Sorting Hat as Horcrux?

[mercurybluesmng]

No: HPFGUIDX 143795

> CH3ed:
> So the memory and the soul aren't separate. They were just put in
> the diary at different times.

MercuryBlue:
This is what's known as a 'self-contradictory statement'.

> Carol again:
> I don't think there *is* a "soul fragment Tom." What Tom Riddle
> originally put into the diary is a memory of himself in his fifth
> year, before he had acquired the ring or killed his parents and
> therefore before he had talked to Slughorn about Horcruxes. When he
> finally did make the diary into a Horcrux, the memory of Tom already
> present apparently acquired new powers (DD says in HBP that a mere
> memory could not have possessed Ginny), but he wouldn't have acquired
> any new memories. He's still sixteen-year-old, fifth-year Tom.
> Anything he knows that occurred after the diary was written comes from
> Ginny, not from the addition of the soul fragment (which is the
> immortal part of the self, distinct, IMO, from the personality or
> identity of the earthly self).

MercuryBlue:
Here's what we know about the timing of the enchantment of the diary:
Tom was sixteen when he made it.

That's all we know.

The Chamber adventure took place in his fifth year, yes. Does it
necessarily follow that the enchantment of the diary took place in his
fifth year also? He was sixteen right through till New Year's Eve in
his sixth year, after all.

And he was sixteen when he murdered his father and grandparents over
the summer. And, according to Dumbledore, he was sixteen when he asked
Slughorn about Horcruxes. Funny coincidence, that.

Tom Riddle is portrayed as one of the most brilliant students Hogwarts
has ever seen. Is it so difficult to believe that, given a couple
months to ponder, he figured out how to create a Horcrux before he
turned seventeen?

Or that he figured out how to make the damn thing a self-guided weapon?

And, given Occam's Razor (simplest explanation is most likely to be
true), does it really make sense for him to have enchanted the blasted
book TWICE?

Carol:
> DD says in HBP that a mere memory could not have possessed Ginny.

MercuryBlue:
True. But Dumbledore's next sentence is "No, something much more
sinister had lived inside that book..." Something much more sinister
THAN a mere memory. Not a mere memory AND something much more sinister.

Carol:
> The original purpose of the diary is exactly what Diary!Tom states
> that it was...

MercuryBlue:
Not arguing that. But of at least equal importance was its role in
preventing Voldemort's death. Which Tom didn't bother to tell us
about, partly because Harry didn't ask.

 
> > MercuryBlue:
> > Dumb question: Why do you think Grindelwald made a Horcrux? My 
> > thought was he's famous only for being defeated by Dumbledore, and 
> > is utterly irrelevant now.
> 
> Carol again:
> Not a dumb question at all. Dumbledore indicates in HBP that at least
> one other wizard that both he and Voldemort know about created a
> single Horcrux. (Sorry I don't have the quote at my fingertips. I'm
> sure it's in the chapter called "Horcruxes," or at least, that's where
> I'd expect it to be.)

MercuryBlue:
Yes, it's that chapter. The quote reads, "'As far as I know--as far, I
am sure, as Voldemort knew--no wizard had ever done more than tear his
soul in two.'"

Note the element of uncertainty in that statement.

Carol:
> We know that Dumbledore defeated (not killed)
> the Dark Wizard Grindelwald in 1945...
>
> I realize that this is all speculation, but why would JKR have
> Dumbledore defeat a Dark Wizard in a year of such significance to
> Voldemort if there's no connection? Grindelwald is carefully mentioned
> early in SS/PS, just as Scabbers and Sirius Black were. Chances are he
> was mentioned for a reason. But, of course, I could be wrong.

MercuryBlue:
Since we've never seen the slightest reference to Grindelwald anywhere
but Harry's very first Chocolate Frog card (and Scabbers and Sirius
had a whole book and more devoted to them), I'm betting that this is
something JKR put in without thinking it through all the way, and has
since realized she did an oops and is hoping nobody will notice. Like
Hermione's kid sister and Ron's cousin Mafalda, except them she told
us about and they aren't mentioned in the books. (And where you point
out that Grindelwald was defeated, not killed, I'd like to point out
that 'defeated' means 'not necessarily killed'. I doubt Dumbledore did
kill Grindelwald, but there is the possibility.)

> > Carol earlier:
> > > Moreover, we've seen that the Sorting Hat has a mind of its own 
> > > over and above the "brains" of the four Founders poured into it 
> > > when the school was divided into four Houses. It's clearly not 
> > > influenced by Tom Riddle's thinking. (JKR says it has never been 
> > > wrong.) 
> > 
> > MercuryBlue:
> > JKR didn't actually say it's never been wrong, just that it is
> certainly sincere. So it honestly believes it has sent everyone into
> the best House for them, whether it's actually the best House for them
> or not.
> 
> Carol again:
> Actually, I can prove you wrong on this one. :-)

<snipping quote>

> That first "No" is pretty definitive.

MercuryBlue:
Well, yes. Oops. But surely you've noticed that JKR interview
statements are sometimes contradictory to other JKR statements in
books and/or interviews. The elder Weasley boys' ages seems a good
example. If I recall correctly, JKR was specifically asked at this
earlier interview whether the Hat had ever been wrong. 'The Sorting
Hat is certainly sincere' is really a cheat half-answer (and very JKR).

Carol:
> No suggestion that the Hat is a Horcrux.

MercuryBlue:
No kidding. Key element of Book Seven here, people, she won't tell us
about it till the book's published!

Carol:
> Its opinions come from "the founders themselves." And
> sincerity (from a different interview
> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm ) would be
> an odd virtue in a hat infested or possessed by a fragment of Tom
> Riddle's soul.

MercuryBlue:
Yes, it would. Just as odd as the virtues of courage and loyalty in a
kid with a fragment of Voldemort (of his soul?) glued to his forehead.
Accept the one, and you have to accept the possibility of the other,
however slim that possibility may or may not be.

Carol:
> The unknown fifth Horcrux (the tiara?) may have been created at about
> the same time and obtained through similar means, but I don't have a
> specific theory regarding it. It was certainly made before he began
> recruiting followers around 1971 because his appearance was fully
> altered at that point. (DD says that he was unrecognizable as the
> formerly handsome Tom Riddle when he began recruiting followers.)

MercuryBlue:
You know, he wasn't recognizable as handsome Tom Riddle at his job
interview.

Why would 1971 be the turning point? We have no clue what he looked
like between 1957 and 1995, only that at some point in there he got
uglier, having made another Horcrux (or two?).

(What tiara?)

MercuryBlue.