracles was accidentally poisoned by his wife, and was dying. He made a pyre for himself, and asked those mourning him to set it alight. After it was burning, it was struck by lightning. When the fire died down, Heracles’ remains were gone. The Greeks believed that the gods took Heracles to Olympus, where he became a god himself.

The Greeks especially admired lightning as a purifying form of fire. They believed that, as a form of heavenly Fire, it was the highest and most cleansing kind. This symbolism has come down to this very day, in the image of lightning striking an evildoer to blot him/her from the earth. If Harry is no longer a Horcrux, this may explain why his scar takes the form of a bolt of lightning: he has been purified of the fragment of soul that was in him. On the other hand, if Voldemort gave him the lightning scar, then it might mark Harry as the purifying force that will destroy the impurity that Voldemort has created.

Since JKR's books are absolutely top-heavy with references to Greek myth and symbolism about the Four Elements, I think this is the answer. But as I said, it doesn't really tell us whether Harry is a Horcrux. It just enlightens us a little about the symbolism of the lightning bolt scar.

Betelgeuse Black - Jul 29, 2005 9:57 am (#1720 of 2969)

I like the trophy room as a place with a Horcrux except for one thing. Wouldn't DD know about it?

We know DD keeps a close eye on the school using various means. He mentions to Harry that he doesn't know how closely he's been watched. He was surprised that the marauders were able to become Animagi without his knowledge. He probably asks the portraits to keep an eye on things.

Wouldn't DD know if LV went to the trophy on his way to or from DD's office when they met about a teaching position? DD can be fooled but I'd bet a gallon of galleons that he'd watch LV closely in the school.

Again, that's my obstacle to agreeing with the trophy room Horcrux theory.

Betelgeuse

Aurora Gubbins - Mar 10, 2006 1:17 pm (#1721 of 2969)

There's no obstacle Betelgeuse, those "cunning folks in Slytherin...will use any means to achieve their ends" so I'd expect Tom Riddle to be able to hide something in plain sight without it being realised by Dumbledore or anyone else, Riddle being the most cunning/devious Slytherin student since the school began.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 10, 2006 4:55 pm (#1722 of 2969)

The trio seemed to get around a lot using Harry's invisibility cloak. And there were times when no one was watching. I doubt DD would have let them tackle Fluffy and the others had he been aware, so I agree that where there's a will, there's a way.

TheSaint - Mar 11, 2006 12:09 pm (#1723 of 2969)

I think Voldy may have wanted to plant one at Hogwarts, but DD's denying him access by denying him the job, kept him from doing it. I do not think they pulled anything over on DD... he is the alchemist... and he has been letting them confront their own issues and in order to progress. I am pretty sure he knew.

I was wondering if the invisibility cloak is one though. It was passed down from father to son through James and James is a pure blood. The whole Ravenclaw family has not emerged yet... and Jo did say that Ravenclaw would be getting her due soon.

Good Evans - Mar 11, 2006 12:27 pm (#1724 of 2969)

I was listening to HBP today and wondering again about the Horcruxes, DD says that the only known relic of Godric Gryffindor is the sword Harry used in COS. But this is not the case, the sorting hat once belonged to GG, therefore although it has brains in it - it could well be a "relic". I was also thinking about LV asking if he could return to the school to teach, was this to search for more founders relics and make them (or at least one) Horcruxes?

OK - now this is a bit of a stretch - the Vanishing cabinet - we assume that it worked before Peeves broke it in COs (see the problems with book six thread for recent discussion over the cabinet). What is LV when he worked at Borgin and Burkes, discovering that it was a backdoor in to Hogwarts, used it and made the sword or sorting hat in to a Horcrux by borrowing them? The murder may not have been committed at Hogwarts, we don’t know where the sorting hat or the sword were kept prior to DD being Headmaster, LV could have entered the castle - pinched the "relic" done the deed and returned it without being seen - it is a bit of a stretch as I can't see LV allowing it to be returned to Hogwarts, but having said that - if no one suspected, it would be safe and how better than to have a laugh than Hogwarts housing one of his Horcruxes?

anyway just a thought

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 11, 2006 1:26 pm (#1725 of 2969)

he is the alchemist

Actually, Flamel was the alchemist - the stone belonged to him. DD could have been following in his footsteps, but in my mind, I still think DD had not achieved Flamel's level.

Good Evans, you have me thinking, now. Just how did the other vanishing cabinet end up at HW?

Judging by JKR's response regarding the Sorting Hat, I do not think that is a worthwhile pursuit.

TheSaint - Mar 11, 2006 1:44 pm (#1726 of 2969)

Actually, Flamel was the alchemist - the stone belonged to him. DD could have been following in his footsteps, but in my mind, I still think DD had not achieved Flamel's level.

No... he has not achieved the stone yet... book 7, Harry will.

Steve Newton - Mar 12, 2006 5:57 am (#1727 of 2969)

Good Evans, we discussed the possibility of the vanishing cabinet being used by Voldemort in the HBP read along thread back in December. We came to no conclusion. This was in the chapters 22-24 thread.

Gerald Costales - Mar 12, 2006 8:22 am (#1728 of 2969)

Could someone list the Horcruxes that have been destroyed. These come to mind. But it has been awhile since I've read book 6.

1. Tom Riddles' diary.
2. Gaunt's ring. (Slytherin relic)
3. The locket taken by R.A.B.

What are suspected Horcruxes
4. Nagini

What are good candidates for remaining the 5th, 6th, and 7th Horcruxes. Thanks GC

Mrs Brisbee - Mar 12, 2006 8:41 am (#1729 of 2969)

Gerald, here are the Horcruxes we know from Dumbledore.

Objects known to be Horcruxes:

1) Tom Riddle's Diary. Destroyed by Harry.
2) The Gaunt Ring. Destroyed by Dumbledore.

Objects suspected by Dumbledore of being Horcruxes:

3) The Slytherin Locket. Taken by R.A.B. It is not known whether it was destroyed. (I'd say most definitely a Horcrux)
4) The Hufflepuff Cup (Most definitely).
5) Nagini (Maybe. Probably. Can't see the point of Rowling mentioning it if she isn't).
6) Something of Ravenclaw's or Gryffindors (vague).
The 7th is the main piece of Voldemort's soul that resides in his body.

Gerald Costales - Mar 12, 2006 8:54 am (#1730 of 2969)

Mrs. Brisbee, thanks for the rapid reply. GC

PS Just waiting for Book 7.

Good Evans - Mar 12, 2006 9:09 am (#1731 of 2969)

thanks Steve - I haven't visited the read along thread but I find this an interesting surmise, so I will go and have a read at what was discussed there. AS I said it is currently being discussed on the problems in book six thread - it’s all go here!

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 12, 2006 9:44 am (#1732 of 2969)

That sounds good to me, TheSaint. It would be a great way for him to survive the removal of that nasty Horcrux in him.

geauxtigers - Mar 12, 2006 9:10 pm (#1733 of 2969)

When LV's AK backfired, wouldn't that have destroyed the bit of soul in him? Therefore, wouldn't there be one less Horcrux because LV would have had to use one of his others?

Lina - Mar 13, 2006 4:07 am (#1734 of 2969)

The way I understand it, Geauxtigers, the backfired AK destroyed LV's body, but, thanks to the Horcruxes, it couldn't destroy that last bit of soul in him. There are better citations somewhere in this thread if you have the patience to search for them.

geauxtigers - Mar 13, 2006 6:38 am (#1735 of 2969)

I've read that before, but I guess I'm just having trouble understanding why that is. I can't seem to get it out of my mind that if he was hit by an AK, it would kill him, but since he has made Horcruxes, he just goes to one of his others. I don't see how he can be killed, but still have his soul? I'm probably thinking to hard about this, but does anyone else see where I'm coming from?

Magic Words - Mar 13, 2006 7:07 am (#1736 of 2969)

The way I see it, the Horcruxes bind his entire soul this side of the veil. When he was hit by the AK, instead of dying, he became "less than the meanest ghost." The part of him that had been in his body when he was hit still hung around, and it was this part that took over Quirrell and eventually received a new body. The purpose of six Horcruxes isn't so much that he can die and be reincarnated six times, but that even if five are found and destroyed, he is still immortal because the bit of soul he's actually using is still tied to life.

HungarianHorntail11[/b] - Mar 13, 2006 2:38 pm (#1737 of 2969)

he just goes to one of his others

I think that is the part where you may be hitting a snag. The Horcruxes can be thought of as tethers to life here on earth, rather than 'soul replacements'. When they are destroyed, Big V can be killed. Even if there is one Horcrux remaining, he cannot be killed, regardless of how many AKs he gets hit with - that is why the Horcruxes must be destroyed first. His body was destroyed because he had not yet attained his goal for an immortal body, just the soul.

Gerald Costales - Mar 14, 2006 3:42 pm (#1738 of 2969)

Can we assume that with two Horcruxes destroyed, that only 5/7th of Voldemort’s soul exists?

So, the destruction of Voldemort’s now mortal body would destroy the last 7th of his soul. (That is assuming that Harry had tracked down and destroyed Horcruxes - 3, 4, 5, & 6.)

I'm wondering if Voldemort has hidden the last Horcrux. I think that Voldemort should be aware that two of his seven Horcruxes are destroyed. GC

PS Waiting for a better explanation. GC

PPS This Horcrux thing is not that easy to understand. GC

K Stahl - Mar 14, 2006 4:13 pm (#1739 of 2969)

Why do we assume that the Horcruxes must be destroyed first? What if Voldemort was killed and then the last of the Horcruxes were destroyed or tossed through the veil?

Choices - Mar 14, 2006 6:04 pm (#1740 of 2969)

Because Voldemort can't be killed as long as there is even one Horcrux remaining. The same thing would happen that happened at Godric's Hollow. His body would die, but the soul piece inside would fly off to hide until he could get a new body to house it. All the Horcruxes must be destroyed first, then Voldemort can be killed and both his body and the soul bit within will go on to the "great beyond". Without a Horcrux, Voldemort (body and soul) will be truly mortal and able to be killed.

Magic Words - Mar 14, 2006 6:14 pm (#1741 of 2969)

But if the same thing happened that happened at Godric's Hollow, Voldemort would lose his body and the Horcruxes would be the only thing keeping him alive. It seems like if they were destroyed, his ghost (for lack of a better term) would have to "go on." Unless he came back as a real ghost. But that's a whole different can of worms.

virginiaelizabeth - Mar 14, 2006 7:35 pm (#1742 of 2969)

Wow this is making my head spin! I don't really understand the point of LV making 7 Horcruxes, if they weren't there to replace his soul when he died. When you stop and think about it, one Horcrux would make you immortal, so making 7 isn't going to make you even ,more immortal that having just one, which is why I tend to believe that the Horcruxes replace the part of your soul that was destroyed, and that’s why make more than one would benefit you. It'd be like have 7 lives. I guess that would be a very LV thing to do, ya know "hey lets see how many Horcruxes I can make!" but still... We need to get this as a poll question to JKR so my brain will stop hurting cause I really think it could go either way!

TheSaint - Mar 14, 2006 8:44 pm (#1743 of 2969)

The Horcruxes don't replace his soul. They merely keep him from 'crossing over' because he is an incomplete soul. There are seven because of the power of the number seven. Voldy is trying to reach immortality and felt that a soul division of seven would be the strongest magic, making him immortal and invincible. They don't replace, they sustain.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 15, 2006 3:32 am (#1744 of 2969)

To further TheSaint's post, if Big V only had one Horcrux (let us use the Diary), he would now be mortal. It is much less daunting to find one Horcrux rather than six that can be hidden - and protected - anywhere. Look at the effort involved in destroying the Horcruxes that have been removed from their "containers". It helps to liken a Horcrux to a tether, rather than thinking of it as a revitalizing entity.

Also, to add to Choices' post, DD does say this is how it must be done in HBP. Horcruxes first, Big V last.

haymoni - Mar 15, 2006 6:04 am (#1745 of 2969)

I suppose Voldy in Vapormort form would be easier to deal with, but who can kill him???

I mean, destroy his body???

Steve Newton - Mar 15, 2006 6:16 am (#1746 of 2969)

A reminder, there are probably 6 Horcruxes. There are 7 soul bits. The one still in Voldemort is not a Horcrux.

Soul Search - Mar 15, 2006 7:21 am (#1747 of 2969)

I have always thought of it as a soul can only "go on" if it is intact. If any bits of a soul are held to the mortal plane by being captive in a Horcrux, no bits can "go on." One Horcrux would keep a soul from "going on." But, Horcruxes are vulnerable so having more than one Horcrux is an added safety factor. Having the magic number seven Horcruxes makes a soul really secure to the mortal plane.

I don't see destroying the Horcrux as destroying the captive soul bit. It is more like "freeing" the soul bit, so it could "go on" when a body dies.

I don't think Dementors are just coincidence to the storyline. We first heard of them in CoS when Hagrid was sent to Azkaban. We learned of their soul sucking nature in PoA. A Boggart Dementor appeared in the maze in GoF and Dementors attacked Harry in OotP. My read is that a soul sucked by a Dementor can't "go on," even when the body it was sucked from dies.

A question is, can a Dementor suck the soul bit from a Horcrux? Would be very convenient for Harry.

I predict that Dementors will play a role in Voldemort's destruction. Not only will Voldemort die, but his soul, and all its bits, will be taken by Dementors and not "go on." Voldemort will be gone, forever. His worst fear realized.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 15, 2006 9:22 am (#1748 of 2969)

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the parts being in seven strengthens the magic protecting the Horcruxes, thus making them more difficult to destroy.

When referring to destroy, I meant (though my previous post shows otherwise) destruction of the Horcruxes which encompasses the magic, the item and the soul bit as one unit. I did not mean for it to read as though I referred to the Horcrux as the soul bit. That is what I get for not proofreading.

Not quite sure where I stand regarding the soul bit after the Horcrux is destroyed.

I like that ending, Soul Search. Big V needs a good bite in the end.

Magic Words - Mar 15, 2006 1:17 pm (#1749 of 2969)

I also like the Dementor idea. DD says there are things worse than death, but LV fears death more than anything, so I think LV's eventual fate must be what he fears death is like (though not what it really is). A Dementor's kiss probably fits this criterion. The only reservation I have is that if LV is defeated by a Dementor, what can Harry do? Train one and send it after him?

I did hear a theory from a friend that if Harry himself is a Horcrux, he could somehow use a Dementor to remove the soul bit from himself without any lasting damage. Still sounds very tricky, though.

geauxtigers - Mar 15, 2006 2:38 pm (#1750 of 2969)

"the Horcruxes were destroyed or tossed through the veil?"-Situ KaiDa

That’s an idea..... I wonder if Harry will be able to just throw them through the veil? very far-fetched and probably too easy, but hey doesn't hurt to mention it!

also: "It'd be like have 7 lives"-virginiaelizabeth... that’s how I think of it. Like if any of you have ever played video games, its the same way, you start with a certain amount of lives, and each time you die, you have one less life... It'd be like (and this is hypothetically) if LV started out with 7 lives (Horcruxes), the game starts when he tries to kill Harry, it gets hit with an AK, and loses one life. 6 lives left until Harry kills the diary, now LV only has 5 lives. DD destroys the ring, 4 lives left to win the game (which is to kill Harry before he kills you). The locket is destroyed, 3 lives left, Gryffindor’s item is destroyed, 2 lives left, Ravenclaw's item is destroyed, 1 life left. Harry kills LV, 0 lives left and the game is over. See where I'm coming from? I know I haven't included all the suspected Horcruxes, I'm just trying to show y'all how it works in my head...I know none of this really follows exactly how the suspected items are Horcruxes or what they are, this is just how I think it works.....

I probably just really confused y'all! Sorry, I tend to over-analyze everything...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:23 pm

haymoni - Mar 15, 2006 4:13 pm (#1751 of 2969)

Boy - we don't know what that's like!!!

You're in the right place, geauxtigers!

Magic Words - Mar 15, 2006 5:28 pm (#1752 of 2969)

Geauxtigers, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see how that scenario could work. It doesn't explain the eleven-year subsistence of "Vapormort," or the fact that there's no mention of a Horcrux being used in Voldemort's return at the end of GoF.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 15, 2006 8:36 pm (#1753 of 2969)

geauxtigers, forget about the video game comparison. Envision Big V at the top of a ladder. Each rung you ascend represents a Horcrux destroyed. Once all of the Horcruxes have been destroyed, you have put yourself into a position where you can kill Big V.

frogface - Mar 16, 2006 4:39 am (#1754 of 2969)

Also it’s important to remember that Voldemort did not lose any of his soul the night he tried to kill Harry. He only lost his body. It was his soul that was floating around all those years in Albania.

Aurora Gubbins - Mar 16, 2006 5:49 am (#1755 of 2969)

Just a thought: If every time Tom created a Horcrux, his physical appearance lost some of it's human qualities, how many Horcruxes had been made at the point of the interview at Hogwarts? (I think of it as being similar to the Portrait of Dorian Gray.)

Betelgeuse Black - Mar 16, 2006 9:42 am (#1756 of 2969)

Magic Words,

You stated the idea I had right after reading GoF. A Dementor's kiss is described as a fate worse than death by Lupin(?) in PoA. DD's comment about a fate worse than death in GoF immediately made me think of that fate. I can't see why the Dementors would do that since Voldy gives them free reign to cause trouble.

Also, every time a Dementor is near Harry, they go straight for him. Either that has something to do with his great capacity for love or Voldy wants him "soul sucked". Maybe I should read the Dementor thread?

I don't think the Horcrux situation is like having video game lives. The way DD described it to Harry in HBP was: - Seven is the most magical (powerful) number. - Voldy is obsessed with power. Therefore, the reason why Voldy wants six Horcruxes plus the seventh piece in his body is the power of seven coupled with the immortality of a Horcrux.

Maybe when a Horcrux is destroyed, the soul bit that used to be attached to an object is pulled to a holding area to wait for the rest of the soul to turn up. I like to think of it as a cosmic vacuum cleaner that sucks up the dirt. :-) Who knows what JKR has in mind?

Betelgeuse

Magic Words - Mar 16, 2006 10:17 am (#1757 of 2969)

LOL, Betelgeuse, I have this mental image now of Voldemort trying to hang onto the steps below the Veil as a giant vacuum cleaner on the other side sucks him through feet first...

You're right, the Dementors do always go for Harry, even in POA. That's before they start working for Voldemort, though. Hmm, maybe they can sense an extra soul bit in him in addition to his own?

Esther Rose - Mar 16, 2006 10:28 am (#1758 of 2969)

Or Betelgeuse since Dementors are blind and can only detect "souls" perhaps there are two "souls" within Harry. (Or Harry's complete soul and a soul bit.)

haymoni - Mar 16, 2006 10:34 am (#1759 of 2969)

I figured they went for Harry because he had so few happy memories for them to suck off - he was a lot closer to losing his soul than someone with a lifetime of happy memories.

The Dementors in the books didn't seem to go after Harry more than other people - they just seemed to affect him more.

Magic Words - Mar 16, 2006 11:30 am (#1760 of 2969)

At the end of POA, they tried to kiss Sirius and Harry. Sirius was understandable because he had escaped Azkaban, but why would they go after Harry then? Weren't Hermione, Ron, and Snape also nearby and just as vulnerable?

haymoni - Mar 16, 2006 11:55 am (#1761 of 2969)

Again, I think Sirius was pretty well drained from spending 12 years in Azkaban and Harry had so few good memories.

Plus Harry was trying to cast the Patronus Charm, which the Dementors would feed off of - it may have actually attracted them to him, but the charm was so weak, they went after him instead.

geauxtigers - Mar 16, 2006 8:56 pm (#1762 of 2969)

I definitely think the Dementors will be a key factor in book 7, but LV will be using them against Harry. They affect Harry, and his patronus will come into play. I don't see how Harry will change the Dementor's minds (remember they are on LV side according to HBP). Does anyone think that the only way Harry will succeed in conquering the Dementors, is with his patronus. Is it possible that since his patronus is a stag (meaning his relation to his father), that that will have something to do with LV downfall? I'm starting to stray from the topic sorry guys! I hope for Harry's sake, that he will somehow be able to use the soul-sucking Dementors to his advantage. It's not coincidence that they both relate to souls..... I feel like I've said this before...

TheSaint - Mar 16, 2006 9:10 pm (#1763 of 2969)

Betelgeuse Black- Maybe when a Horcrux is destroyed, the soul bit that used to be attached to an object is pulled to a holding area to wait for the rest of the soul to turn up.

pictures waiting room in Betelgeuse movie*

I did wonder whether the disposed pieces returned to his body for the final scene, or were simply destroyed. Seems if they were to return to his body, he would know. Wonder if his appearance would return to normal if they did go back to his body?

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 17, 2006 7:33 am (#1764 of 2969)

I tend to think the soul bits are destroyed, as in ceasing to exist. Yes, it defies a scientific mind where matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but it adds to the idea that it is such a heinous act. When the Horcruxes are destroyed, the remaining part of Big V's soul is so fragmented and diminutive, imagine that trying to pass into the next plane (as opposed to them rejoining before passing on as a whole again). It gives a great impression of the magnitude of damage he has caused, both to himself and others. What becomes of such an entity?

Choices - Mar 17, 2006 10:33 am (#1765 of 2969)

I agree with you HH - the soul bit is destroyed - lost forever. His soul is permanently diminished.

Betelgeuse Black - Mar 17, 2006 6:51 pm (#1766 of 2969)

Haymoni, it has been my impression all along that the Dementors are unusually attracted to Harry. On the train in PoA, the Dementor ignored Lupin when he said that Sirius Black was not in the compartment. It stayed until driven away. None of the other compartments had that problem. Lupin had to drive it away. Lupin described the Dementors as feeding on happy emotions and leaving only the bad or unhappy thoughts. The Quidditch match was like a feast.

I think the abundance of love in Harry is why they are after him. They probably were not taking orders from LV during PoA. An extra soul bit in Harry's forehead could have a draw on a Dementor but I don't know how.

I agree that the soul bit is probably destroyed when the Horcrux is destroyed. I was thinking about the analogy of the Horcruxes being tethers to hold the soul on the earth. If a tether was needed, then there might be a current or prevailing wind to push a soul along to the next adventure. Death sucks? ;-)

At the same time, I love the image of LV having his head shrunk by the voodoo medicine man in the waiting room with Beetlejuice. :-)

Betelgeuse

Gerald Costales - Mar 18, 2006 6:02 am (#1767 of 2969)

A person can live without a foot or leg. Maybe the "soul bit" is a part of the your soul that can be lost but not totally cripple a person. Maybe Voldemort’s current soul is just a little disfigured or maimed but not disabled. Of course there are disabled people that do amazing thing though disabled. GC

PS This "soul bit" idea is probably part of a total Horcrux and ultimate destruction of Voldemort picture. We just need to focus a cloudy picture that leads to the destruction of Voldemort. Each Horcrux destroyed gives Harry a clearer picture. GC

haymoni - Mar 18, 2006 7:52 am (#1768 of 2969)

We don't really know how many Dementors entered the train. There could have been 1 for each car.

There was one at Harry's compartment and everyone was affected by it, but Harry was affected the most. As I recall, Ginny suffered pretty badly as well.

I don't think Dementors care about love - they need happiness.

My theory is that the others weren't affected as much because the Dementor could draw on their happiness - their happy memories, which I'm guessing they had more of than Harry.

I'm ready to be wrong though!!!

Choices - Mar 18, 2006 10:04 am (#1769 of 2969)

I like your thinking Haymoni and agree with you. Harry is deficient in happy memories, so every one he loses would affect him worse than someone who had a whole lifetime of happy memories.

Puck - Mar 18, 2006 10:34 am (#1770 of 2969)

Plus, his bad memories are that much worse than the bad memories of the others. True horrors in his past, remember? Ginny has had a traumatic experience herself.

I don't think the Dementors can't be used to seek out a Horcrux. Not sure if they could be of use in destroying one. (It's such a tiny bit of soul in an inanimate object, not sure they'd be interested.)

haymoni - Mar 18, 2006 3:47 pm (#1771 of 2969)

Unless it was the only thing around.

No people to suck memories from...the soul bit could be a tasty treat.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 18, 2006 5:51 pm (#1772 of 2969)

I like that theory about why Harry was affected the most, haymoni. Good food for thought.

TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 18, 2006 5:54 pm (#1773 of 2969)

Not sure they could get past the protections around a Horcrux that is encasing the soulbit. Remember Dumbledore's blackened hand, he wasn't quite as quick as he used to be.

Betelgeuse Black - Mar 18, 2006 6:02 pm (#1774 of 2969)

I have to point one thing out about the train incident where Harry was effected more than anyone else.

Yes, Harry passed out. Ginny was shivering like mad. Everyone else was cold, scared and "demented". It was my impression that the Dementor would have kissed Harry right then and there if Lupin had not been there. What is there to stop the Dementors from kissing everyone in every compartment? Either there must be an escort or the Dementors are following orders.

If there is an escort, I think we would have seen or heard about them. The Dementor lingered in the compartment and did not leave until forced to leave by Lupin. This leaves the impression that the Dementor looked through the other compartments without incident. The only incident we have is Harry passing out.

You may disagree with my interpretation and that's ok. I just see it differently.

Betelgeuse Black

haymoni - Mar 18, 2006 7:29 pm (#1775 of 2969)

No that's fine. I agree with you - the Dementor may have gone ahead and kissed Harry - I just don't think that it was because he was Harry Potter - I think it is because he was closer to losing all of his memories and the Dementor was looking to suck up a soul.

I think I'm a bit influenced by the glowing tic-tac in the POA movie as well.

However, the Dementors MUST be able to exercise some amount of control.

We have had similar discussions about the Dementor that accompanied Fudge to see Barty Jr.

Why wasn't Fudge affected?

Gerald Costales - Mar 19, 2006 5:37 pm (#1776 of 2969)

"Why wasn't Fudge affected?" Haymoni

Maybe Fudge is a Death-Eater!!!!!!!

PS Isn't this the Horcrux Thread!!!!!!!

I agree with the tether idea. A Horcrux protects you by keeping a fragment of soul safe. I doubt that fragment goes "beyond the veil" so to speak. If you lost a limb, the soul of your leg wouldn't go "beyond the veil" either. Nor would a person receiving a transplanted heart (or other organ) receive a fragment of the donor's soul.

To destroy Voldemort his body and soul must be destroyed. When Voldemort became Vapormort his soul had been protected by his Horcruxes. Voldemort new "mortal" body will be destroyed (with the last fragment of his soul) to complete the process of destroying him. ;-) GC

PPS Waiting for a volley of dung bombs. ;-) GC

Puck - Mar 19, 2006 8:05 pm (#1777 of 2969)

Okay, watching CoS today I was thinking about how Diary Tom sucked the life out of Ginny regain a body. Now, I'm guessing that an ordinary Horcrux would not be able to do this. This was a special creation, a Horcrux that could communicate, possess, and eventually steal the life from someone.

This seems to have the benefit of being able to give the creator a way to regain a body. Yet, it has the distinct disadvantage of being vulnerable. Weighing the pros and cons, would LV have been likely to create a second Horcrux of this type?

geauxtigers - Mar 19, 2006 11:11 pm (#1778 of 2969)

It's very possible he did just that Puck. We can't rule anything out at this point. I was just thinking about the possible hiding places of the Horcruxes and assuming that there are 7 different places, meaning that no 2 are in the same place, Where do y'all reckon the others will be? Here's what I think:

diary was at Hogwarts, but where it was before we may never know.

the ring was at the Gaunt House

Locket will be at 12GP, or possibly not, thanks to Dung

Hufflepuff's Cup, maybe at the Orphanage or at Hogwarts

Gryffindor's relic possibly at Godric's Hollow

Ravenclaw's relic either at Hogwarts or the Riddle House

the last uncertain (Nagini is who I think it is) will be with LV, and the last bit of LV's soul.

any other ideas for locations? Ones that seem to be of great significance to Voldemort? Let me know...

frogface - Mar 20, 2006 3:08 am (#1779 of 2969)

Its important to remember that there are SIX Horcruxes, not SEVEN. Therefore only six hiding places. This means there is either a Ravenclaw or a Gryffindor relic (but not both). OR there is a Ravenclaw relic and a Gryffindor relic, but Nagini is not a Horcrux. Also I know I'm nit picking now but the diary wasn't hidden by LV at Hogwarts. It was given to Lucius first, who smuggled it in via Ginny on his own initiative for his own ends.

TheSaint - Mar 20, 2006 4:53 am (#1780 of 2969)

Isn't the relic of Gryffindor the sword in DD's office? I think we are looking for Ravenclaw’s... as Jo said Ravenclaw would be getting her time soon.

Choices - Mar 20, 2006 10:42 am (#1781 of 2969)

The sword is a relic of Godric Gryffindor, but Dumbledore didn't suspect if of being a Horcrux.

Mattew Bates - Mar 20, 2006 11:04 am (#1782 of 2969)

Hello, everyone.

A bit of food for thought:

There is a new essay at the Lexicon arguing that Harry is a Horcrux. I don't agree with all of its points, but it does have a few good ideas.

A bit of fan fiction I was reading hypothesized that the Ravenclaw Horcrux had been swallowed by Nagini. This could explain Voldy’s control over the snake, and explain why Voldy would put a Horcrux in a mortal vessel - the mortal vessel is, at the moment, simply protection for the true Horcrux.

Choices - Mar 20, 2006 11:22 am (#1783 of 2969)

Thanks for the link to the essay Mattew. I read it, and while interesting, I think it has giant loopholes in it and it ignores many facts that would refute it.

Brian Philbin - Mar 23, 2006 9:57 am (#1784 of 2969)

Converse Opinion of "Is Harry A Horcrux?"

Hi, all - I just finished reading Stephen Haas' Essay explaining why he believes that Harry Potter is one of Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes. I'm a first time poster, so I hope that you'll all forgive me for such a long post, but I don't see any other, more appropriate venue for my venting my position.

While Stephen provides some compelling arguments, if one thinks them through a bit further, many of his points fail to support the theory overall.

I disagree, as it seems some of you do, as well, with the idea as a whole. Personally, I like reviewing opinions/theories with a logical approach and have done so below. However, there is a surprise ending to my converse opinion, so please bear with me.

When positing theories, my standard approach is to apply Occam's Razor, one of the principles of modern science when positing a theory or model, which states that, when faced with a choice between two equally plausible hypotheses, one should always choose the simpler of the two. In this case, in the absence of another, more concise theory, the simple explanation we already have trumps a more complicated theory. Every time.

I'm looking at "Reasons to Believe Harry is a Horcrux" (Evidence), "Reasons to Believe Harry is Not a Horcrux" (Counterarguments) and the two Theories (Theory 1 & 2) below.

Evidence 1) (One Horcrux May be a Relic of Gryffindor’s) Harry is not "almost certainly a Gryffindor descendant". There were plenty of others living in Godric's Hollow and we cannot presume that all of them are descendants of Godric Gryffindor, as well. The sword came out of the sorting hat, which is a magical object in and of itself. Harry's bravery marks him as a Gryffindor, which was what allowed him to pull it from the hat, as Dumbledore indicated - nothing more or less than that.

That being said, we cannot rule out the possibility that Harry is Gryffindor's heir, nor can we rule out that Voldemort may have presumed that he was, either. These are open issues with no support or detraction in canon.

Evidence 2) (Trophy) While Tom Riddle's trophy may be a red herring, it should also not be ruled out as a possible Horcrux in lieu of another founder's artifact.

Further, destroying the thing that holds the piece of soul destroys its ability to carry the Horcrux - if Voldemort made Harry into a Horcrux prior to performing the Avada Kedavra curse, then he would have been making him a Horcrux and then destroying him.

Evidence 3) (Parseltongue) Part of Voldemort's powers were transferred to Harry when the Avada Kedavra curse backfired. This is the explanation we've been provided. Seems more simple to me than Harry having a piece of Voldemort's soul that was placed there prior to Voldemort's attempt to kill him.

This is not to say that Harry's sharing of Voldemort's powers couldn't represent a manifestation of latent powers carried by a piece of the soul. We can't rule this out as evidence of Harry's being a Horcrux entirely by anything in existing canon... thus far.

Evidence 4) (The Hurting Scar) Dumbledore left the scar because it could be useful. Just because a statement in the theory that the more reasonable response is, in the opinion of the author, inaccurate, doesn't negate it's simplicity or power in providing the appropriate explanation. See response to Evidence #3.

Evidence 5) (The Possession) We've already discussed the reason for Harry and Voldemort's connection and the books have also provided explanation for non-verbal spells and Legilimency. Stephen has listed these related ideas/events individually to support this own theory, but it's not logical for Voldemort to have made Harry a Horcrux and then destroyed him. See Evidence #2.

That being said, the Editor's Note regarding Ginny having been controlled by Tom Riddle/Voldemort by pouring some of his soul into her results in this idea not being ruled out as a possible source of evidence in the direction of Harry being a Horcrux.

Evidence 6) (The Scar Itself) This is the strongest argument thus far. However, what does happen when an Avada Kedavra curse rebounds from a baby for no apparent reason? We don't know because it has never happened before in wizarding history, so the trouble with dismissing it with the question "why" is that there is no frame of reference - no one knows, so you can't assume that the scar means something else.

Further, there's also no evidence that the scar exists due to a Horcrux spell or any indication that I can find that the creation of a Horcrux leaves a mark, either, and the author does not provide any canon support for this comment.

Evidence 7) (Nagini) One could not rule out Nagini being made into a Horcrux based on the author's indicating that it was impossible for Voldemort to do so. That would result in the author indicating that when Voldemort was hiding in the wilderness in the "interim" years where he was involved in all kinds of horrible experiments, he couldn't possibly have found Nagini and made her into a Horcrux well prior to his defeat at baby Harry's hands (head). That's too simple an explanation to rule out, so this one doesn't rule out Nagini in any fashion.

Evidence Cool

(Lord Voldemort Did Not Order Malfoy or Anyone Else to kill Harry in Half-Blood Prince) That's certainly compelling in and of itself, however, it appears that killing Harry is a matter of pride with Voldemort, hence his having paraded him in front of the Death Eaters in order to demonstrate that Harry wasn't a threat to him.

Counterargument 1) (Lord Voldemort Wanted to Kill Harry on Halloween 1981) This doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Why would a rebounded Horcrux spell "kill" Voldemort? Why place a Horcrux in a living thing and then destroy that living thing? Why wouldn't destroying the very thing that holds the Horcrux destroy the Horcrux itself? Why would Voldemort use the Avada Kedavra curse at all if he was simply making Harry a Horcrux? Why not leave him alive?

Counterargument 2) (Lord Voldemort Keeps Trying To Kill Harry) This is highly complicated in its assumptions. Again, the explanation that Voldemort would not wish to destroy the living thing that was the Horcrux for fear of destroying the Horcrux itself and thereby losing the use of that piece of his soul forever seems much more likely, as the converse appears terribly foolish (that's not to say that Voldemort is incapable of doing something terribly foolish, either, just that the converse is more likely).

Counterargument 3) (Dumbledore’s Analysis) Harry's psychological make-up, as we know it, just doesn't add up to suicide. Particularly since he fights in such dismal and seemingly hopeless circumstances. He's never had suicidal thoughts before, regardless of the terrible circumstances he's found himself in - he's not likely to give up now.

Again, this doesn't rule out the possibility that Dumbledore had the thought that Harry might give up or commit suicide, either.

Theory 1) (Kill James, Make Harry Horcrux, Kill Harry) We're pretty much done with this one - it doesn't hold up to logical reasoning. Voldemort, if he considered the Horcrux as valuable at all, would not have destroyed the very thing in which it resides.

Theory 2) (Kill Harry, Make Household Object a Horcrux) And here's the surprise ending. The fact remains that the majority of the preceding arguments do not provide much real support for Theory 2 - they mostly prop up Theory 1. That being said, Theory 2 has the most likelihood of being accurate just due to its simplicity. The preceding explanations convoluted the entire idea - until Theory 2 was presented. Theory 2 is free of complications built up in previous explanations. An accident, rather than illogically attempting to destroy the Horcrux upon having created it inside a living being, is a much more rational and acceptable explanation.

My Conclusion: While evidence presented does

Brian Philbin - Mar 23, 2006 10:34 am (#1785 of 2969)

Guess I'm longer-winded than I should have been!

Here's the rest:

My Conclusion: While evidence presented does not support the more complex Theory 1, we cannot rule out that Harry could be a Horcrux due to an accident. Voldemort could very well have presumed - in the same manner that Stephen Haas has - that Harry was Godric Gryffindor's progeny. As such, he may further have presumed that he might have found an artifact of Gryffindor's in the Potter home and planned to make a Horcrux of it. We cannot rule out, however, that Voldemort is unaware that this is what transpired and has only stumbled on his ability to work Harry's connection to him by accident.

The Theory is still alive and while not remarkably well supported, it cannot be ruled out entirely.

Me, personally? I don't think that it is likely that Voldemort would have made such a move to place a part of his soul inside Harry - at least while he was living. While Theory 2 is much more compelling to me, I don't think that this is what happened.

Harry is marked "The Chosen One" by Voldemort's own actions. What the author of this Theory has left out is that Voldemort really would have wanted to completely destroy anyone who had been prophesied to have the ability to defeat him. That's my simple explanation and I'm sticking to it!

Hope that wasn't a waste of time for anyone!

Pax, harmonia,

Brian G. Philbin

geauxtigers - Mar 23, 2006 2:57 pm (#1786 of 2969)

I like your thinking Brian Philbin! I see where your coming from, and I do not believe that Harry is a Horcrux, first off the chance of Harry, or any living thing for that matter, dying in something random like falling off a broom or something is too risky. Secondly, why make Harry a Horcrux, then try to destroy it, its counter-productive. He could have killed Harry then made his corpse a Horcrux, but he didn't, or maybe he tried and that’s when the AK backfired.

Magic Words - Mar 23, 2006 3:33 pm (#1787 of 2969)

I think he is a Horcrux, but I agree it would only work if Voldemort did it accidentally (thus eliminating any question about why he would do it or why he wants to kill his Horcrux). I see the accidental Horcrux as entirely possible, given that nobody knows what happens when an AK backfires and Voldemort would already have performed any preliminary steps needed to capture a torn bit of soul. The best evidence I can see for it being probable, and not merely possible, is Harry's line to Dumbledore in CoS: "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" We didn't know about Horcruxes at the time, but if you wanted to describe Harry-as-a-Horcrux without using the term, that would be the best way to do it. And since you mentioned Occam's Razor, Brian Philbin, wouldn't it be simpler to take an existing explanation - Horcruxes - and apply it to the phenomenon of Harry's scar, rather than coming up with a separate scenario of powers transferred through an AK?

Mrs Brisbee - Mar 23, 2006 4:49 pm (#1788 of 2969)

wouldn't it be simpler to take an existing explanation - Horcruxes - and apply it to the phenomenon of Harry's scar, rather than coming up with a separate scenario of powers transferred through an AK? --Magic Words

I agree, and that's one of the big reasons that I believe in Accidental Horcrux-Like Harry. Six books down, and only one to go, so I think at least the seeds of an explanation have to be planted in the books we have. So far Horcruxes are the only thing we have heard about that could allow for the phenomenon we have seen, the connection that has allowed Harry to see through Voldemorts eyes, to feel like he is Voldemort, to feel Voldemort's emotions even across vast distances. Now we know that murder tears the soul, and bits of soul can be transferred elsewhere. I think the explanation must be found in what we know about Horcruxes, even if Harry turns out not to be a "proper" Horcrux.

Magic Words - Mar 23, 2006 6:39 pm (#1789 of 2969)

I'd also like to point out how the relationship between Voldemort and Harry seems to extend to Nagini, a known Horcrux. Voldemort has possessed them both in similar ways, and Harry has seen things through Nagini's eyes. It would make sense if all three contained pieces of the same soul.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 23, 2006 7:53 pm (#1790 of 2969)

Evidence Cool

(Lord Voldemort Did Not Order Malfoy or Anyone Else to kill Harry in Half-Blood Prince) That's certainly compelling in and of itself, however, it appears that killing Harry is a matter of pride with Voldemort, hence his having paraded him in front of the Death Eaters in order to demonstrate that Harry wasn't a threat to him.

My response to this is, since we do not have nearly enough information on Horcruxes, we can only speculate. However, I will attempt to explain my idea. First and foremost, I believe Harry was an inadvertently made Horcrux. I am beginning to believe that after the MoM incident in Book 5, Big V had begun to consider the thought that his intended Horcrux-bit could have landed in Harry. He has kept himself very well guarded from Harry since the aforementioned event. What if Horcruxes are destroyed by another, but preserved if the container is opened by its creator? i.e., if someone other than Big V attempts to extract the soul bit, it takes a different strategy of magic and destroys the soul bit. Whereas, if Big V should choose to remove it, it would be a far different process and would not destroy the soul bit.

I am keeping in mind, JKR's comments when she answered a question raised asking what would have happened, had Ginny died and Big V "come alive". Her response was to the effect of 'he would have been much more powerful' (anyone have a direct quote?). This leads me to believe that these soul bits could possibly fuse.

Evidence 1) (One Horcrux May be a Relic of Gryffindor’s) Harry is not "almost certainly a Gryffindor descendant".

No, but he is a Gryffindor. This could end up as a play on words.

Counterargument 3) (Dumbledore’s Analysis) Harry's psychological make-up, as we know it, just doesn't add up to suicide. Particularly since he fights in such dismal and seemingly hopeless circumstances. He's never had suicidal thoughts before, regardless of the terrible circumstances he's found himself in - he's not likely to give up now.

No, he does not seem suicidal. He does, however exude bravery. He came out from behind the stone in GoF (is that movie contamination?) and we have tossed around the idea that DD sacrificed himself for the 'greater good' in HBP, so we cannot rule a scenario where Harry knows he can rid the world of Big V once and for all if he destroys the final Horcrux and puts himself in harms way in pursuit of this.

Magic Words, we cannot conclude that Nagini is a Horcrux. DD was speculating on this.

Please excuse my sloppy typing. No time to proofread.

MzWhizz123 - Mar 23, 2006 8:29 pm (#1791 of 2969)

I don't know...I can't help but think that Harry became an accidental Horcrux due to Lilly's charm/sacrifice.

Imagine LV going to GH intent on making his last Horcrux. He kills James and heads off the do in Harry. Perhaps the Horcrux spell must be cast before the killing, which he does. With a hot wand ready to create a Horcrux with the next murder, he enters Harry's room.

He finds Lilly there casting her own charm. Being a mother, I am sure it was something about taking to herself whatever LV had intended for her son. I am convinced that it was something about this charm of hers that targeted Harry for Horcrux-ism.

LV says, "Get out of the way you silly girl!" (There are many theories as to why). Of course she does not and she absorbs the murder/spell that would create the Horcrux. Unbeknownst to LV, he has just made Harry the Horcrux, so that when he goes to AK him, the curse backfires because he is trying to destroy his own Horcrux.

The scar looks rather like a serpent, I believe. (Maybe similar to the one Harry saw on the locket at #12GP?). Anyhow, the prophesy stated that LV would mark Harry as his equal, which, now he is because he carries 1/7 of LV soul, which is all Mr. Crany Pants has left.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 24, 2006 5:01 am (#1792 of 2969)

MzWhizz123, there has also been speculation that the scar is also the location where Lily may have sealed her charm with a kiss prior to Big V's attack at which time, a lightning bolt shaped scar appeared. I love that idea.

TheSaint - Mar 24, 2006 5:09 am (#1793 of 2969)

Perhaps before you make a Horcrux you must place some spell or charm before you kill in order for your soul to transfer. If he went to the Potters for the purpose of making a Horcrux from killing his prophesized enemy, he would have done what is necessary to make a Horcrux before killing Harry, so when the AK bounced his rent soul transferred to Harry without Voldemort realizing it. Does that make any sense? Was not sure how to word it.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 24, 2006 6:23 am (#1794 of 2969)

That is pretty much my thought on the matter as well, TheSaint. The only difference is that I imagined him performing the spell just before Harry's murder, as he ascended the stairs, perhaps.

virginiaelizabeth - Mar 25, 2006 8:42 pm (#1795 of 2969)

Ok I am currently doing a reread of GoF and I'm at the graveyard scene and this quote struck me as a huge clue that the DE know about his Horcruxes. Tell me what you think:

"And I answered myself," said Voldemort, "they must have believed me broken, they thought I was gone. They slipped back among my enemies, and they pleaded innocence, and ignorance, and bewitchment... "And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death? They, who had seen proofs of the immensity of my power in the times when I was mightier that any wizard living? (page 648 GoF US Hardback)

Sounds to me like the DE know about LV and his Horcruxes, to some extent at least, meaning that they may not know that there are 7 and where they are hidden, etc. but they may know that this is how it is protecting himself from death. This could be how Regulus(if he is RAB) knew about hem, and he just took it further than any other one before. He seemed very specific by saying, the STEPS I took, and it just had me thinking that this was a very odd comment, but it can be easily overlooked

Another thought: LV also says

"I smell guilt"

could Snape have been there that night? After all he was a DE who was not in Azkaban, and we know what happened to Karkaroff when he didn't show, so it makes me think that he must have been there, and that maybe this is the guilt that LV smells? He could also give DD more info on LV and the DE because he was there. tell me what you think.

Ok new brainwave: What is only a select few DE who were very trustworthy, knew about LV's Horcruxes and that this is what he is referring to when he says this. So maybe too of these DE are talking about it and RAB hears them and then he doesn’t have to figure it out, because he has basically been told what they are. This could also be the guilt that LV smells. That’s kinda creepy that he can smell guilt.

geauxtigers - Mar 25, 2006 8:49 pm (#1796 of 2969)

AHHHH your right Virginia!! Sounds to me like they all knew or most of them at least! This is very strong evidence that Regulus knew about the Horcruxes! Nice find Virginia! I'm almost to that part too!

Good idea about Snape too. I'm not sure it seems as though DD would have known if Snape had gone. here check this out:

"And here we have six missing Death Eaters...three dead in my service. One, too cowardly to return...he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever...he will be killed of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who has already reentered my service."(GoF pg 651 US hardback)

Could one of those be Snape? I'm not sure. One of them is Karkaroff, I think he the cowardly one, but could Snape be the one who is left forever? What do y’all think?

Stephen - Mar 26, 2006 5:12 am (#1797 of 2969)
Edited by Mar 26, 2006 5:14 am

Hi Brian (and everyone else):

If I may respond to some of Brian's points from a few posts back:

1) Most of your counterarguments and indeed most of the counterarguments on this thread to my essay amount to variations on the following theme: that there are other explanations for the events and phenomena that I pointed out other than that Harry is a Horcrux and that no one piece of evidence conclusively proves that Harry is a Horcrux.

I will concede this point gladly and further point out that it was never my intent to claim that my thesis is proved conclusively from anything. Quite the contrary, I recognize that the power to control this universe resides only in a single human mind who can make up or explain away anything simply by making up a new rule and inserting it into Book 7.

My essay was based on the question of which direction does the "greater weight of the evidence" (to borrow a phrase from litigation) point toward. And, though I concede that every individual piece of evidence can be explained away, when taken together, they build a strong circumstantial case that Harry is a Horcrux.

2) I recognize that there will be a lot of resistance to this theory because people don't WANT to believe it because of the obviously terrible ramifications that it would have on the protagonist of the series. When I first read the theory on one of these boards, I also scoffed at it. But, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it's a logical way to explain so many of the gaping holes in the plot line.

3) There seems to be incredible resistance to the idea that a dead person can hold a Horcrux and thus to theory 1 of my conclusion. I really don't understand why. The AK curse does not "destroy" what it hits, it kills the organism that it its. It does not disfigure that organism or make any other visible change. Why would it necessarily destroy the Horcrux inside it?

4) I don't understand your counter-argument to my Nagini argument. DD said that Nagini was made a Horcrux by Frank Bryce's murder, not by some murder that occurred in Albania years before that. DD may have developed this theory because he was not privy to Harry's dream that saw Nagini under LV's control before Bryce's murder or DD may not believe the theory himself. Either way, DD's theory about the Bryce murder making Nagini a Horcrux is, IMHO, pretty much impeached by the opening dream sequence in GoF.

5) In your sweeping statements dismissing my theory 1 and stating that theory 2 is not supported by the evidence, I would have liked for you to explain those categorizations a bit more thoroughly. I believe that both theories are amply supported by the available evidence, through I agree that theory 2 is more likely. I also think that all the evidence leading tot he conclusion that Harry is a Horcrux are equally necessary for each theory- after all, they both depend on the idea that Harry is a Horcrux, which is the conclusion that the first part seeks to set up.

6) The Ginny possession, which I hadn't even thought of (Paula added it to my essay as a footnote), if anything, further supports the idea that a Horcrux allowed LV to possess Harry. Remember that the diary was itself a Horcrux. Because Ginny voluntarily interacted with it, she allowed part of LV's soul to be poured into her and allowed her soul to be drawn into the diary (remember that Riddle makes this point when confronting Harry- that Ginny poured her soul into the diary). Precisely because it was a Horcrux was it able to do this.

If you or anyone else has any specific points about the essay that you'd like to debate, I'll be happy to do so.

Cheers.

Stephen

Mrs Brisbee - Mar 26, 2006 5:54 am (#1798 of 2969)

4) I don't understand your counter-argument to my Nagini argument. DD said that Nagini was made a Horcrux by Frank Bryce's murder, not by some murder that occurred in Albania years before that. DD may have developed this theory because he was not privy to Harry's dream that saw Nagini under LV's control before Bryce's murder or DD may not believe the theory himself. Either way, DD's theory about the Bryce murder making Nagini a Horcrux is, IMHO, pretty much impeached by the opening dream sequence in GoF.

Hi. I'm not actually going to argue about Horcrux Harry at the moment (I'm in the third camp, the Accidental Horcrux-Like Harry camp). But I see a lot of people stating on various boards that Voldemort made Nagini a Horcrux with Frank Bryce's murder. I don't think Dumbledore ever said that. I thought he said that Voldemort got the idea to make Nagini a Horcrux after she killed a Muggle man. Which may or may not have anything to do with Frank Bryce, since Voldemort AK’d him, he wasn't killed by Nagini at all. I'm not sure where Frank Bryce fits into the idea that "important" murders were used to make the Horcruxes either. Would Voldy have thought Bryce all that important? I think when Nagini got made into a Horcrux, and which murder was used, is pretty much still a mystery.

TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 26, 2006 6:44 am (#1799 of 2969)

"I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death. As we know, he failed. After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux. She underlines the Slytherin connection, which enhances Lord Voldemorts mystique; I think he is perhaps as fond of her as he can be of anything; he certainly likes to keep her close, and he seems to have an unusual amount of control over her, even for a Parselmouth." (Bold mine) HBP 506=507 Scholastic ed.

Now, doesn't that make things clear as mud?

"Which may or may not have anything to do with Frank Bryce, since Voldemort AK’d him, he wasn't killed by Nagini at all." I totally agree, as I brought this very point up eons ago. Either JKR made a mistake, or DD did, or is a red herring.

...toddles off back to St Mungo’s...

Esther Rose - Mar 26, 2006 7:10 am (#1800 of 2969)

TBE, You mean they let you out? I have permanent residency there Fourth Floor room 237.

For now, I believe that Harry is a Horcrux and that Draco is a Vampire. Probably the exact reason I have permanent residency though. =)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:26 pm

Gerald Costales - Mar 26, 2006 7:13 am (#1801 of 2969)

Two Horcruxes down. Five to go. Or Four plus the last soul bit in Voldemort. Book 7 will most certainly be about the finding and destruction of these last soul bits.

I don't believe Harry is a Horcrux purposely or accidentally. Nagini I believe is a Horcrux, just because Dumbledore thinks Nagini is. I believe Dumbledore is usually right. (But, why Dumbledore trusted Snape is still a mystery to me.)

JKR will have to explain more about Horcruxes, etc. in Book 7. Kreacher I think holds to key to at least one Horcrux (most likely the locket). ;-) GC

PS Any word on a Book 7 release date? ;-) GC

PPS Recent posts have been very interesting and enlightening. ;-) GC

TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 26, 2006 7:32 am (#1802 of 2969)

"TBE, You mean they let you out?" Of course they let me out! I sometimes get weekend passes don't you know? I am slowly recovering from a transformation spell gone wrong. I tried to transform myself into Harry Potter, instead, I became a rabid Harry Potter fan!

One of the reasons I think HBP seems hurried is the lack of more information about Horcruxes. Sometimes I feel that JKR may have hurried through writing some parts like I do here on the forum, I know what I'm thinking and why, it just doesn't always all end up in black and white. (Besides, I hate to type!)

TheSaint - Mar 26, 2006 7:37 am (#1803 of 2969)

I am in the camp of Harry the accidental Horcrux! Seems the killing of his prophesized nemesis would be too big of an opportunity to create a Horcrux. I believe he would have taken the necessary steps to do so when he confronted Harry. His soul torn from the murders he already committed (James and Lily), the bounced AK that ripped him from his body would have also ripped his soul. This piece of soul placed in Harry, would literally walk in another man's shoes.

(But how can he be in Harry?’ : the theory of the impregnation () of souls; that is, if two souls do not feel equal to their tasks God unites both in one body, so that they may support and complete each other, as, for instance, a lame man and a blind one may conjointly do (compare the parable in Sanh. 91a,) If one of the two souls needs aid, the other becomes, as it were, its mother, bearing it in its lap and nourishing it with its own substance.’ So the combination of souls is a very old concept indeed.) The Cabala [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Could it be that the piece of soul that Harry carries has grown and developed with harry? Has actually developed a capacity to Love? My favorite hypothesis, this piece of soul develops love... all released pieces of soul are joined and then slam back into Voldemort's body when he is the only one left. The little drop of blood he obtained from DD is infected with love. The bit of reentering soul is infected with love. A body and soul in conflict with itself...cannot remain. I prefer self-implosion. Of course this means ..... Perhaps the drop of blood can be Harry's Horcrux! LOL.

Puck - Mar 26, 2006 8:18 am (#1804 of 2969)

At first I was steadfast in my opinion against Harry being a Horcrux. I can see now that it is a possibility. However, it really depends on how a Horcrux is made. If incantations and spells come after the murder, than no, he can't be one. If the spell is cast ahead of time, then he might be -accidently.

Why would a corpse not make a good Horcrux? Decomposition.

My biggest argument against the scar=Horcrux theory is that so many people have come to that very conclusion. JKR is too tricky to let something so big be figured out by so many. (RAB was a gimme, but likely the only one.)

Solitaire - Mar 26, 2006 10:10 am (#1805 of 2969)

I have only one problem with Harry-as-Horcrux: How can Harry destroy the final Horcrux (himself) and then kill Voldemort? If Harry is a Horcrux, unless someone else kills him and then Voldemort, it would seem that Voldemort will triumph in the end. I would feel very cheated by such an ending to the series.

Solitaire

Nathan Zimmermann - Mar 26, 2006 10:49 am (#1806 of 2969)

virginiaelizabeth, in this post virginiaelizabeth, "+ Horcruxes" #1795, 25 Mar 2006 8:42 pm you asked whether Snape could have been in the graveyard. In HBP chapter 2 Severus tells Bellatrix that he was not in the graveyard but that he returned two hours later.

Gerald Costales - Mar 26, 2006 11:27 am (#1807 of 2969)

Do you think that Wormtail's new silver hand could be a Horcrux? Could explain the following line from the Prophecy

"And either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ..."

If Nagini could be Horcrux or the Scar, why not Wormtail's silver hand? ;-) GC

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am (#1808 of 2969)

Because Ginny voluntarily interacted with it, she allowed part of LV's soul to be poured into her and allowed her soul to be drawn into the diary (remember that Riddle makes this point when confronting Harry- that Ginny poured her soul into the diary). Precisely because it was a Horcrux was it able to do this.

Actually, the diary was enchanted which is why it was able to interact with another in the way it did. Otherwise, I strongly believe that she would merely have been writing into a diary that would be difficult to destroy - nothing more.

TheSaint, I think you bring up some very thought-provoking ideas. A story where a Horcrux is made from the death of James and/or Lily and ends up in Harry is unbounded. Imagine that being surrounded with Harry's soul.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Big V can safely remove his Horcrux-encased soul from somewhere and may come to realize where his last one landed before 'vapormortizing'. But thinking about the actual concept that both Harry and Big V would have the knowledge that Harry must be AK'd before Big V can be AK'd leads us to a very tense situation. Wouldn't it be interesting if Harry realized that the only one who would/could AK him winds up being Snape?

Mattew Bates - Mar 26, 2006 11:33 am (#1809 of 2969)

I think that's a nifty idea, Gerald, but it would take a level of trust in Pettigrew (a known turncoat) that most would consider dangerous. I don't think Voldy would trust anyone that much, especially after Malfoy mucked things up with the Diary.

me and my shadow 813 - Mar 26, 2006 2:42 pm (#1810 of 2969)

Solitaire, regarding your above post (and it relates to something I posted to you in Voldemort and Death thread) -- it's possible that part of the heightened drama of the Harry/Vold climax will be that Harry cannot locate the 6th Horcrux. He comes to the confrontation with Vold "prematurely". For whatever reason Vold dies (in my opinion he will die in a very Wicked-Witch-from-the-Wizard-of-Oz kind of way), that is, Harry does not kill him but circumstances come about in Harry's presence whereby Vold dies. Harry now contains the last "living" part of Vold's soul. However, this part is no longer "evil" for it resides within Harry. This, to me, would not only be a wonderful lesson for a children's book but would be a true Hero's Journey in the metaphysical/alchemical sense that JKR seems to draw upon.

Soul Search - Mar 26, 2006 2:49 pm (#1811 of 2969)

I not only think Harry's scar is an accidental Horcrux, but that it gives Harry a significant advantage over Voldemort.

It is not a danger, by itself, to Harry. Dumbledore's hand was damaged from the protections on the ring Horcrux, rather than the Horcrux itself. Harry was not harmed when he destroyed the diary Horcrux. So, Harry's scar Horcrux can be destroyed without damage to Harry.

What advantage over Voldemort? Well, if Voldemort realizes that Harry has destroyed all his other Horcruxes, he won't want to kill Harry.

Harry's scar already provides a useful service: it warns Harry when Voldemort is near or thinking of him.

It could also allow Harry to invade Voldemort's mind, like in OotP, in spite of any Occlumency Voldemort performs.

Harry may also pass through spells intended to pass only Voldemort. Harry, after all, has a bit of Voldemort's soul inside his scar.

When the scar Horcrux is destroyed, Harry's scar will disappear. JKR has said the last word in book seven is "scar." My suggestion for the last line is something like "... Harry looked in the mirror, smiling that he no longer had the scar."

Solitaire - Mar 26, 2006 5:16 pm (#1812 of 2969)

But think back ... it was those Horcruxes that once before prevented Voldemort from dying. As long as that piece of Voldemort lies within Harry, Voldemort can't truly die ... unless the piece of his soul that lies within Harry leaves Harry's body to return into Voldemort ... at which point he would become "killable," I suppose.

Theoretically, I suppose, Harry could simply engage Voldemort in a battle that is deadly enough--and AK him enough times--that he must "exhume" all of the other parts of his soul from their Horcruxes. Then, when Harry AKs him again, and he does not die, the final piece of soul will be pulled from Harry.

But the ring was damaged when the soul left it. So was the Diary. Would Harry be killed--or seriously injured--when Voldemort's soul left him? Kind of scary to contemplate, and it still leaves the potential for Voldemort to prevail.

Solitaire

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 26, 2006 5:52 pm (#1813 of 2969)

Theoretically, I suppose, Harry could simply engage Voldemort in a battle that is deadly enough--and AK him enough times--that he must "exhume" all of the other parts of his soul from their Horcruxes. Then, when Harry AKs him again, and he does not die, the final piece of soul will be pulled from Harry.

I don't think it works that way, though, Solitaire. I think they are merely anchors, no more, no less - not replacements. The essence of Big V's 'being' is within himself and is bound to earth by the soul-bits (meaning he cannot be killed) until the bits are released from their Horcruxes at which time, Big V's main part (his essence, for lack of a better term) is left vulnerable.

The reason I think the idea of Harry/accidental Horcrux is so genius is because, inasmuch as Big V would want him dead, as long as Harry stays alive, Big V cannot die. Harry being a Horcrux, would work in Harry's favor, too. It would also make sense with regard to the storyline that Big V be one of the first to learn this about Harry (he may already know), and want him for himself to deliver the news. I can see Harry putting himself on the chopping block (I can see Snape stepping forward to aid in this) and in the end, the Horcrux is destroyed while Harry survives because of Lily's sacrifice - his soul is protected, while Big V's bit is not. After all, we have only witnessed the extraction of a soul bit from an inanimate Horcrux, so we cannot apply it in its entirety to a living Horcrux. The GoF scene where Harry emerges on his own will to face Big V (certain death in his eyes) in the graveyard scene shows me he would sacrifice himself; and also, Big V's behavior after the MoM incident was very odd for someone who supposedly fears nothing.

I have been trying to come up with a way that Harry's blood would come into play against Big V. I am beginning to think it may have to do with arresting some form of action from Big V against Harry, though, right now, the graveyard scene would counter that idea. Any thoughts?

TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 26, 2006 6:22 pm (#1814 of 2969)

If brother wand cores will not play nicely together, I wonder about blood against blood. Like the power moving along the wand stream, for lack of better term at the moment, LV and Harry are kind of blood brothers now huh? Is Harry's scar a vent, or portal through which a soul bit could be released?

...toddles away muttering to self...

Solitaire - Mar 26, 2006 6:42 pm (#1815 of 2969)

Stop that muttering, TBE! I want to know what you are saying under your breath!

TheSaint - Mar 26, 2006 6:49 pm (#1816 of 2969)

Would be nice if that little bit of blood were a Horcrux of sort for Harry... should he go the way of the diary and the ring.

TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 26, 2006 7:04 pm (#1817 of 2969)

"He said my blood would make him stronger than if he'd used someone else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my - my mother left in me - he'd have it too. And he was right - he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face." His mother's blood protection. The protection of a mother to her child, till that child becomes of age? Then Harry would no longer have the protection, nor would LV? Dumbledore's imploring the Dursleys Harry be allowed to return once more before his 17th birthday? The glint in Dumbledore's eyes, maybe LV has underestimated the ancient magic, the power of love again?

...toddles off still mumbling...

Editing and mumbling... "Priori Incantatem," will blood against blood in the WW produce a like effect if made to battle one another?

Magic Words - Mar 26, 2006 8:20 pm (#1818 of 2969)

HungarianHorntail11, on your idea of Snape AK'ing Harry to destroy the last Horcrux: I've actually been writing a fan fiction with that very premise. Great minds, eh? The only problem with the idea is that we would have to assume DD was mistaken when he said all the Horcruxes would have to be destroyed before Harry went after the soul in Voldemort’s body. What I can see happening, instead, is Harry’s discovery of his Horcrux causing all sorts of suspense as he tries to figure out whether he has to die or not, before he eventually finds a way around it, maybe accidentally as he's prepared to sacrifice himself.

On another previous subject (see what happens when I get lax about checking this site), I don't think Harry's dream necessarily invalidates Nagini as a Horcrux. All Voldemort does is talk to her in Parseltongue, and we know that snakes will sometimes obey Parselmouths (remember the Dueling Club incident in CoS). She may have been with them at that time for reasons of her own. Maybe Wormtail feeds her. I think when DD spoke of Voldemort's control over her, he was referring primarily to the time LV used her to attack Arthur Weasley. I think possession, once LV has a body of his own, can only be done through Horcruxes.

"Harry may also pass through spells intended to pass only Voldemort. Harry, after all, has a bit of Voldemort's soul inside his scar." I like this, Soul Search! I bet you're right.

Lastly, for people wondering about Harry's blood in Voldemort, there's an entire thread dedicated to the "triumphant gleam in Dumbledore's eyes" you might want to check out.

virginiaelizabeth - Mar 26, 2006 9:26 pm (#1819 of 2969)

At first I was totally against this whole idea that Harry was a Horcrux, because I thought that it was stupid and there was no evidence, but I must say ya'll have pretty much convinced me. I still think that there is just as much possibility that Harry is not a Horcrux, as there is that he is. Ya'll have some really good evidence here and I now believe that it is extremely likely that Harry is a Horcrux. I'll need more time to come up with my own theory though!

TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 26, 2006 10:48 pm (#1820 of 2969)

"Harry, after all, has a bit of Voldemort's soul inside his scar." Could you please point me towards the canon for this? I just remember Harry asking and Dumbledore agreeing that LV transferred a bit of himself to Harry, i.e.: powers, abilities. I don't remember anywhere it said LV transferred a bit of his soul to him.

"Lastly, for people wondering about Harry's blood in Voldemort, there's an entire thread dedicated to the "triumphant gleam in Dumbledore's eyes" you might want to check out." Think I have posted there a time or two soon after the thread was started, it's one of my favorites to follow.

Maybe Dumbledore's mistake was thinking Harry's death was what LV intended to use to make his last Horcrux. Instead, maybe LV decided to use Harry as his last Horcrux? What better trophy than use the boy that was said to be his downfall? But as we know, something backfired?

...toddles off to mutter some more...

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 27, 2006 5:16 am (#1821 of 2969)

What a great angle re: DD's mistake, TBE. I guess all of that muttering leads to somewhere, eh?

I was thinking that if the wands do not work properly against each other, perhaps it means there will have to be another way to settle this.

MagicWords, I hope I didn't ruin anything for you.

The only problem with the idea is that we would have to assume DD was mistaken when he said all the Horcruxes would have to be destroyed before Harry went after the soul in Voldemort’s body.

I don't think that is true. As I've mentioned before, we do not know enough about Horcruxes let alone one in an animate object. There might be another way, also, the diary was left intact, just "scarred".

Nice to see some people finally aboard the Harry/Horcrux idea. It gets lonely out there. I just hope the ship doesn't sink! LOL.

Magic Words - Mar 27, 2006 7:31 am (#1822 of 2969)

LOL, the Harry/Horcrux ship. Don't tell Ginny.

TwinklingBlueEyes, there's no canon saying Voldemort put a piece of his soul in Harry. I'm pretty sure Soul Search was assuming a Horcrux turns out to be the explanation for Harry having some of Voldemort's powers.

Puck - Mar 27, 2006 11:12 am (#1823 of 2969)

I may be willing to consider boarding the Harry/Horcrux (aka the NEW H/H) ship, but I still hope it sinks! I would hate to see Harry realize something so horrid!

virginiaelizabeth - Mar 27, 2006 3:29 pm (#1824 of 2969)

I have to agree with you Puck! As possible as I think it is for Harry to be a Horcrux(which I strongly do) I want it to be wrong! I can't imagine what would happen to him if he was! That would be sooo horrible!

me and my shadow 813 - Mar 27, 2006 7:09 pm (#1825 of 2969)

Two things cross my mind reading recent postings:

DD has made a point of saying when he makes mistakes, they are huge ones. Maybe we're being led to believe the huge mistake was leaving Hogwarts that night they went to the Cave. But maybe that wasn't a "mistake" at all, as many of us have speculated. So maybe the "mistake" is the Horcruxes -- not knowing (or not Telling) that Harry is a Horcrux would be a grave mistake on DD's part.

I believe the blood - and Gleam of Triumph - support the theory that Harry is going to transmute the piece of Vold's soul he contains. First we have a transfer of soul via Horcrux, then a transfer of blood via Dark Magic. It only makes sense -to me- that these need to be purified and balanced via that soul piece being Consumed By Love - not destroyed, contrary to what DD may think. Again, a possible DD mistake.

I think of other stories in the genre JKR places herself in --

Star Wars: Luke and Vader forgive/love each other by the end.

LOTR: (I didn't read books so going by film) Frodo actually leans toward becoming Gollum-esque in that he, too, covets the ring. It is only via forces greater than them that Frodo is "saved".

In both the above cases, the Hero is profoundly identified with the Enemy. I also cannot help throwing in the Matrix film here, where Neo jumps into Agent Smith's body and transmutes it. To me, this is the ultimate symbol of the Hero.

Solitaire - Mar 27, 2006 7:40 pm (#1826 of 2969)

Fortunately, Puck, we still do not know that Harry actually contains some of Voldemort's soul. This is still speculation. My biggest barrier to jumping on the Horcrux ship is understanding how Voldemort's soul could reside in Harry when Voldemort himself cannot stand to possess Harry. Given the fact that he did do it once, I can't help thinking he'd have noticed if part of his soul were inside Harry ... or Harry's scar. JM2K, of course ...

Solitaire

Esther Rose - Mar 27, 2006 7:52 pm (#1827 of 2969)

Solitaire, my only answer to that (and it may not be a very good one.) I believe there is a big difference between carrying a soulbit and being possessed by a soulbit. The soulbit can reside in Harry but the Horcrux is too weak (or Harry is too strong) for the soulbit to possess Harry directly. Though I can see how a soulbit might be able to give suggestions to Harry, where Harry still has the power and choice to follow the suggestions. But the soulbit cannot over power Harry and "take over", at least not for very long.

Magic Words - Mar 27, 2006 8:10 pm (#1828 of 2969)

Solitaire, it's possible that Voldemort does know Harry is a Horcrux. We didn't see him at all in book 6, so there's no telling what he discovered through possessing Harry at the MoM. About your other point- I'm thinking maybe because the soul-bit entered Harry at a young age, before his power of love was fully developed, it might have been able to grow with him and adapt to its environment, so to speak. This could tie in with me and my shadow's idea of the soul bit being transformed. Me and my shadow, I think you're steadily convincing me about that- I didn't really agree at first, but I seem to be defending it at every turn! Again, I have to throw in Wizard of Earthsea as a case in point, where the main character has to embrace his enemy in order to overcome it.

me and my shadow 813 - Mar 27, 2006 10:09 pm (#1829 of 2969)

I think it's important that JKR makes a point of differentiating between brain/mind and a soul. We are told that Vold, although with only a fragment of his soul embodied, still contains 100% brainpower. This, to me, is a crucial "moral" of the story. The mind has the ability to corrupt, even destroy, the soul if the mind holds only hate. Vold is driven solely by this mind, whereas Harry is driven by heart/soul/will/mind/spirit/love as well as of course his own hate/rage/terror/grief. In my opinion, the parts of Vold's soul that have been "deposited" into Horcruxes are those parts that he rejects. In other words, everything *except* hate. I wouldn't be surprised if these pieces of soul are yearning to be with someone like Harry, someone to accept them. I think it is Vold's mind which could be deemed "evil", not his soul.

Edit - thank you Magic Words for the Earthsea reference. Never read it...I'll check it out.

Solitaire - Mar 27, 2006 10:21 pm (#1830 of 2969)

because the soul-bit entered Harry at a young age

Is this canon? I must be having a major brain-fade, because I honestly do not remember reading--either in the books or in any of the interviews--that a "soul-bit" entered Harry. I've always considered this just a theory. Can someone please point me to the source? Thanks.

Solitaire

TheSaint - Mar 28, 2006 4:53 am (#1831 of 2969)

It is theory...and the transfer would have occurred at Godric's Hollow when Harry was one!

I have to say, the end of book one... when Harry hears someone calling his name, as if inside his own head... I always thought of that as the piece of Voldemort's soul that had grown to love Harry and was concerned. No canon, just what I was thinking.

There is also a point in one of the books, and forgive me but I cannot remember which at the moment, where Harry has a moment of anger and desire to hurt someone completely out of character for him. Again, I attributed it to the piece of soul, outraged and Harry's mistreatment.

If love is to save the day, this is the best way I can think of...Voldemort tortured by his own soul.

Solitaire - I have only one problem with Harry-as-Horcrux: How can Harry destroy the final Horcrux (himself) and then kill Voldemort? If Harry is a Horcrux, unless someone else kills him and then Voldemort, it would seem that Voldemort will triumph in the end. I would feel very cheated by such an ending to the series.

Book one... DD tells Harry... 'while you may only have delayed his return to power, it will merely take SOMEONE ELSE who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time -'

It might be so.

Steve Newton - Mar 28, 2006 6:19 am (#1832 of 2969)

TheSaint, I don't remember Harry hearing someone calling his name inside his head in book one. It would nicely tie in with a thread I started a while back called The Voice Within. The short version is that the voice starts out nasty, saying to kill Sirius, but gets, well, nicer. I don't remember picking up on it in book 1, though. I am doing the read along so will look out for it.

Mrs Brisbee - Mar 28, 2006 7:26 am (#1833 of 2969)

My biggest barrier to jumping on the Horcrux ship is understanding how Voldemort's soul could reside in Harry when Voldemort himself cannot stand to possess Harry.-- Solitaire

We do have one example in the series where Harry comes into contact with a confirmed Horcrux. There was a soulbit in Tom Riddle's diary. Harry had the diary for a while, carried it around, wrote to it, it wrote back, and Harry experienced one of its memories (the framing of Hagrid). In the Chamber of Secrets Tom and Harry chatted for quite a while, and Harry finally destroyed Tom by stabbing the Diary with the basilisk fang. Not once did Harry's scar twinge, or Diary Tom show any discomfort from their proximity.

Contrast this to what happened to Quirrell when he touched Harry at the end of PS/SS. Quirrell was carrying around the main part of Voldemort's soul.

I think it is the main part of the soul that sets off Lily's protection.

Choices - Mar 28, 2006 11:51 am (#1834 of 2969)

Perhaps the reason Tom Riddle did not cause Harry's scar to hurt is because diary Tom was not yet fully "Voldemort". He was calling himself that, but he was only 16 and not the full-blown Voldemort with all his changes more or less complete. I believe it is only this later Voldemort, the one who transferred some of his powers to Harry and gave Harry the scar that can cause the scar to hurt.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 28, 2006 1:24 pm (#1835 of 2969)

TheSaint, I posted this here with regard to removing the Horcrux from Harry.

But thinking about the actual concept that both Harry and Big V would have the knowledge that Harry must be AK'd before Big V can be AK'd leads us to a very tense situation. Wouldn't it be interesting if Harry realized that the only one who would/could AK him winds up being Snape?

It would set up a scene similar to that of the Lightning Struck Tower, wouldn't it?

I agree, Mrs. Brisbee and Choices.

K Stahl - Mar 28, 2006 1:56 pm (#1836 of 2969)

Just a note. Earthsea is also a movie. I have not read the book, so I have nothing to compare, but the movie was well done and may be worth seeing.

TheSaint - Mar 28, 2006 2:10 pm (#1837 of 2969)

Yes... very much like the tower scene. We have already seen Harry quite prepared to die.

As for the voice in his head/... in my US paperback it is page 295, Harry is fading fast while hanging onto Quirrell's arm.

'Quirrell screamed and tried to throw Harry off - the pain in Harry's head was building - he couldn't see -he could only hear Quirrell’s terrible shrieks and Voldemort's yells of "KILL HIM!, KILL HIM!" and other voices, MAYBE IN HARRY"S OWN HEAD (emphasis mine), crying, “Harry! Harry!"

Choices - Mar 28, 2006 6:12 pm (#1838 of 2969)

The next line says ..... "He felt Quirrell's arm wrenched from his grasp, knew all was lost, and fell into blackness, down..... down..... down."

I think the voice that Harry was hearing in his head was Dumbledore's. About a page or two further on, Dumbledore tells Harry..... "I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you----" Dumbledore was calling to Harry because he feared he was too late and Harry was dead.

geauxtigers - Mar 28, 2006 7:19 pm (#1839 of 2969)

That’s what I thought to Choices DD was calling Harry's name. Does anyone think its possible to destroy the Horcrux without AK’ing Harry? I like the priori Incantatem theory that, (I'm sorry I can't remember who said it), is floating around. I think it’s a great way for Harry to live and kill Voldemort. Maybe Snape will know a way to get the Horcrux out... or maybe Harry isn't a Horcrux at all, but I must say, the more I read what y’all have been saying, the more convinced I am that he is! I'll think on it...

Solitaire - Mar 28, 2006 7:34 pm (#1840 of 2969)

Mrs. Brisbee, I was talking about part of the soul being inside Harry, not just in his presence. Voldemort could stand being in Harry's presence well enough. He could even touch him in GoF, following his rebirthing. He could not, however, possess Harry because of the love within Harry ... if I've understood Dumbledore correctly.

Does anyone think its possible to destroy the Horcrux without AK’ing Harry?

Assuming he is a Horcrux, I find it hard to see how. The Diary was destroyed, and ring was seriously damaged, I believe.

Solitaire

geauxtigers - Mar 28, 2006 8:34 pm (#1841 of 2969)

I know, the diary though just had a burned hole in the middle, and the ring a crack. The catch is we don't know how it would work in a living thing. The diary and the ring, etc. are all "dead" so to speak. We don't have enough info unfortunately to know the effect of it on a human.

TheSaint - Mar 29, 2006 4:27 am (#1842 of 2969)

It says VOICES...not one voice, and Dumbledore never acknowledged it was him.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 29, 2006 9:43 am (#1843 of 2969)

Does anyone think its possible to destroy the Horcrux without AK’ing Harry?

Yes, definitely, but judging by my previous post, it is certainly not evident - it's that darn lack of proofreading again! Sorry.

Of course assuming he is a Horcrux, but by now, I am figuring you are all intelligent enough to figure out that we are speculating.

Further on speculation, I can see Snape with such knowledge and Harry having to trust him IMHO it would fit in with DD's behavior regarding Snape throughout. But, who knows.. .

TheSaint, sorry, I just have to.. .now, when I see your posts, I chuckle at Finn's post asking if you want to buy a space. It was just too cute.

Choices - Mar 29, 2006 10:28 am (#1844 of 2969)

VOICES..... Ok, maybe in addition to Dumbledore's voice, Harry (in his comatose state) also hears Ron and Hermione's voices and Madame Pomfrey's voice all calling his name and hoping he will wake up. We know he had visitors in the hospital wing who brought him candy and goodies. His perception of time was probably faulty and the voices all ran together.

TheSaint - Mar 29, 2006 3:26 pm (#1845 of 2969)

Rofl! I actually do need too! My keyboard sticks and I have been so busy between work, projects, keeping in touch with my boyfriend (10,000 miles away) and everything else I haven't gotten to the store! And may I say...my finger hurts from slamming down the space key... lol.

The voices all ran together? I see we will agree to disagree.

Choices - Mar 29, 2006 6:06 pm (#1846 of 2969)

LOL We don't have to disagree..... .I am just throwing out possibilities. I think in order to come to a valid conclusion, all possibilities must be addressed.

Puck - Mar 30, 2006 7:05 am (#1847 of 2969)

Years ago (before she had us) my mom had these terrible headaches, caused by "benign pressure in her skull". As a cure they drilled holes in her skull to release the pressure. (She now has a dent on either side, and tells people that she had her horns removed.) Anyway, I was thinking of the hole in the diary and crack in the ring. If Harry contains a Horcrux, perhaps it can be released from his head without killing him. My mom is alive some 40 years after her procedure, and that's without the benefit of magic!

Stringer - Mar 30, 2006 8:44 am (#1848 of 2969)

I was under the impression Voldie made a Horcrux AFTER he killed someone. I assumed he was planning on killing Harry and then making a Horcrux. Personally I don't believe Harry is a Horcrux. IMHO Voldie would not want a person who has the power to vanquish the Dark Lord walking around with a piece of his soul. Also the human body deteriorates. It also isn't really shiny, or glittering, not magpie-ish enough for Voldie.

Magic Words - Mar 30, 2006 10:15 am (#1849 of 2969)

Of course he wouldn't have wanted it. That's why it was an accident! He had all the preparations in place, all that was needed was a murder, and then the spell went haywire. At least, that's what I think.

haymoni - Mar 30, 2006 10:22 am (#1850 of 2969)

Perhaps Harry will destroy all the Horcruxes, he'll AK Voldy, who will become Vapormort again.

Harry will wonder why things didn't work - he'll put 2 & 2 together and realize that there IS a part of Voldy in him. H

Harry will have to live the rest of his life on the lookout for Voldy's return, knowing that when he (Harry) finally dies, Voldy will too.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:28 pm

Stringer - Mar 30, 2006 11:19 am (#1851 of 2969)

I may be very dim, but I don't agree with accidental Horcrux making. I believe it is a hard spell to initiate, and takes intent. JMO

Choices - Mar 30, 2006 11:33 am (#1852 of 2969)

I'm with you Stringer, but who knows what JKR intends? I don't like the idea of Harry being an accidental Horcrux, but I'm trying to keep an open mind just in case.

Finn BV - Mar 30, 2006 11:47 am (#1853 of 2969)

It was just too cute. --HH11

Haymoni, that's a rather morose ending! I'll board that ship but I hope I sink!

haymoni - Mar 30, 2006 12:10 pm (#1854 of 2969)

The AK has never been rebounded before.

We don't know of any wizard who has been able to transfer his powers to someone else.

It is entirely possible that Harry would have been a Parselmouth on his own. It is entirely possible that Harry, as the son of James & Lily, would have been a very powerful wizard anyway.

However, Dumbledore seems to think that Harry has these gifts because of something that passed from Voldy to Harry. It is entirely possible that as Ginny poured out her soul to Tom Riddle and he poured his soul into her, Voldemort could have transferred more than just talent to Harry.

I'm almost certain that Voldemort would not have wanted to give "The One With Power To Vanquish The Dark Lord" any of his talent, so if the talent-pass was inadvertent, why not a bit of his soul?

geauxtigers - Mar 30, 2006 2:33 pm (#1855 of 2969)

Truly, I don't want to believe that Harry is a Horcrux, but a little voice in the back of my head keeps saying that, Voldemort, whose greatest fear is death, would think, oh if I make him a Horcrux, he will never be able to kill me, because it would require killing himself. That's the only thing holding me back, but honestly, I'm not sure because he might think no one would ever know about his secret, I mean come on, very few people even know what Horcruxes are in the WW. Haymoni, I agree that I don't think he would want to give Harry his powers either.

The part about "he will have the power the Dark Lord knows not" from the prophecy also is starting to throw me more and more. We could speculate for hours what it could be. DD told us it's love, but what if it's love and something else? Something that will help Harry defeat him in the end, something other than just the love that resides in his blood? any ideas?

virginiaelizabeth - Mar 30, 2006 2:37 pm (#1856 of 2969)

To me I think it all comes down to how that particular spell works. If the spell must be cast before hand, and LV was as DD said, "planning to make his last one" with Harry's death, then I think it is very possible that Harry became an accidental Horcrux.

If the spell is cast afterward, then of course, Harry is not a Horcrux, because LV would at that point be half dead.

I don't think it would have anything to do with the spell rebounding at all, but the way the charm works. I really hope Harry isn't a Horcrux and I really am trying as hard as possible not to believe it, seems to fit.

OK I found a quote that makes me think that the spell is preformed after the murder:

"By an act of evil-the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion-"

"encase? But how-?"

"There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" said Slughorn' (pg498 US Hardback)

To me that sounds like the spell would come afterwards, because you would encase the torn portion. let me know what y’all think!

geauxtigers - Mar 30, 2006 2:51 pm (#1857 of 2969)

Ginny, I tend to agree with you, I'm gonna go try and find more evidence to support that. To me I was always under the impression that it came afterward. Grrrrr I wish I knew!!

Choices - Mar 30, 2006 6:26 pm (#1858 of 2969)

It just seems logical to me that the spell would come after the murder when you are ready to put the split piece of soul into an object. Doing it before is like putting the cart before the horse. What if you did the spell and then botched up the murder and the victim didn't die. You went to all that trouble for nothing. And what would you do the spell on if you did it before the murder? You haven't split your soul yet..... would you just do the spell on the empty object that you planned to put the piece of soul into? I thought the spell was used to extract the piece of soul from your body prior to placing it into the chosen object. Once it is placed into the object, it becomes a Horcrux. It just makes no sense to me that it can be done before hand. It would be like doing an "Alohomora" in the morning, just in case you run into any locked doors during the course of your day.

Magic Words - Mar 30, 2006 6:40 pm (#1859 of 2969)

On the other hand, if it's done completely after the fact, would that mean you could create a Horcrux from a murder performed years ago? In that case, how would Voldemort even know which murders he was using?

geauxtigers - Mar 30, 2006 6:44 pm (#1860 of 2969)

Choices, that is exactly what I think, I don't think it makes a lick of sense for it to come before.

Choices - Mar 30, 2006 6:58 pm (#1861 of 2969)

Magic Words, I don't think we have any canon evidence of how long you can wait after a murder to make a Horcrux. Personally, I don't think you could wait a year - then the murder would lose its importance. I think the Horcrux would have to be made within a few days for the murder to retain its significance.

Mrs Brisbee - Mar 30, 2006 7:24 pm (#1862 of 2969)

I would think so too, but didn't Dumbledore say that he didn't think Tom Riddle had committed any more murders between killing his father and paternal grandparents while on summer vacation, and the murder of Hepzibah Smith? Tom asked Slughorn about multiple Horcruxes after the school year had started, and at some point he must of made the ring and diary Horcruxes. But at least one of them needed to wait until Tom got Slughorn's opinion on multiple Horcruxes. To me, it looks like it is possible to make a Horcrux from a murder committed in the past. Intuitively, it doesn't feel right, but there it is.

Magic Words - Mar 30, 2006 8:18 pm (#1863 of 2969)

You could say he killed Myrtle. She was the only one killed by the basilisk in Tom's time, wasn't she? Maybe he used her for the diary.

TheSaint - Mar 30, 2006 10:02 pm (#1864 of 2969)

I propose..... a Horcrux is made from tearing of the soul. Voldy has killed twice before his attack on Harry. The AK bounces...and Voldy is ripped from is body. Voldy is ripped...I would think the piece or pieces were ripped also. They are no longer attached to Voldy's soul. So where are they?

You may need a spell to make a Horcrux... but would a piece of soul need one to find a new home? I wonder whether it is tethered as the rest of his soul is? For that matter, are all the pieces tethered as the main part is?

Deb Zawacki - Mar 31, 2006 12:45 am (#1865 of 2969)

Reply to an early (Aug John Parker) question regarding James/Harry's invisibility cloak as a Horcrux--other cloaks turned up missing when Order members were caught or killed--is Voldemort searching for that cloak by seizing all he can find?

virginiaelizabeth - Mar 31, 2006 5:45 am (#1866 of 2969)

The Saint: I don't think that the torn portion of the soul leaves the body unless you make it into a Horcrux. Otherwise, every witch or wizard who committed murder would have bits of their soul lying around.

Stringer - Mar 31, 2006 8:24 am (#1867 of 2969)

The part of Voldie's soul that was left in the diary had it's own consciousness, and knowledge. We also know it had the ability to learn and retain new information. If a part of Voldie's soul entered into Harry's body at Godric's Hollow it would have the knowledge of the bit of prophesy, where Harry goes every summer, all of Harry's knowledge of Horcruxes Harry has learned from Dumbledore, the location of the order of the phoenix..... .etc..... ...

Harry was also possessed in the MOM by Voldie. Voldie would have recognized a bit of his soul was in Harry. So you would have to assume if you believe Harry is a Horcrux, Voldie would preserve Harry. He wouldn't need Snape as a spy, he has front row seats. He wouldn't risk letting Fenrir near Harry, nor any other blood thirsty DE.

You would also have to assume this bit of soul had the ability to go completely dormant. Voldie's personality is not that of one who can sit on the sidelines. I feel this bit of soul would have tried to overtake Harry while he was young. He could be easily overpowered, Voldie could rein in Harry's body under the nose of the entire magical community, while living under the protection of Albus Dumbledore himself. I see that as another novel in itself, not the current series I am reading.

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 31, 2006 8:30 am (#1868 of 2969)

FWIW, my views: The definition of Horcrux in Book 6 is cleverly worded; however, the word intent tells me (perhaps not anyone else) that the spell must be created beforehand to prevent the piece from being lost permanently to.. .wherever.

oh if I make him a Horcrux, he will never be able to kill me, because it would require killing himself. That's the only thing holding me back, but honestly,

Actually, that is what makes this seem to be such a tightly-woven theory - it was an accident that seems to have worked in Big V's favor. I strongly believe (if this theory is correct) that Big V will be the first to learn this, if he does not already know. I also think he, himself will let Harry know. However, Harry having "the power the dark lord knows not" is willing to sacrifice himself for the 'greater good'. Big V cannot fathom this idea - sacrificing himself for others, especially those he does not know? (WW in general) I can envision that to be his downfall. Perhaps it will even be Big V who threatens to AK him, and Harry does not dodge it. (I still think the Horcrux maker can extract the soul bit in a lesser/different manner from some other person attempting to remove it.)

TheSaint, I am sorry to hear that you and your boyfriend are so far from each other. I know, from experience how difficult that can be. I too, had a boyfriend whom I left behind (reluctantly) for college. However, I can say, with confidence that "this, too, shall pass" as I now type this three children and nearly 20 years of a happy marriage (with that same guy) later.

EDIT: Stringer, The part of Voldie's soul that was left in the diary had it's own consciousness, and knowledge.

First, that s a very elusive statement. The words "consciousness" and "knowledge" are subject to so many interpretations, we could nitpick it for days. The diary was enchanted. It seems to have been done in a way that allowed the soul bit to sift into that of another and vice-versa. If we use the locket at 12GP as an example (yet more speculation that we have correctly identified it as a Horcrux), everyone took turns trying to open it, yet it did nothing to anyone (and I am sure F&G had their way with it ).

Magic Words - Mar 31, 2006 9:41 am (#1869 of 2969)

Even if the soul bit in Harry knew everything that Harry knows, that doesn't mean Voldemort himself would know. He doesn't even know when they're destroyed. Anyway, I don't think Voldemort found out about it until OotP, probably, when he learned that he could influence Harry's dreams. But when he couldn't possess Harry in the MoM, he started using Occlumency - sort of giving up on that one particular piece, I think.

Stringer - Mar 31, 2006 12:22 pm (#1870 of 2969)

I guess you have to decide what a bit of a soul is capable of, after all if the 7th part of Voldie's soul wandered about, possessing rats, and Quirrell why should we believe the other parts of his soul are not capable of actions similar to these?

HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 31, 2006 12:53 pm (#1871 of 2969)

Stringer, we cannot rule it out completely, however, the circumstances give me the impression that the soul bits have to be enchanted, either with a spell or a charm, or other magic in order for them to interact in an aware manner. The portraits come to mind with regard to this.

Magic Words, I don't think Voldemort found out about it until OotP, probably, when he learned that he could influence Harry's dreams

I believe it was the incident where Harry saw the attack through the eyes of the snake that revealed the connection to Big V.

Choices - Mar 31, 2006 2:02 pm (#1872 of 2969)

I don't think the soul bits that are in Horcruxes act like the main soul bit that is in Voldemort. That is the primary soul bit and because it resides in Voldemort, I believe it has awareness and capabilities beyond the others. I believe the others exist, but not in the same way that the one in Voldemort does and they act merely as anchors for the main soul bit.

virginiaelizabeth - Mar 31, 2006 2:02 pm (#1873 of 2969)

I think the soul bit of LV that wondered around possessing rats and small animals after LV's downfall was the main portion of his soul, LV says that he was less than a spirit, but that doesn't mean that it was just his soul running around. I think there was more to that part of him, such as his brain that would allow him to think and to posses other things for a body. If this was not true, then any Horcrux could do the same as well, and that’s not the point of a Horcrux because if each piece could think for itself, then there’d be a risk of it being destroyed on accident. The whole point is to keep part of your soul safe on earth. The diary was enchanted to possess another human.

geauxtigers - Mar 31, 2006 2:04 pm (#1874 of 2969)

Do you think that maybe in the end, if Harry is a Horcrux, Voldemort AKs Harry, which destroys the Horcrux and bounces off and kills Voldemort because all the other Horcruxes have now been destroyed, thus Harry lives and Voldemort dies! That would be sooo awesome!!

virginiaelizabeth - Mar 31, 2006 2:16 pm (#1875 of 2969)

yes but would the AK bounce off again or would it kill Harry?

TheSaint - Mar 31, 2006 7:25 pm (#1876 of 2969)

virginiaelizabeth[/b] - Mar 31, 2006 5:45 am (#1866 of 1875) The Saint: I don't think that the torn portion of the soul leaves the body unless you make it into a Horcrux. Otherwise, every witch or wizard who committed murder would have bits of their soul lying about.

You seem to have left out the bit about the bounced AK removing Voldy and his pre-Horcrux 'bits' from his body. When those who have committed murder die... I am sure they show up with a shredded soul also. They just don't have 'tethers' that keep them here for us to 'see.'

Choices - Apr 1, 2006 9:37 am (#1877 of 2969)

The Saint - "..... about the bounced AK removing Voldy and his pre-Horcrux 'bits' from his body."

I'm not sure I understand this..... .when Voldemort's body was killed and the soul bit flew off, he was not "pre-Horcrux" - he had already created Horcruxes by then. Otherwise, he would have died completely as there would have been no "anchors" to hold the soul bit to this world - it would have gone on with his body to the next great adventure.

TheSaint - Apr 1, 2006 11:56 am (#1878 of 2969)

Guess I did not state that well. I meant... if Voldemort had already done some part of the spell to create a Horcrux...then when he was hit with the AK...his soul and his soul bits were ejected from his body. We know where his soul went (Albania... lol) but where did the soul bits go? Thus the Harry is possibly a Horcrux theory.

Also if his soul can't move on because it is not whole, do the bits move on... or are they destroyed? If they are destroyed then he can never move on...surely he thought of this. Is it possible that they are returning to him without his knowledge? Or holding in limbo somewhere?

Magic Words - Apr 1, 2006 12:38 pm (#1879 of 2969)

I didn't get the impression Voldemort survived because his soul was not whole, but because he was still somehow connected with the bits in the Horcruxes, even though they were torn from the soul proper. I think the soul stays or goes as a whole. That would mean that each time a Horcrux is destroyed, the soul bit enters the state that characterized Vapormort for twelve years, and when every piece has reached this state, there will be nothing keeping him this side of the veil. Of course, I could be off track, because in my understanding there's no reason why the Horcruxes must be destroyed before Voldemort, instead of after.

Soul Search - Apr 1, 2006 5:17 pm (#1880 of 2969)

I read it this way, Magic Words. When a body dies, the "soul" has a chance to "go over" (Whatever that means.) A Horcrux restrains a soul, so it can't "go over," and the soul in the body becomes like Vapormort.

Once in Vapormort form, a soul can't "go over," even if the Horcrux that restrained it is destroyed.

So, Voldemort's Horcruxes have to be destroyed first, otherwise he becomes another Vapormort if his body is killed.

Deb Zawacki - Apr 1, 2006 6:53 pm (#1881 of 2969)

Even outside of the concept of Horcruxes--murder, taking a life out of malice technically shatters the soul anyway. So if a person kills 10 people lets say-and Voldemort either directly or on his orders was responsible for a heck of a lot more than six murders--do you have to do murder, then create a Horcrux, or can you create one for each act you have already committed?

TheSaint - Apr 1, 2006 8:50 pm (#1882 of 2969)

Seems if murder tears your soul...then you have soul 'bits' (I swear it sounds like demon chow by Purina) inside of you from then on it would then be just a matter of extracting pieces to make a Horcrux. You should be able to do that from the point of the murder forward.

I wrote a tiny thing once about Halloween at Godric's Hollow. It was the aftermath of the attack... and Dumbledore was the mastermind, transferring James/Lily’s alchemic soul to Harry's dead body. But I think the same type of thing might apply to a Horcrux. It always reminds me of the scene in COS after Voldy is released from Quirrell and ends up traveling through Harry.

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 1, 2006 9:45 pm (#1883 of 2969)

I don't think that when you tear your soul, that the soul bit can leave your body, unless you make it into a Horcrux. The way I look at it is that you commit a murder and it rips your soul in 2. Then you have a certain amount of time, lets say 30 days to make it into a Horcrux and if you don't make it into a Horcrux within the 30 days, then the soul bit is just absorbed into the body, yet the soul is still not whole.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 2, 2006 5:37 am (#1884 of 2969)

My take is that murder rips the soul, completely severing it. If you want to encase that severed piece, you cast the spell beforehand to prevent it from departing. (It does not matter where it goes if it departs - it is a fragment of a soul, useless if not a part of a whole.) Big V looked less human every time they visited a memory. There are many factors involved in his deteriorating appearance, but the most important one seems to be the murders and the slow degeneration of his soul.

Choices - Apr 2, 2006 10:19 am (#1885 of 2969)

HH11 - "If you want to encase that severed piece, you cast the spell beforehand to prevent it from departing."

I have to disagree - I think the only way a soul bit can leave the body is if the body dies (like Voldemort did) or the soul bit is taken out on purpose to create a Horcrux. I don't believe that if a murder is committed the soul just tears and then the soul bit leaves the body and flies off on it's own.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 2, 2006 10:42 am (#1886 of 2969)

What, only one rebuttal??

Magic Words - Apr 2, 2006 1:42 pm (#1887 of 2969)

HH11, I agree with you.

What do people think about the possibility of a soul healing over time, given true repentance of course, assuming no Horcruxes have been made? Or would this fit better on some other thread?

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 2, 2006 2:18 pm (#1888 of 2969)

I have to agree with choices here, in that I don't think the soul leaves the body unless one chooses to make it leave via a Horcrux.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 2, 2006 3:34 pm (#1889 of 2969)

My belief is that after a murder, you are never whole again. A repaired tear does not seem to be nearly enough damage in comparison to the damage of a murder. Something must be lost.

Thanks Magic Words, there is room in the dinghy!

haymoni - Apr 2, 2006 5:02 pm (#1890 of 2969)

HH11 - that was my take on murder in Jo's World.

If you are evil enough to kill somebody, that act damages your soul. You are not the person you once were.

However, there must be something to the act of creating the Horcrux. I'm guessing that a few DEs have killed more than one person and none of them have stopped looking human.

Unless Voldy did other things besides creating Horcruxes to become immortal.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 2, 2006 5:19 pm (#1891 of 2969)

That is a good point regarding the DEs, haymoni. The only explanation I can come up with is that JKR has not seemed to elaborate on the DEs appearance over time and whether or not they have changed, whereas, in Book 6, Big V's transformation is quite evident. His experiments have certainly contributed to his appearance, as well. And, of course, a rebounded AK did not help, either.

haymoni - Apr 2, 2006 5:28 pm (#1892 of 2969)

Yes - his travels far & wide, consorting with the worst kinds of wizards, blah, blah, blah.

I'm guessing there were a few experiments here & there that made him less human - maybe a few of them didn't go as planned.

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 2, 2006 7:40 pm (#1893 of 2969)

I think it has to do with creating a Horcrux, that causes you to become less human. It takes away a huge part of being human, which is death. lets face it, death is just part of life and part of being human, and when taken away, it takes away those human qualities. A Horcrux is meant to prevent death, and death is not something that is meant to be stopped, so it turns you into a less-human person, and the more Horcruxes you make, the less human you become.

geauxtigers - Apr 2, 2006 8:56 pm (#1894 of 2969)

That’s how I always saw it. Thus the DE aren't different in appearance because they aren't making Horcruxes. Let's face the fact that there are murders out there, and every time they kill, they become less human, somehow someone would notice this, so therefore I think that it has to do with Horcruxes. Plus no one has ever made as many Horcruxes as Voldemort before, each one made, makes him that much less human.

TheSaint - Apr 2, 2006 8:59 pm (#1895 of 2969)

I think the change in his appearance has do with the lessening of his soul. After each Horcrux he becomes less human, more animal... in this case a snake (traditional representative of evil). If the Horcruxes are returning to his body after their...prisons...are destroyed... then Voldy should be looking more human with each turn. This leads me to believe that that the soul bits (sorry still sounds like a form of snake chow)are either destroyed to... insuring he will never 'cross over' or they are in limbo via Vapormort... waiting to rejoin the body for final destruction.

geauxtigers - Apr 2, 2006 9:29 pm (#1896 of 2969)

I posted this in Dumbledore's triumphant glint thread as well, but I thought I'd add it here too because it fits.

Brainwave!!!!!!! I was just laying in bed and this came to me:

What if the triumphant glint was because DD realized that by using Harry's blood, LV was also removing the Horcrux (if Harry is in fact a Horcrux), from Harry. It makes sense because Voldemort could get stronger and become alive again because he was adding a bit of his soul back to himself! Then Voldemort could kill Harry, and the power the Dark Lord knows not, is simply just the fact that Harry can love, not anything complex or detailed. Simple is better. Hopefully when I read this tomorrow it will makes sense because I was seriously thinking right before I fell asleep!!

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 3, 2006 8:11 am (#1897 of 2969)
Edited Apr 3, 2006 9:12 am

geauxtigers, can you expand a bit? I ask because I am wondering where your idea leads with regard to the fact that Big V could then touch Harry, whereas he could not before.

Potter Ace - Apr 3, 2006 9:14 am (#1898 of 2969)

Here are my two knuts on how a Horcrux is made.

To envision my thoughts ( I know it sound foolish but bear with me) please try to remember two popular movies from the past: Ghostbusters & Ghost.

When preparing to create a Horcrux, Voldy would have cast a spell preparing the item for storage of the "fragmented soul", sort of like placing the containment device in Ghostbusters under the ghost. Once the murder has been committed, Voldy would have to cast a spell closing the item before the "fragment" drifted away (think of the scene in ghost where the bad guy dies and gets dragged off into the shadows) sealing it in the item before it drifts off to parts unknown.

Really corny movies but I think it captures the intent, IMHO, of how a Horcrux is made.

Given my thoughts above, I agree with Choices, there is no way Harry is a Horcrux, the deliberate step of sealing soul fragment in the vessel was never made. I do believe that when Harry travel to Godric Hollow, he will find an item that was to have been a Horcrux, had Voldy been successful. Hagrid would not have been powerful enough to recognize the item for what it was, or would be rather. I do not think the Harry will have to travel too far to find the Horcruxes by the way, what he does not find at Godric Hollow will be found at either 12GP or Hogwarts. Having them scattered across the countryside would make the book too long.

Deb Zawacki - Apr 3, 2006 11:54 am (#1899 of 2969)
Edited Apr 3, 2006 12:58 pm

Well wasn't his body itself pretty much toast? I know they put "a body" in the cauldron that looked like an infant but he was using other bodies to get around--could his own have survived without a soul at all? I realize a Dementor's kiss sucks the soul but in SS Voldemort just seemed to be a face with energy.....

I'm sure his appearance is snake like for the reasons you all state---did they comment on his face in OOP or HBP? Tom was so vain I can't imagine his wanting to look ghoulish for eternity...

geauxtigers - Apr 3, 2006 3:31 pm (#1900 of 2969)

Okay I see what your saying HH11, like I said I was literally about to fall asleep, I was in bed, when I thought of this then jumped up and posted. I can't explain exactly, but if you completely forget about that it works! Okay I know I'm not making sense, but it all worked last night in my head! If anyone can come up with a reason why LV couldn't touch Harry before, that still works with my theory that'd be great! I'm trying to come up with a theory that proves Harry isn't a Horcrux, or not anymore, so ideas anyone?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:52 am

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 3, 2006 4:23 pm (#1901 of 2969)

LOL geauxtigers! (BTW, my friend's daughter goes to LSU and her dad is an alumnus.)

Yikes, okay, trying to go against my own theory. First, I have to give myself some direction, so regarding your following comment, geauxtigers: is simply just the fact that Harry can love, not anything complex or detailed.

But the fact that Harry can love must lead somewhere, otherwise there is no basis for it, such as his capacity to sacrifice himself and Big V's complete lack of regard for such an act. Housing a soul bit would conveniently suit this premise (for lack of a better word) of Harry's love. We would need to interpret it differently in order for your theory to take off, IMHO.

geauxtigers - Apr 3, 2006 6:42 pm (#1902 of 2969)

That’s what I'm hoping for... I'm hoping someone will interpret this differently, so we can get a different view of things. I'm not one to think outside the box, and I know someone out there is so help me out here! I think that the fact that Harry can love, is a very simple, yet powerful form of defense. Get what I'm saying, its not a complex idea, its just simply love, and I think that that’s his greatest asset. I'm trying to word this so it makes sense because in my head it does... I think it does lead somewhere, and that is Voldemort's defeat, and now that there is no Horcrux in Harry, he is filled with even more love because he has no evil Voldie soul inside him. See where I'm headed? This is of course going along with my midnight brainwave theory that I really want to work!

Puck - Apr 7, 2006 4:46 pm (#1903 of 2969)

My take is that a soul "tears" when you kill, but the piece remains in the body. In time, if no Horcrux is made, it heals, but leaves a scar. This is why the DEs continue to look human, while LV does not.

Geauxtigers, I can't think how using Harry's blood would release a Horcrux (if there is one.)

geauxtigers - Apr 7, 2006 8:37 pm (#1904 of 2969)

I agree about the soul healing, other wise there would be a whole lot of funny looking people in the wizarding world! That’s why I think that the spell comes after the murder, because if it came before, then there would probably be a whole lot of funny looking people if they all tried making Horcruxes. See where I'm coming from?

About his blood, I just finished rereading Goblet for like the 10th time, and I'm almost certain now that Harry isn't a Horcrux. Voldemort's speech in my opinion, left no hint or inklings that Harry was a Horcrux, nor did he suggest that it was a possibility. Something about Lily dying for her son, the backfired AK and the possibility that Harry is a Horcrux is open to so many possibilities. I think that maybe Voldemort tried to make Harry a Horcrux after James' death, but when Lily stepped in front, it combined with the magic of her love and the Horcrux spell, and ended up encasing the Horcrux in Harry's blood, which when Voldemort tried to kill Harry, backfired. So when Wormtail takes Harry's blood, he removes the essence of Horcrux so to speak and Voldemort gets two deals out of it, 1. he can touch Harry, and 2. he can kill Harry for good, but as we know that didn't happen! I know INSANE theory. Just throwing out ideas, that’s all. Fill-free to chunk dungbombs at me!

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 7, 2006 8:41 pm (#1905 of 2969)
Edited Apr 7, 2006 9:45 pm

Yes Puck!! You just simplified exactly how I think Horcruxes work!! I just never knew how to put it and have it make sense. I've always believed that the soul doesn't leave the body, unless you make it leave by putting it into an object to make a Horcrux. This is mainly the reason why I believe that Harry is not a Horcrux. The only thing that could prove this wrong (at least to me) is if the spell is cast before the murder. However I don't think it would be beforehand simply because of what Sluggy tells us about encasing the torn portion into another object with a spell. Its something along those lines, but you can't encase the torn portion, if there isn't a torn portion to encase yet, so it would be more logical for the spell to come afterward.

Magic Words - Apr 8, 2006 12:11 pm (#1906 of 2969)

Geauxtigers, I don't see the connection between people trying to make Horcruxes and the spell coming after the murder rather than before. If someone wanted to make a Horcrux, the person would then become less than human - it doesn't matter when the spell is cast so long as it works.

TheSaint - Apr 8, 2006 5:14 pm (#1907 of 2969)

Why do you think the others would be making Horcruxes? Voldemort is the only one that seems to have descended that far into evil. You kill...you tear your soul. I don't think it heals. It just remains in your body, unless you choose to sink to the depths of a Horcrux.

Voldemort would not know that Harry is a Horcrux. Even if Voldemort had prepared to make one, I doubt he would anticipate Harry receiving his soul after he was ripped from his body.

Bruno Willey - Apr 9, 2006 7:25 am (#1908 of 2969)
Edited Apr 9, 2006 8:35 am

Yes Puck I agree with you,

You have to do something(whether a spell or just by wanting it to happen) that deliberately takes the torn piece out of the body otherwise the soul will heal--to a degree I don't think you can ever truly get over committing murder in cold blood--, I also believe that a person cannot become a Horcrux because the person's soul would reject the foreign piece of soul because they don't match. This is just a personal thought that the souls would be in conflict, two souls trying to inhibit the same space, this of course can be countered if you consider DD's suggestion that Nagini is the last Horcrux, but this was also the only one of the Horcruxes that DD was unsure about.

The Saint To whether the Horcrux spell(if there is one) is cast before or after the soul tearing occurs, I think that if we take it from a logical stand point, surely it has to occur after the murder is committed otherwise there is no soul piece to do anything with because the murder has not yet been committed.

I don't think Harry is a Horcrux, when LV cast the AK he put so much meaning and feeling behind it

"You have to mean them" -- Bellatrix; OotP MoM after Sirius's death.

that when it backfired not all of the spell was actually backfired Harry still absorbed some of it, Harry gaining some of LV's powers -- Parselmouth etc is just the result of little power leaking through. This would also explain the lighting scar which is weird in itself considering that the AK usually leaves no sign of physical injury.

Another hole in the Harry being a Horcrux theory, when would the piece of soul be transferred? Again logically I think it needs to be after the AK but the moment LV cast the spell it was reflected back onto him and the remaining chunk of LV's soul was wrenched from his body. I think we can assume that LV's body was destroyed. So there was no time there where LV could have transferred some of his soul into Harry, unless were missing something?

What I would like to know is what else we can expect to find guarding the remaining Horcruxes? I mean we've already had a sacrificial door that required blood, an invisible boat, a whole heap of Inferi and a potion that makes you relive your worst memories, it makes me tingle just thinking about what is to come!

Bruno

Magic Words - Apr 9, 2006 8:52 am (#1909 of 2969)

Bruno Willey, you have some good points, and I'm thinking hard to find counterarguments because I happen to like the theory in question..... my best defense is probably the fact that an AK has never rebounded before, so the established laws of magic may not apply. It could be that Voldemort had to do something beforehand to prepare his soul for the splitting, in a sense, to set a trap for the split part to catch it, and his next step after the murder would have been to transfer it to his chosen item. However, when the AK rebounded his entire soul was ejected with nowhere to go, and the bit that was supposed to transfer to an object (since he hadn't yet been able to select an object) found a place to transfer that was in fact linked with Voldemort at the time, though in a different way (rebounding AK).

I don't think absorbing some of the AK would sufficiently explain Harry's Parseltongue, because that would make it a matter of degree rather than something entirely different. A successful AK has nothing to do with transferring powers, so I see no reason why a partial one would.

The remaining Horcruxes concern me a little. Dumbledore took Harry on the locket quest, which of course shows faith in his ability and all that, but when you think about it, Harry was still clueless about the whole thing. If he had to surmount similar obstacles without Dumbledore's help, which is exactly what we're assuming, he wouldn't even be able to figure out how to get through the door. Magic leaves traces, yes, but Harry has absolutely no idea how to read them. I doubt that we'll see any similarly elaborate defense mechanisms for that reason.

Deb Zawacki - Apr 9, 2006 1:59 pm (#1910 of 2969)
Edited Apr 9, 2006 3:00 pm

I'm really not so sure that Voldemort intended to make Harry a Horcrux at all--after all--that would mean allowing him to LIVE doesn't it? He didn't know it would backfire or that there would be protection or a scar--and the murder of his parents would have sufficed if he needed to kill something or someone.

I think he killed Harry to kill Harry and eliminate the threat of the one person who he thought could defeat him--Lily and James were just collateral damage at that moment (yes they had defied him three times and he probably wanted them dead)and the Horcruxes are inanimate objects--not persons alive or dead. And unless the Potters had some object Voldemort wanted to possess in order to create a Horcrux I think its moot.

We already know from COS that Voldemort transferred some of his POWERS to Harry but I'm not sure about his soul.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 9, 2006 4:55 pm (#1911 of 2969)

This is just a personal thought that the souls would be in conflict, two souls trying to inhibit the same space

Harry's scar causing searing pain, waking up from nightmares drenched in sweat, seeing through the eyes of Big V and those he inhabits... If those are not examples of conflict, then set me straight.

I have had a whole go-'round with regard to whether the soul fragments or not. I do not want to seem redundant, but I know it is difficult to sift through hundreds of posts. I strongly feel as though the word "intent" is a clue that the spell must be cast before in an effort to encase the fragment of soul that separates, or rips preventing it from "disintegrating" for lack of a better term. I realize that most people believe it only rips but I cannot envision the repercussions of such an act leaving someone intact, or whole with just a tear mark or scar where the tear once was. I feel as though a piece must be lost for good. The reason a Horcrux would be so heinous is because, not only does the killer not feel remorse, but uses it to his advantage to anchor himself to earth.

TheSaint - Apr 10, 2006 4:09 am (#1912 of 2969)

Okay... one more time.

Voldemort goes to the Potters intent on KILLING HARRY! The Potters own an item that has been passed down, father to son... just like the locket and the cup. It has been in every book, and Harry had it with him the whole time in the last book. (James inherited the invisibility cloak from his father. [Read the exact quote from the AOL chat, 2000])

Voldemort kills James (soul rips), Kills Lily (again) and then attempts to kill Harry. The AK bounces. Voldemort is torn from his body... so are the two pieces of his soul that have already been ripped. We have main soul and two pieces! Voldie goes to Albania. Magic of the bounced AK draws one piece to Harry. Where the other went... no idea. Would Harry's body accept it? Cabala states those who are unable to earn enlightenment may be combined with another who can in order to cross. (I posted the actual info sometime back.) So, yes.

Harry becoming a Horcrux was NOT the intention...it was a side effect of the bounced AK.

The One - Apr 10, 2006 4:18 am (#1913 of 2969)

We know that DD thought that Nagini was a Horcrux. His reason for believing so was that there was a peculiar connection between Voldemort and the snake. We also know that there is a strange connection between Harry and Voldemort. This connection DD assumes has to do with the failed AK, but he has never explained the details in why the AK should have such an effect. Neither do we get any explanation of why Harry has got Voldemort's powers as result of the scar.

The idea that Voldemort may have transferred some of his soul to Harry may fit all this. We do not have all the information to confirm or reject such a theory.

My gut feeling is that Harry is a Horcrux.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 10, 2006 5:33 am (#1914 of 2969)

This connection DD assumes has to do with the failed AK, but he has never explained the details in why the AK should have such an effect. Neither do we get any explanation of why Harry has got Voldemort's powers as result of the scar.

It makes sense to me that this could not have been revealed before Book 6, since the very idea of Horcruxes was only introduced then. JKR could have revealed the "Harry Horcrux" (mind you, if it is correct, for those of you who are standing with dungbombs in hand), in Book 6, but his hunt will very obviously take place in Book 7, which seems to be the right place for a discovery of this nature.

Deb Zawacki - Apr 10, 2006 7:20 am (#1915 of 2969)

Would Harry be willing to kill himself to destroy Voldemort--knowing he would "live on"? Could harry force Voldemort through the veil?

Bruno Willey - Apr 10, 2006 7:37 am (#1916 of 2969)

Harry's scar causing searing pain, waking up from nightmares drenched in sweat, seeing through the eyes of Big V and those he inhabits... If those are not examples of conflict, then set me straight. -- HH11

Very good point I didn't think of what the effects of conflicting souls would be and now that you have pointed this out it puts an extremely large shadow over my Harry is not a Horcrux theory.

So here is a couple of points for either side of the theory I'll let you decide which ones are for which;

1) -- Harry has/had a direct bond with LV; they feel each other’s thoughts - well used to anyway.

2) -- Voldemort did not seem to notice when Harry destroyed the Journal Horcrux, he had no notable connection with it. Does this mean that Harry being a Horcrux has no connection with his feeling LV's moods?

3) -- Harry seemed to inherit some of LV's powers after the failed AK, Parselmouth, ??improved DADA skills??. DD seemed to think that LV transferred some of his powers to Harry that night but PM is the only one that is really mentioned in the Books.

4) -- The way that Harry always seems to escape LV's attempts to kill him; Quirrell, Basilisk, Graveyard -Direct Dual- and of course MoM in OotP. It seems fitting that LV would not be able to kill his own Horcrux which brings me to my final point.

5) -- If LV had accidentally made Harry a Horcrux than surely somewhere through out his hunt to kill Harry he would have discovered Harry had become a Horcrux especially after he used Harry's blood to regain his body, and would have stopped his attempts to kill him for fear of destroying a valuable piece of his soul.

My personal opinion is undecided I think we just don't have enough information to make a direct decision yet.

Bruno

Soul Search - Apr 10, 2006 8:22 am (#1917 of 2969)

Voldemort thinks he has five Horcruxes. (He knows about the diary, but not the ring.) He only needs one Horcrux to keep his soul from "going over." He can make more Horcruxes.

I don't see why Harry (or Harry's scar) being a Horcrux would stop Voldemort from killing him.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 10, 2006 8:25 am (#1918 of 2969)
Edited Apr 10, 2006 9:27 am

With regard to Big V's connections, DD states somewhere that Big V has neither knowledge nor feeling of the severed parts. If you would like me to venture a guess, then perhaps the interaction is a result of Harry being a living Horcrux interacting with the fragment and having an ability to see into Big V, rather than Big V knowing what has become of the fragmented piece.

Re: Your #5) I have cut a portion of a previous post # 1790 I am beginning to believe that after the MoM incident in Book 5, Big V had begun to consider the thought that his intended Horcrux-bit could have landed in Harry. He has kept himself very well guarded from Harry since the aforementioned event.

That is a great point, Soul Search. He is quite arrogant, too, and would not think the others have been found.

Choices - Apr 10, 2006 9:33 am (#1919 of 2969)
Edited Apr 10, 2006 10:34 am

It is just so difficult to believe, that as closely as Dumbledore has watched over Harry, he would not have sensed or realized that Harry is a Horcrux (if indeed he is, and I'm still not ready to believe it). Dumbledore, the world's greatest wizard with a 150 years of magical experience - how could he miss what was right under his nose? He has given what happened to Harry great thought - he has studied what happened at Godric's Hollow, and he has great knowledge of Horcruxes and Voldemort's attempts at immortality. Could he really be so blind as to not notice a piece of Voldemort's soul living in Harry?

haymoni - Apr 10, 2006 10:13 am (#1920 of 2969)

Perhaps we think too highly of Dumbledore.

I don't think Harry fits Voldy's MO when it comes to Horcrux making.

Harry isn't a ring or a cup or some other trinket.

If Harry is indeed an accidental Horcrux, I don't think Dumbledore would have suspected.

Choices - Apr 10, 2006 10:20 am (#1921 of 2969)

Haymoni - "Perhaps we think too highly of Dumbledore."

I know I am guilty of that - I adore Dumbledore - I love everything about him. He has God-like status in my mind and I just don't think he could miss noticing that Harry was a Horcrux - accidental or not.

Mrs Brisbee - Apr 10, 2006 10:52 am (#1922 of 2969)
Edited Apr 10, 2006 11:52 am

It is just so difficult to believe, that as closely as Dumbledore I has watched over Harry, he would not have sensed or realized that Harry is a Horcrux (if indeed he is, and I'm still not ready to believe it). Dumbledore, the world's greatest wizard with a 150 years of magical experience - how could he miss what was right under his nose? He has given what happened to Harry great thought - he has studied what happened at Godric's Hollow, and he has great knowledge of Horcruxes and Voldemort's attempts at immortality. Could he really be so blind as to not notice a piece of Voldemort's soul living in Harry? --Choices

Maybe he didn't miss it. I think the possession of Harry during the duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore could be explained by Dumbledore thinking Harry is a "Horcrux", and Voldemort knowing or guessing that that's what Dumbledore thinks.

During the duel, Voldemort notes that Dumbledore isn't trying to kill him. I'm assuming that at this point Voldy knows that his diary Horcrux has been destroyed. He's thinking that Dumbledore must think that now the Horcrux is gone, Voldemort must be vulnerable to death (because Dumbledore couldn't possibly suspect multiple Horcruxes, right?). But Dumbledore is strangely not trying to kill him.

So what does Voldemort do next? Possesses Harry. And tries to taunt Dumbledore into killing Harry! So why would Voldemort think that Dumbledore would suddenly try to kill Harry to get at him, when Dumbledore wasn't trying to kill Voldemort when he wasn't in Harry? It makes sense if Voldemort suspected that Dumbledore suspected that Harry had a bit of Voldy's soul stuck in him, and was acting like a Horcrux-- a second "Horcrux" besides the Diary. But not only is Dumbledore unwilling to kill Harry in an attempt to destroy Voldemort, Dumbledore also suspects multiple other Horcruxes, and doesn't take the bait.

Magic Words - Apr 10, 2006 11:09 am (#1923 of 2969)

Did we see Dumbledore's reaction to Voldemort's "If death is nothing, kill the boy" bit, or was Harry too preoccupied to notice? (not that I blame him!) Dumbledore knew about the Horcruxes at that point, so you're right, it should have at least set off a warning bell in his mind. Maybe he suspected, but didn't want to say anything without proof? Maybe he considered it but discarded the idea, as it was so horrible to contemplate. We know that when it comes to Harry at least, Dumbledore is very susceptible to the pitfalls of wishful thinking. Or maybe he knows a lot about Horcruxes- their history and such- and using a human being as one is such an off-the-wall idea that it simply doesn't occur to him as a possibility, whereas it might occur to someone with a fresh viewpoint (i.e. us readers).

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 10, 2006 2:39 pm (#1924 of 2969)
Edited Apr 10, 2006 3:45 pm

I have to agree with Choices on this one in believing that DD surly would have noticed if Harry was a Horcrux. Reasons why I think he is not a Horcrux:

1.) I think DD would have known about it and I think he would have told Harry so.

2.) I don't think the torn portion of your soul leaves your body unless you choose to make it into a Horcrux. It just stays there and eventually "heals" but only partially meaning the soul bit is absorbed into the body, but the main soul is never whole again.

3.) The spell comes after the murder. In my mind, this is the only logical way for the spell to work. First you commit murder -> your soul tears -> you do the spell and transfers the torn portion into another object and then you have your Horcrux. It doesn't make sense to do the spell, then commit the murder and the soul go into the object.

4.) The Horcrux spell and AK are two different spells (even though they are related) so if AK bounces off of the victim, then why would it make a Horcrux if it’s not the correct spell? I don't think it could possibly do that just from a logical standpoint. When you throw a ball forward, its not going to decide midway through the air to change directions and come straight back to you, so why would AK change midway through to become the Horcrux spell? The only way to make a Horcrux is to commit murder and do the correct spell. It just doesn't make sense.

TheSaint - Apr 10, 2006 7:53 pm (#1925 of 2969)

Why do you assume Dumbledore does not know? he is famous for keeping things from harry that he feels will hurt him or confuse him...or he is not ready for yet.

I posted this on another thread... but it seems to fit here too. Chapter twenty-three...

The clues are here. "But there could be no doubt that Riddle really wanted that diary read, wanted the piece of his soul to INHABIT OR POSSESS SOMEBODY ELSE (emphasis mine)."

"Voldemort was still at least one Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents' (must have been theirs) house with the intention of killing you."

"He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. You would certainly have been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure he was INTENDING to make the final Horcrux with your death (emphasis mine)."

Someone had stated earlier that the ultimate Horcrux would be to implant a piece of your soul in your enemy... as the only way he can then kill you is to die himself. Intending implies premeditation which may imply something done before hand. And you seem to forget that Voldie had already committed two murders by the time he got to Harry.

"You can use animals as Horcruxes?"

"Well, it is inadvisable to do so, because to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business." Boy wouldn't that be true. A piece of Voldemort's soul, simmering in all that love, all these years. Would take the ultimate sacrifice to destroy the last Horcrux... and as we saw in the Ministry... Harry is more than willing. The veil is calling.

"'Voldemort singled you out as the person who would be most dangerous to him - and in doing so, he MADE you the person who would be most dangerous to him (emphasis hers)."

"Without his Horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with a maimed and diminished soul. Never forget, though, that while his soul may be DAMAGED BEYOND REPAIR..."

So much for healing. So the soul pieces definitely do not return to Voldemort when destroyed, and he does not feel it.

I also wondered, "... Wizards of a certain caliber have always been drawn to that aspect of magic."

Wonder who else has dabbled in Horcruxes. DD suggests that any previous person has made but one.

"Triumphant gleam in Dumbledore's eyes..." Perhaps Harry has a little Horcrux of his own.

geauxtigers - Apr 10, 2006 7:55 pm (#1926 of 2969)

I agree with you Virginia, all your points are valid. Also, I can see DD figuring out that Harry is a Horcrux, then I think that somehow the triumphant glint DD gave Harry means that DD suspects the Horcrux was removed from Harry when Voldemort took his blood, but that’s a matter of opinion and I'm the only one who thinks this so. Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that this could be the reason Harry is never told he is a Horcrux. DD knew he isn't anymore, so why bother him with telling him, it would just be another bad memory added to Harry's thoughts.

But hey, this is probably a completely insanely out there theory that will be proved wrong as soon as book 7 hits my hands!

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 10, 2006 8:28 pm (#1927 of 2969)

And you seem to forget that Voldie had already committed two murders by the time he got to Harry.

I kept forgetting to include that part. I am glad you did. He could have performed the spell on his way to Harry's room not intending for Lily's death to mess up his count.

There do seem to be many tidbits throughout the books pointing in that direction.

Just wanted to mention this paraphrased sect. from CoS near the end:

"Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" (Harry) "It seems so." (DD)

Perhaps, then, DD did tell him, in a manner.

The One - Apr 11, 2006 3:51 am (#1928 of 2969)

I can see DD figuring out that Harry is a Horcrux, then I think that somehow the triumphant glint DD gave Harry means that DD suspects the Horcrux was removed from Harry when Voldemort took his blood, but that’s a matter of opinion and I'm the only one who thinks this so.

The main reason to believe that Harry is made a Horcrux is the connection between Harry and Voldemort that has been increasingly important from book 1-4. If Dumbledore believed that connection to be destroyed by the end of GoF he was sadly mistaken. The connection was more important than ever in book 5, OotP.

I think that Harry is a Horcrux. I may be wrong. But it seems very unlikely that Harry was a Horcrux but stopped being one in book 4.

Either Harry is still a Horcrux, or the theory was wrong in the outset.

Just my 2 knuts.

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 11, 2006 7:46 pm (#1929 of 2969)
Edited Apr 11, 2006 8:47 pm

I also think that its unlikely that LV taking Harry's blood would take away the Horcrux, because there would really be no point in making Harry a Horcrux, then undoing the process, without letting the reader know. It would be pointless for JKR to go back in book 7 and tell us Harry used to be a Horcrux, but guess what now he's not. There’s no point in that so I think its either gonna be that Harry is or isn't a Horcrux.

Esther Rose - Apr 13, 2006 6:51 am (#1930 of 2969)

I am wondering if similar to the diary "bleeding" ink in COS to destroy the Diary Horcrux that Harry will need to "bleed" to destroy the last soulbit. But Harry cannot do this until all of the other soulbits are destroyed. It could be the thing that kills Harry or almost kills Harry.

And if Draco is a vampire, well that would be an interesting mix. (I am still holding on to that theory. I won't go too deep into it because it is not canon.)

Magic Words - Apr 13, 2006 9:43 am (#1931 of 2969)

Esther Rose, that's an intriguing thought. I think we can draw a lot of parallels between the diary and "Horcrux Harry" - the diary allowed Tom to share his thoughts with someone else and ultimately possess her, similar to what Voldemort tried with Harry.

The thing that worries me about that theory is that the "bleeding ink" itself did not get rid of Tom. It was an effect of the destruction of the diary. If Harry follows the same pattern, the important thing wouldn't be his bleeding--it would be his death.

Weeny Owl - Apr 14, 2006 9:34 am (#1932 of 2969)

With all this talk of Harry being a Horcrux, I would like to know exactly what everyone is thinking.

Is Harry himself a Horcrux?

Is it only Harry's scar that is the Horcrux?

I believe there's a world of difference between the two.

If Harry is the Horcrux, I think he would have to die.

If it's only his scar that is the Horcrux, then I don't see him having to die.

Maybe he doesn't have to die either way, but I still feel that keeping Harry and his scar separate entities works better.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 14, 2006 10:25 am (#1933 of 2969)

The way I view it, since the Horcrux is in Harry (even if the entry point was his scar), the whole of Harry is considered a Horcrux. Just as a cup made into a Horcrux would be a Horcrux (rather than the handle, etc.) and just as the ring itself was a Horcrux. I do not envision it as something floating around like air within Harry, rather like a, water balloon, or something of the sort. If the entry point is where it could be destroyed, then the scar would have to be the point of attack. It certainly would change the shape of the scar . Now that I think about it, did he save that basilisk fang? Forget it, let's not go there.

Magic Words - Apr 14, 2006 1:37 pm (#1934 of 2969)

I never really bothered to consider the difference because I don't think it would matter much in the overall plot, whichever way JKR decides to write it. Harry could easily be entirely a Horcrux and not die - even though the ring and diary were "destroyed" they are still recognizably a ring (albeit with a crack) and a diary. There's enough we don't know about living Horcruxes to make just about anything possible. If I had to take a stance, I would say Harry himself must be a Horcrux because the scar didn't exist until the moment he became one. However, I think the scar marks him as a Horcrux, and destroying the soul bit within him may mean removing the scar in some way.

haymoni - Apr 14, 2006 5:07 pm (#1935 of 2969)

Somehow Dumbledore was able to destroy the Horcrux in the ring, but the ring itself was intact - it had a crack in it, but - whoa!!

Does crack = scar??

Sorry - when I started typing I was thinking that Dumbledore was able to destroy the Horcrux, but the ring was still a ring when he was through. If Harry IS a Horcrux, they should be able to destroy the soul bit without destroying Harry.

But as I was finishing that first paragraph, I remembered that the stone that was in the ring had a crack in it when Dumbledore was through.

We know that Voldy must have killed more than 7 people. His soul must be in tatters by now, but he only chose to make 7 Horcruxes.

Lily sacrifices herself, Voldy tries to AK Harry - a bit of him - I'm guessing a soul bit - goes into Harry - Voldy doesn't really know what has happened and casts the Horcrux spell.

The soul bit comes out of Harry - leaving the scar - and some of Voldy's "gifts" are left behind inside Harry.

We know that people that get AK'd aren't marked in any way.

Harry's scar could be merely the result of the rebounded AK, but JKR said there was something special about it.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 14, 2006 5:14 pm (#1936 of 2969)

I agree Magic Words.

I wonder if Snape can perform a very precise Sectumsempra aimed at the scar? Well, we certainly do not know enough about Horcrux removal to draw concrete conclusions.

Choices - Apr 14, 2006 5:22 pm (#1937 of 2969)
Edited Apr 14, 2006 6:23 pm

Haymoni - "Lily sacrifices herself, Voldy tries to AK Harry - a bit of him - I'm guessing a soul bit - goes into Harry - Voldy doesn't really know what has happened and casts the Horcrux spell."

I think this can easily be explained - Voldemort doesn't know what has happened because at this point he is dead. When the AK backfires and hits him, he is dead. Are you saying that Voldemort's dead body can then perform the Horcrux spell?

geauxtigers - Apr 14, 2006 9:11 pm (#1938 of 2969)

Yeah except for that Haymoni, I think your idea is "brilliant". Now I've got something new to think about and keep me awake at night all through spring break! Ah well that’s okay!

I always thought that something else happened that night with Harry and LV, not just a simple rebounded AK due to love, surely in all the time humans existed, someone else had died to save another, or a similar situation occurred like on Halloween. There was a transfer of power and I like the idea about it being a Horcrux related spell! Okay I'm gonna go think this one over for a while.

TheSaint - Apr 15, 2006 5:29 am (#1939 of 2969)

Some of us choose to think that there is a possibility that the spell to make a Horcrux is a spell of intent and is cast before the murder. If Voldie has a special bond with Nagini, and Nagini is a Horcrux, then the possibility that Voldie having a special bond with harry, the scar on his head, the transfer of powers may indicate that Harry is a Horcrux too. It does make for some very entertaining thought sessions.

Bruno Willey - Apr 15, 2006 6:42 am (#1940 of 2969)
Edited Apr 15, 2006 7:47 am

"If Voldie has a special bond with Nagini, and Nagini is a Horcrux, then the possibility that Voldie having a special bond with harry, the scar on his head, the transfer of powers may indicate that Harry is a Horcrux too. It does make for some very entertaining thought sessions."

-- The Saint

This is always a hole I saw in DD's Horcrux theory he was never really sure if Nagini was a Horcrux wasn't it just an educated guess? DD also states that LV has no connection to his Horcruxes, he doesn’t even know when one is destroyed! Is this the same for alive Horcruxes? Argh I'm asking more questions than I'm answering.

Ok, this is the attempt of an answer. When LV performed the AK he had to mean it, I suppose you could say he put a lot of feeling behind it. If we take it that the AK is the most powerful spell in the wizarding world and that it is unblockable and irreversible. Not to mention it is also a very intimate spell, yeah I know sounds funny but seriously. It is one person taking the life of another with one deft and deliberate action, you don't get much more personal that. Don't get me wrong the AK is evil and so is the act of Murder but for that second that the spell is in effect the two participants are locked into a very intimate bond; than when it was backfired wouldn't it have some very interesting and unpredictable results; like

1) Extending the bond to remain permanently instead for just a second.

2) Allowing feelings of both LV and Harry to pass across the bond because it was created with intense feelings itself.

3) Leaving a scar instead of no makings like a usual AK.

4) This would also explain why Harry feels his connection to LV through his scar because that was where the bond was created.

I don't think that Harry's scar is related to him or it being a Horcrux it is solely due to the interaction of that particular part of his forehead with and AK that went wrong.

Unfortunately I also have to go against the flow and say that I don't believe that Harry is a Horcrux DD or LV would have noticed by now if Harry was. They are, don't forget, the greatest Wizards of their age. I think DD would have come clean to Harry when he told him about the prophecy and LV would have found out well before DD and would have stopped his attempts to kill Harry especially in OotP were he was at full power an surly would have known.

To weather LV would care enough to not kill him if Harry was a Horcrux...YES... this is one seventh of LV's soul were talking about here he doesn't just throw these things around lightly. He may be evil and his soul may be permanently damaged but he's brain is still working 100% and for Tom Riddle the exceptionally bright student who received all O's at Newt level that is extremely smart. I think that we are focusing our underestimations on the wrong wizards. We are assuming that just because LV may not know a whole lot about love that he is an imbecile and that is a drastic underestimation of LV's capabilities. He would not carelessly throw around a piece of his soul. He set out to create 7 Horcruxes because it is a powerful magical number and will make him not only immortal but stronger as well destroying one would make him weaker an bring him closer to his greatest fear...Death!

So in conclusion Harry is not a Horcrux, his scar is an after effect of the AK and LV is not to be underestimated.

Bruno

Magic Words - Apr 15, 2006 7:24 am (#1941 of 2969)

Geauxtigers, very good observation. I also thought it a stretch that no one had ever taken an AK for someone they loved, even "in that particular way." But if that particular way has a Horcrux spell thrown into the mix, it works much better.

Bruno, I think LV would kill Harry even knowing he was a Horcrux. He would have to weigh 1/7 of his soul against the only person alive with the power to defeat him, according to prophecy. Since he's already proven capable of mutilating his soul by tearing it to pieces, wouldn't he sacrifice one of the ripped pieces in return for being invincible (as well as still immortal, from the other five)? Anyway, he kills often enough- what's to prevent him from simply making another 7th after Harry dies?

As far as your explanation of the power-transfer AK, I'm not disagreeing with it. But it seems to me that what you've basically said (and correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is that an AK is such a powerful spell that if it rebounds, it creates a temporary bond between caster and victim, and parts of themselves (powers, feelings) can pass along the bond. Replace "powers" with "bit of already-ripped soul looking for a home" and you have the Horcrux theory. It could just as easily be one as the other.

Choices - Apr 15, 2006 8:52 am (#1942 of 2969)
Edited Apr 15, 2006 9:54 am

I think it is a given that the soul leaves the body when we die and makes it's journey to the "great beyond". The soul doesn't leave a living body - at least not on it's own. That is another reason I believe that the murder to split the soul must be accomplished first and then the incantation is what removes the piece of soul that has been split from the body, and places it into the object that is to contain it. If you commit murder and split your soul, that piece of soul doesn't just immediately come floating out of your body, it must be removed purposefully and I believe it is the incantation that does that. Saying the incantation before committing the murder just wouldn't work as there is nothing to remove - no soul bit is available yet.

geauxtigers - Apr 15, 2006 11:26 am (#1943 of 2969)

Bruno, you sound like a scientist or something! I like what you've said though, I'm in between thinking Harry is and isn't a Horcrux. I've always led more towards him not being one, and you've brought up some really good points. I've always thought that there is no way DD wouldn't have told Harry he was a Horcrux, even if it was merely a weak theory. He didn't spend an entire year giving Harry the info he did to not tell him something so important.

Choices, I also think that murder comes first.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 15, 2006 12:19 pm (#1944 of 2969)

I don't think that Harry's scar is related to him or it being a Horcrux it is solely due to the interaction of that particular part of his forehead with and AK that went wrong.

Bruno, I think that is the best argument so far that I have heard in opposition to the Harry/Horcrux theory. And I hope you're correct.

However, I am still thinking Harry=Horcrux.

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 15, 2006 5:13 pm (#1945 of 2969)

I'm still torn between whether or not I think Harry is a Horcrux. There is too much canon that can be used to argue it either way. I may lean more towards the not a Horcrux theory just because I don't think Horcruxes could be created accidentally. I must agree with you Bruno, in that I think his scar is just a mark of the failed AK, not because he became a Horcrux.

TwinklingBlueEyes - Apr 15, 2006 7:04 pm (#1946 of 2969)
Edited Apr 15, 2006 8:05 pm

Going off topic slightly.

Given that in order to "split your soul" to make a Horcrux. If LV "split" his soul to make his first Horcrux, (i.e.: diary). Then doesn't it logically follow that first split leaves him with HALF a soul to split again, and again? LV becomes less and less human-looking over time. Maybe whatever small piece of humanity that was inborn in Tom was why he couldn't kill Harry, and why it left a scar? The transfer couldn't happen because LV had so badly split his soul? The spell bounced because it soul bit could not penetrate something so innocent as a baby, so what goes around comes around, resulting in his scar. If , not as most of us seem to think, that the whole soul is split in 7 parts...

...toddles off muttering

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 15, 2006 7:25 pm (#1947 of 2969)

TBE, that is assuming the split is in half, as you suggested.

The spell bounced because it soul bit could not penetrate something so innocent as a baby

Actually, though it has been said that it was Lily's protection that saved Harry, your idea is great food for thought. It may lead us to the reason DD emphasizes Harry's "wholeness."

geauxtigers - Apr 15, 2006 8:20 pm (#1948 of 2969)

Yeah that’s good thinking TBE. I mean murder is one thing but to murder an innocent baby who can't even talk yet? Maybe that’s why it rebounded? I'm not sure, but I think something is up with the fact that no one has ever survived the AK, and if as DD keeps saying, because Lily died for Harry and that’s why it rebounded. Is there really no one else in the history of the wizarding world who never died for a loved one? Surely not! I think there is something to do with either what you've just said TBE, or LV attempted to make a Horcrux, if in fact there ever was an attempt. See what I mean?

Soul Search - Apr 16, 2006 7:33 am (#1949 of 2969)

I think it is a mistake to view the "soul" as a physical entity, like a pie, that can be cut up into many pieces.

Choices - Apr 16, 2006 9:26 am (#1950 of 2969)
Edited Apr 16, 2006 10:27 am

TBE - "The spell bounced because it soul bit could not penetrate something so innocent as a baby..... "

I seriously doubt there is a soul bit in an AK spell.

The soul is a mysterious thing and I think we are all trying to wrap our minds around the idea that a soul can be split - I think we each have our own concept or image of how a soul can split. For me, I imagine it as a square of cloth or paper from which a thin strip is torn with each murder. After six murders and tears, six Horcruxes have been made, and there is still the main soul piece (greatly diminished) residing in Voldemort.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Potteraholic Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:56 am

TheSaint - Apr 16, 2006 8:18 pm (#1951 of 2969)

That is another reason I believe that the murder to split the soul must be accomplished first and then the incantation is what removes the piece of soul that has been split from the body, and places it into the object that is to contain it. If you commit murder and split your soul, that piece of soul doesn't just immediately come floating out of your body, it must be removed purposefully and I believe it is the incantation that does that. Saying the incantation before committing the murder just wouldn't work as there is nothing to remove - no soul bit is available yet.

Voldemort has murdered James...then he has murdered Lily... that sounds like two splits already... then he goes after Harry... perhaps he needs to say something to designate which soul-bit (LOL) is to be used for the Horcrux, as there are soon to be three (or so he thinks).

geauxtigers - Apr 16, 2006 8:47 pm (#1952 of 2969)

posted this on another thread, but it fits here: just want to see what yall think:

okay this is just a point I'd like to bring up and I'm not really sure why, I just keep putting it to the back of my head and its really not significant, but Voldemort committed wayyyy more than 6 murders for his Horcruxes. He killed tons of people, but his soul is in lots of pieces, just only 6 are Horcruxes. Granted some of his soul may have healed over time but I don't know, just food for thought.....

TheSaint - Apr 16, 2006 8:48 pm (#1953 of 2969)

ROFL! I will post the same reply!

Did he commit the murders personally... or have his henchmen do it for him? Seems Sirius said something about having to be very important for Voldie to do you himself.

geauxtigers - Apr 16, 2006 8:51 pm (#1954 of 2969)

ha ha Saint! I'll let everyone else go to the other thread to read my response! It’s under theories and "In the End", not sure the number...

TheSaint - Apr 16, 2006 9:06 pm (#1955 of 2969)

Replied there as well...

Weeny Owl - Apr 17, 2006 8:20 am (#1956 of 2969)

If you commit murder and split your soul, that piece of soul doesn't just immediately come floating out of your body, it must be removed purposefully and I believe it is the incantation that does that. Saying the incantation before committing the murder just wouldn't work as there is nothing to remove - no soul bit is available yet.

As for the first part of your statement, I would agree for one fairly valid reason... if people who commit murders actually lose part of their souls, then they would probably end up looking as odd as Voldemort looked in Dumbledore's office in the Pensieve. Tearing something doesn't necessarily equal losing part of it.

Disregarding what happened at Godric's Hollow, in many circumstances, even if Voldemort were to deliberately murder someone, he might not have the time to perform a spell before hand, especially if his target is a capable person.

For instance, in the atrium at the Ministry, Voldemort was casting Avada Kedavras right and left, and if he decided to create a Horcrux, it might not be that easy to cast the spell while defending himself from Dumbledore.

We know Voldemort killed his father and grandparents while still in school, but we don't know for a fact that he created any Horcruxes at that point. He may have, but it was never stated that those particular murders and the creation of Horcruxes happened on the same day.

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 17, 2006 8:47 am (#1957 of 2969)

We know Voldemort killed his father and grandparents while still in school, but we don't know for a fact that he created any Horcruxes at that point. He may have, but it was never stated that those particular murders and the creation of Horcruxes happened on the same day. -Weeny Owl

Yes that’s one reason why I think the spell comes afterwards, meaning that you don't have to create the Horcrux instantly. The torn portion remains within your body until you chose to take it out via a Horcrux. If this is true, then I don't think that Harry could be a Horcrux.

geauxtigers - Apr 17, 2006 9:05 am (#1958 of 2969)

We know Voldemort killed his father and grandparents while still in school, but we don't know for a fact that he created any Horcruxes at that point. He may have, but it was never stated that those particular murders and the creation of Horcruxes happened on the same day. -Weeny Owl

Virginia I agree, but I have a nit picky thing to add to your statement Weeny Owl, didn't Voldemort create the diary Horcrux while at school? He preserved his 16-year-old self, right? Maybe I'm over-analyzing this, but I thought that was the one created at school.

But I still agree with Virginia, the spell comes afterward, regardless of when the murder was committed...

Mattew Bates - Apr 17, 2006 9:29 am (#1959 of 2969)

I find it curious that a scar is, essentially, an old wound, and that we know of a magical material with tremendous healing properties. Could Harry's scar be healed with Phoenix tears? Let's suppose, for a moment, that Harry's scar is a Horcrux (at the moment, I am not completely convinced, one way or the other). Would that healing be enough to destroy the Horcrux? It would certainly pose less threat to Harry than even a well-aimed Sectumsempra.

Just my two knuts.

geauxtigers - Apr 17, 2006 9:44 am (#1960 of 2969)

good thought Mattew!! That’s a great idea, Fawkes is going to have a huge impact in book 7, I think that was clear at the end of HBP.

Magic Words - Apr 17, 2006 10:09 am (#1961 of 2969)

Phoenix tears seem almost too easy, IMHO. If Harry turns out to be a Horcrux, I think there would need to be at least the risk of him having to sacrifice himself. Anyway, isn't there a difference between a scar and a wound? A scar is what you get when the wound has healed, but not perfectly.

Choices - Apr 17, 2006 10:20 am (#1962 of 2969)

I think you're right Magic Words. I don't think the tears would work on a healed wound.

Mattew Bates - Apr 17, 2006 12:29 pm (#1963 of 2969)

Magic Words, Choices, given how frequently the scar burns & pains Harry, I'm not sure I would use the word "healed" to describe it. Did it ever start bleeding in book five? Would he have to use the Phoenix tears on it while it was paining him? Would he have to cut it open first, like a snakebite, to let the "venom" bleed out?

Choices - Apr 17, 2006 12:49 pm (#1964 of 2969)
Edited Apr 17, 2006 1:53 pm

I don't remember any instances of the scar bleeding, so I think it's safe to say it is healed. After all, a scar is defined as a mark left on the skin as the result of healing tissue. Harry's scar has been there a good many years, so I think it is healed.

Weeny Owl - Apr 17, 2006 1:58 pm (#1965 of 2969)

Virginia I agree, but I have a nit picky thing to add to your statement Weeny Owl, didn't Voldemort create the diary Horcrux while at school? He preserved his 16-year-old self, right? Maybe I'm over-analyzing this, but I thought that was the one created at school.

He preserved his sixteen-year-old self in the diary, but that doesn't mean that that is when he made said diary into a Horcrux.

Regardless, it doesn't seem that he created a Horcrux the same day he killed his father and grandparents, so the torn bit of soul he put in the diary would have had to have happened later than the actual murders.

That's part of why I feel that Harry and/or his scar isn't a Horcrux.

geauxtigers - Apr 17, 2006 3:56 pm (#1966 of 2969)

I see your point, I don't think that Harry is, I'm not 100% sure, but about 63% sure he isn't. This is also why I think the spell comes after, so its very possible that he made it later on. Plus he might not have heard of Horcruxes prior to killing his parents, so we can only speculate...

virginiaelizabeth - Apr 17, 2006 4:46 pm (#1967 of 2969)

"And there was the half-dozen teenage boys sitting around Slughorn with Tom Riddle in the midst of them, Marvolo's gold-and-black ring gleaming on his finger." Horcrux chapter of HBP pg 494)

So Riddle had killed his grandparents before he had figured out how to make a Horcrux. If he'd already made the Horcruxes from these murders, then he wouldn't have had to ask Sluggy how to do it. This just strengthens my idea that Harry isn’t a Horcrux, because it strengthens the idea that the spell comes after the murder because he could then use the info Sluggy gave him to create the Horcruxes from his grandparents’ murders.

Choices - Apr 17, 2006 5:38 pm (#1968 of 2969)
Edited Apr 17, 2006 6:38 pm

I think it's possible (likely) Tom Riddle knew how to make a Horcrux prior to asking Slughorn about them. I think what he wanted from Slughorn was information about making more than one Horcrux..... he knew seven was a powerful magical number and I think he had set his sights on having his soul split into seven pieces - one for himself and six for Horcruxes.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 17, 2006 6:59 pm (#1969 of 2969)

That is what I think, too, Choices. His entire demeanor was probing past the point of the "basics".

Weeny Owl - Apr 18, 2006 5:22 am (#1970 of 2969)

He probably did already know how to make a Horcrux, but it was never specifically stated that he made the diary (or the ring, either) into one the same day he killed his father and grandparents.

It could be that he knew how to go about it, but didn't want to go ahead and actually create a Horcrux until he was sure he could make more than one.

Either way, it just never states that he did any preparation regarding any items, and without that knowledge, we're speculating as much as we were with whether or not the Sorting Hat was a Horcrux. We're just missing vital information.

haymoni - Apr 18, 2006 6:13 am (#1971 of 2969)

Sorry - I was off the Forum eating too many jelly beans.

When Voldy's AK rebounded on him, he was not dead. He was still alive because of his Horcruxes.

If he cast the AK and then gave the incantation (whatever it is!) for the Horcrux right after, it is possible that while he was Vapormort, the Horcrux was created in Harry.

My point was that the scar was not created by the rebounded AK, but by the soul bit leaving Harry as that spell was rebounded as well, leaving behind Voldy's "gifts", but not his actual soul bit.

Therefore, scar = crack.

My head hurts so much now though, I'm open to any ideas!

Soul Search - Apr 18, 2006 8:52 am (#1972 of 2969)
Edited Apr 18, 2006 9:54 am

We have kicked the Godric's Hollow events around on that thread, but it might be worth a brief review with Harry/Scar/Horcrux in mind.

We know that Voldemort came to Godric's Hollow to kill "prophecy" Harry. I accept Dumbledore's contention that Voldemort was also intending to make his sixth (and last) Horcrux with Harry's death. He would have had the required Horcrux object with him. Also, keep in mind that Voldemort had a "trophy" passion for Horcrux objects and who he killed to make the Horcrux.

We also know that Lily had prepared, or prepared for, an ancient spell that could protect Harry. The spell required her death at the hands of the protagonist that was after Harry. (Voldemort, in GoF, says that Lily died for Harry's protection.

Voldemort killed James, first.

For reasons not yet explained, Voldemort did not immediately kill Lily. She, however, placed herself in front of Harry and received the first AK that Voldemort intended for Harry. This activated her protection spell. Did Voldemort also cast the Horcrux spell at that time?

Voldemort then cast another AK at Harry. Did Voldemort repeat the Horcrux spell with the AK for Harry? The AK rebounded (Lily's protective spell) and killed Voldemort's body. Harry received the cut, which healed to form his lighting scar.

AKs do not mark the victim (we have a bunch of examples, now.) There is no known way to reflect an AK. We also know that mixing spells can cause unexpected results (for example, the spells against Draco at the end of GoF and OotP.)

There was a lot of high-level magic around Godric's Hollow: Voldemort's Horcrux spell(s), AKs, and Lily's ancient magic.

There were unexpected results: The AK rebounded, killed Voldemort's body, and gave Harry his scar. We also learned in CoS that Voldemort, not intentionally, passed some of his powers to Harry, including Parselmouth.

Lily's ancient magic and Voldemort's AK against Harry can explain the rebounding and killing of Voldemort's body. But, how did Harry get the cut (or just a cut), and how did some of Voldemort's powers get passed to Harry? What became of the Horcrux spell(s)?

It might also be worth asking what was the intended Horcrux object and what happened to it?

I can't escape the conclusion that Harry's scar and Parselmouth ability are side-affects of the Horcrux spell that Voldemort cast, and that the scar became a Voldemort Horcrux.

Choices - Apr 18, 2006 8:59 am (#1973 of 2969)
Edited Apr 18, 2006 10:00 am

Haymoni - "When Voldy's AK rebounded on him, he was not dead. He was still alive because of his Horcruxes."

Yes, he was alive in spirit form, but just barely. Voldemort states that he lost his body - it died - when he tried to kill Harry with the AK. He says he (his soul) was ripped from his body and that he was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost. He was as powerless as the weakest creature and had no means to help himself. "..... for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand..... "

I just don't think that at that moment Voldemort was thinking about creating a Horcrux. I think he was shocked over the loss of his body and his powers - survival was uppermost in his mind.

haymoni - Apr 18, 2006 9:01 am (#1974 of 2969)
Edited Apr 18, 2006 10:03 am

We don't know enough about these stupid Horcruxes to form accurate theories.

Does the Horcrux spell just keep the soul-bit from floating off or is it the spell that actually encases the soul-bit in something?

I agree with most of what you say, Soul Search, except for the part about Lily doing something in advance.

I think her act of standing in front of Harry and refusing to get out of the way activated the "ancient magic", period. I don't think she did anything ahead of time, just in case Voldy found them. Her self-sacrifice was the magic.

Choices - I'm picturing Voldy as a sort of Professor Binns - he was in the act of doing something and just kept on with it. If Voldy is as powerful as we think he is, I'm guessing he can do some wandless magic, like Dumbledore does. However, his comment does imply that he needed a wand to get a real body.

Choices - Apr 18, 2006 9:13 am (#1975 of 2969)

Good comparison Haymoni - I am still chuckling over the picture of Voldemort just continuing with what he had been doing before the AK hit him - oblivious to the fact he was dead. LOL

geauxtigers - Apr 18, 2006 1:29 pm (#1976 of 2969)
Edited Apr 18, 2006 2:31 pm

AKs do not mark the victim (we have a bunch of examples, now.) There is no known way to reflect an AK. We also know that mixing spells can cause unexpected results (for example, the spells against Draco at the end of GoF and OotP.) - Soul Search

This is basically the only thing keeping me from saying flat out that Harry is not a Horcrux. The AK has never rebounded before, no one but Voldemort was there that night who lived to tell about it. How does anyone know for sure that that’s what Harry's scar is? If no one ever survived it before, how can one assume with such confidence that his scar is the mark of the failed AK? I think its like you said, a mix of at least 2 spells, one being the Horcrux and the other the AK.

Choices - Apr 18, 2006 4:50 pm (#1977 of 2969)

We know about Harry's scar because Dumbledore told us (and JKR often speaks through him to give the reader information).

geauxtigers - Apr 18, 2006 5:17 pm (#1978 of 2969)

But the point I'm saying is that DD wasn't there, he assumes that that’s where the AK rebounded on Harry, he doesn't know for fact that that’s what it was, he merely assumes this. Granted DD assumptions are usually right, but seeing as there is nothing that we know of to prove this..... I really don't think that Harry is a Horcrux, this is really the only thing making me think otherwise.

Choices - Apr 18, 2006 5:39 pm (#1979 of 2969)

I don't think Harry is a Horcrux either. Dumbledore says the scar is a result of the rebounded curse - a curse scar - and that Voldemort transferred some of his powers to Harry unintentionally. Dumbledore's word is good enough for me until JKR decides to tell us otherwise.

Magic Words - Apr 18, 2006 5:55 pm (#1980 of 2969)

Even if his scar is the mark of an AK, that doesn't preclude him being a Horcrux. For all we know, a Horcrux is the natural product of an AK rebounding on a caster with a split soul, and a Horcrux spell wasn't needed at all. It's kind of a reverse killing, if you think about it- taking part of a soul from the caster and putting it in the victim, instead of ejecting the soul from the victim.

I'm going to admit that any mechanics we've seen so far for Harry being a Horcrux are not perfect. I just think there must be some way, because it fits too neatly with the rest of the story. We spend five books building up this mysterious link between Harry and Voldemort, which no one understands, except that "Voldemort put a bit of himself in [Harry]" the night he killed his parents (CoS). Then in HBP we learn that not only is there a way of putting one's soul into other things/animals, but it involves killing and Voldemort has done it. Not only that, but there's a Horcrux missing from Dumbledore's list. All the pieces are there. JKR couldn't have set it up better if she'd tried. Yes, I realize that's begging the question. But if we start by assuming he's not a Horcrux, we'll need a) another explanation for the scar and the link between them, and b) a Horcrux that is... what? Some random artifact from Ravenclaw or Gryffindor that we may or may not have seen before but which certainly hasn't played a major role in the story. It isn't even as if we'll see the four-founders symmetry Voldemort was going for, since he has two houses left but only one potential relic.

Soul Search - Apr 18, 2006 6:14 pm (#1981 of 2969)

On my previous #1972 post, I also suggested "It might also be worth asking what was the intended Horcrux object and what happened to it?"

There are some puzzles about that Horcrux object: What was it? What happened to it? Did it become a Horcrux?

What was it? My first thought was the Horcrux object was Gryffindor's sword, either brought by Voldemort or a Potter heirloom already at Godric's Hollow. I dismissed the idea when I realized the first reference to the sword was when Harry pulled it out of the hat. Harry was in Dumbledore's office a couple of times in CoS, and the sword was not mentioned. JKR is good at providing clues, so I concluded the sword was not in Dumbledore's office until Harry brought it back from the Chamber of Secrets. (There is more supporting discussion of this somewhere on the Godric's Hollow topic.)

This means the Horcrux object Voldemort brought to Godric's Hollow was either Hufflepuff's cup or the unknown Ravenclaw or Gryffindor object.

What happened to it? Hagrid took Harry. Some bodies were removed. Somehow, Voldemort's wand got back to him. Nothing else has ever be mentioned or even hinted. So, the object Voldemort intended for a Horcrux IS STILL THERE! For Harry to find when he visits Godric's Hollow.

Did it become a Horcrux? This one is tricky, and worthy of some discussion. The only support for Voldemort making a Horcrux at Godric's Hollow at all is Dumbledore's statement to Harry that he thought "Voldemort intended to make a Horcrux" with Harry's murder. The use of "intended" implies that no Horcrux was made. But, without the object, how can Dumbledore be sure? Does he have the object? No, he would have told Harry, wouldn't he have?

From the sequence of events described in post #1972, Voldemort first attempted to kill Harry, and make a Horcrux, with an AK, but Lily got in the way, and was killed. Did her murder satisfy the Horcrux spell? If so, then the missing object is a Horcrux, and Harry better find it.

Also, if the object became a Horcrux with Lily's murder, then Voldemort, a bit disappointed perhaps, would not have repeated the Horcrux spell with the AK on Harry, so there is no reason to expect that Harry is in any way a Horcrux.

If, somehow, the Horcrux spell is specific to a person's murder, then the object did not become a Horcrux with Lily's murder and Voldemort would have repeated the spell with the AK for Harry, bringing us back to the original discussion.

TheSaint - Apr 18, 2006 7:32 pm (#1982 of 2969)

(quote)This means the Horcrux object Voldemort brought to Godric's Hollow was either Hufflepuff's cup or the unknown Ravenclaw or Gryffindor object.

What happened to it? Hagrid took Harry. Some bodies were removed. Somehow, Voldemort's wand got back to him. Nothing else has ever be mentioned or even hinted. So, the object Voldemort intended for a Horcrux IS STILL THERE! For Harry to find when he visits Godric's Hollow. (/quote)

I can think of an invisibility cloak, passed from father and son through the Potter family (which has been in Harry’s possession for 6 books now, and never left his side in the last). There is a wand on display in Ollivander’s window that seemed of some import... had the feeling it was quite old. The Weasley's even have an old chess set. Seems like any of these have some potential.

HungarianHorntail11 - Apr 18, 2006 8:14 pm (#1983 of 2969)

What happened to it? Hagrid took Harry. Some bodies were removed. Somehow, Voldemort's wand got back to him. Nothing else has ever be mentioned or even hinted. So, the object Voldemort intended for a Horcrux IS STILL THERE! For Harry to find when he visits Godric's Hollow.

My interpretation of this statement is that in all of these years, it never occurred to DD to return to the site and sift through the remains? He traveled far across lands in an effort to gain precious vials of memory strands on their deathbeds, yet he never said to himself, 'perhaps I ought to check out GH?' I politely disagree.

MzWhizz123 - Apr 18, 2006 9:29 pm (#1984 of 2969)

The Saint--I have been watching yo

Horcruxes

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1051 to #1100

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1101 to #1135

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1136 t0 #1180

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1181 to #1220

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1221 to #1260

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1261 to #1300

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1301 to #1350

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1351 to #1400

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1400 to #1450

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1451 to #1500

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1501 to #1550

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1551 to #1600

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1601 to #1650

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1651 to #1700

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1701 to #1750

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1751 to #1800

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1801 to #1850

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1851 to #1900

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1901 to #1950

Horcruxes (18 Jul 2005 to 11 Dec 2006) - posts #1951 to #2000