If Harry is NOT a Horcrux...

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 136429

> Christina:
>
> Exactly. Harry has shown magical talent before (ie, the Patronus
> Charm). Also, didn't Voldemort give Harry some additional magical
> power when he tried to AK him? That's why he can speak
Parseltongue
> and such.
>
>Cindy:
>
>No disagreement there, but most of his magical talent hasn't
>manifested itself in a dramatic enough way to be more valuable than
>Dumbledore.

Christina:

Sorry, Cindy, I just realized that you basically said the exact same
thing I did in the post before the one I was replying to.  But to be
clear, I wasn't trying to argue that Harry is more valuable than
Dumbledore.  I was just trying to add on to what Empooress had said.


>Cindy:
>Even if this is true, and it certainly may well be it sounds
>plausable enough (I would imagine that the owner/creator of a
>Horcrux would not have to destroy the "object" in which the Horcurx
>resides to retrieve back that part of their soul if they so desired
>or in this case, may have happened unwittingly) but it still leaves
>us with just what is it that Harry is, possesses or has the ability
>to do to make him more valuable than Dumbledore in defeating
>Voldemort?

Christina:

Again, for clarity's sake, I wasn't trying to comment on how valuable
Harry is.  I was trying to suggest that, even if Voldemort *had*
created a horcrux in Harry (intentionally or unintenionally), the
blood Voldemort uses in the spell to recreate himself should have
returned the horcruxed part of his soul back to his body.  This would
mean that even if Harry was a horcrux at one time, he shouldn't be one
anymore (just as, I would guess, if Ginny died and Tom Riddle
"escaped" the diary, the diary itself wouldn't be a horcrux anymore).
 These are just my own thoughts, of course.  We really don't know
enough about horcruxes to be able to predict exactly how they work.  I
was replying to Empooress, who was replying to an uncited comment
(which, after going up the thread a bit, I realize you made) about the
seventh book ending with Ron, Hermione, and the others having to kill
Harry the Horcrux.  I would think that if he was one (and DD knew
about it), Dumbledore wouldn't say that Harry was more valuable than
he was himself, considering the fact that Harry would have to die
before Voldemort could be defeated.

>Cindy:
>To me, everything we have seen, including Lily's protection, does
>not give Harry the advantage which would "mark him as his equal" to
>Voldemort. 

Christina:

The way I interpret the prophecy, the "marking him as his equal"
refers to the literal mark of the scar.  Because Voldemort essentially
chose Harry to be his adversary, he raised him to his level.  Also,
Dumbledore points out to Harry in OotP that Voldemort thought that the
half-blood wizard (not the pureblood) was the other person in the
prophecy.  So you could say that Harry and Voldemort are equals in
that way too.

>Cindy:
>I don't think having the brother to Voldemort's wand will mean
>anything in the future, since we are learning so much more about non-
>verbal spells.

Christina:
Non-verbal spells don't require words, but they still require wands. 
I personally think that Harry will have to defeat Voldemort in some
way that doesn't have anything to do with wands.  I think Voldemort is
unbelievably powerful, and I would find it difficult to believe that
in a dueling of wands, Harry would win.

And finally, getting down to the real question (and a really
interesting one too- I'm surprised more people haven't given up their
thoughts) that you posed in your original post,

>Cindy:
>So what IS it that is so unique and VALUABLE about Harry?

Christina:

Dumbledore does not say that Harry is unique and valuable, he simply
says that Harry is *more* valuable than he is.  I'm in the camp that
thinks that Dumbledore's hand injury would have proved fatal
eventually.  If Dumbledore was already dying, then naturally he would
be less valuable than the young-and-healthy Harry.

Christina