Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3??

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 142365

Christina:

I know it's been a few days, but you made some good points that I
really wanted to address, so here we go... :)

> Expectopatronnie:
> 
> Well, I know I must be in denial, but this is exactly why I believe 
> Sirius is not *dead* dead - I think he's only caught in the death 
> substance, just like the bird (& DE's head) are caught in time-
> substance. But this truely belongs to a different thread...

Christina:

I just wanted to say that I've never heard Sirius!lives defended in
that way...but was that DE ever able to return to normal?  I mean, if
the Death Eater could never rectify time's influence, then nobody
could ever rectify death's influence on Sirius either.

> Expectopatronnie:
> What I do want to make clear, is that IMO wizards can only get 
> killed with strong magical spells, such as AK.

Christina:

You're absolutely right about wizards being tough to kill- this has to
be true, or else Harry would have died as a baby when the house
collapsed around him.  However, I think that although they are
resilient to physical injury, I would argue that a large part of their
vitality also has to do with the fact that they can fix the physical
injuries that they *do* get.  For example, in CoS, Harry's arm *does*
break when the bludger hits it.  It just isn't a problem because
wizards can fix broken bones.

However, a wizard's ability to overcome injury depends on their having
somebody around to fix it.  Tonks took a very nasty fall in OotP that
knocked her out.  She's OK because the Order members get her to St.
Mungos, but if nobody had been there to pick her up and get her fixed,
would she have died (ditto Moody, who was bleeding from the head)?

The point I'm trying to make is that yes, wizards are less likely to
be injured than Muggles are, but it still happens.  Death Eater
killings tended to be occur when the victim was alone (they don't seem
to like the huge battle scene)- if a DE decided to use magic to send a
rock or something flying at somebody else's head, I think that it
would crack their skull just as Harry's bludger cracked his arm.  I
might be getting a bit gruesome here, but you get the point.  If
nobody was around to fix the victim's injury, wouldn't they die?  We
have several examples of ways in which a wizard can be killed without
Avada Kedavra.  It is suggested that Sectumsempra, for example, would
have killed Malfoy if Snape hadn't been there to mutter the
countercurse.  He probably would have bled to death.  Without the
bezoar, I believe that Ron would have died from the poison he was
given.  If the Weasley twins hadn't given Katie Bell (I think it was
her?) the antidote to their nose-bleeding candy, wouldn't she have
bled to death, too?  She was getting awfully pale.  Given the
existence of Sectumsempra and Umbridge's quills, I don't find it a
stretch to think that there are some *very* sadistic spells out there
that can kill a wizard (ie, a spell that severs limbs, cuts, drains
the body of blood, transfigures blood into something else, etc).  A
Death Eater could even put somebody under Imperious and have them kill
themselves. 


> Expectopatronnie:
> 
> I had the other meaning of 'rat' in mind. You're right - of course 
> he was aimed at in his human form.   

Christina:

Haha!  Well, that teaches *me* not to post before my midmorning cup of
Earl Grey, now, doesn't it? :)


> > Christina:
> > 
> > Are you saying that the Death Eaters didn't want to cast an AK for 
> > fear of smashing the prophecy (I'm not sure if I'm understanding 
> you 
> > correctly).  If so, that seems like an unlikely excuse, given the 
> > fact that they are throwing stunning spells around left and right 
> > and blowing things up.
> 
> Expectopatronnie:
> I meant that they didn't want Harry to smash the prophecy on 
> purpose! Even in the mess at the scene in the DoM, there seemed to 
> have been a status quo, initiated by Harry <snip>

Christina:

Ah, OK, I did misunderstand you.  Thanks for clarifying.  I hear your
point, but at the same time, Harry knows that the only thing keeping
him and his friends alive is the prophecy.  Even if a Death Eater
killed one of the kids, there's no way Harry would smash the prophecy.
 It would doom the remaining kids immediately (Lucius even says, "Wait
until we've got the prophecy," which implies to me that he intended on
hurting at least Harry).

> Expectopatronnie:
> The AK curses (and Sirius' so-called death) arive much later in the 
> plot - after the Order members arive, and the DEs have nothing more 
> to loose. 

Christina:

They still have the prophecy to lose- Lucius remains committed to
getting it even after the Order members have arrived (he nearly
strangles Harry in his efforts).  Even after Sirius has fallen through
the veil, Bellatrix is still determined to get it (and shows, through
her fear, that she knows she'll be punished if she lets it slip
through her fingers).

I think it's also significant to note that the Death Eaters do a
pretty good job of taking down the Order members without using AK-
Tonks, Sirius, and Moody are all taken out of the battle by other
means (I feel like Kingsley was injured too, but I can't find it). 
Most of the children are injured through other means as well (Hermione
and the cutting curse, Ginny breaks her ankle, Neville is bleeding and
can't stop moving his legs, etc).  And although I do think that the
flashes of green light were AK spells, we can't really prove it. 
There must be other spells that are green, and we don't hear a rush of
air like we have most of the other times one has been cast.

 
> > Christina:
> > 
> > Horcruxes must cause more damage than just casting AK's all around.
> >   If as many people are able to cast a killing curse as you say,
> >  and if they are as common as you say, why 
> > aren't all *those* people gradually becoming less and less human?  
> > Why do the other Death Eaters seem so human and sane (minus our 
> > friends who have spent time in Azkaban of course)?  
> 
> Expectopatronnie: 
<snip>
> However, it is true that only VM *looks* less and less human. (I 
> don't buy the 'sane' part - Lucius Malfoy or Walden Macnair are as 
> antisocial as VM. So what makes him look this way? Is it the 
> Horcruxs? Or maybe the countless AK's VM has performed? or - and 
> this is my 'Father's Law'psychological theory - maybe it has 
> something to do with killing one's own father? 

Christina:

I think you're right about every AK damaging the soul, making each
person less and less human, which is basically what made me come to
the conclusion that it must be the Horcrux-making that affected
Voldemort so much.  We see that he delegates a lot of his killings to
the Death Eaters- it is implied that only "special" people are killed
by Voldemort personally.  That leads me to doubt that Voldemort has
committed *that* many more murders than some of his main followers.  

The "killing one's own father" thing is *very* interesting.  We've
heard about the powerful magic that resides in blood (Lily's sacrifice
and Harry's protected status at the Dursley's).  Maybe destroying
one's own blood gives kind of the opposite affect?  Perhaps killing a
blood relative somehow "taints" or curses one's life, liking killing a
Unicorn and drinking it's blood does?  It doesn't account for a
gradual change in LV's appearance (I still think it's the horcruxes
that do that), but it certainly fits in well with JKR's thematic
style.  Bellatrix Lestrange was already pretty batty, but maybe
killing Sirius (or temporarily submerging him in death, if you prefer)
furthered that a bit?  Or maybe it has sealed some kind of fateful end
for her? (We can only hope!)


> Expectopatronnie:
> 
> I really agree with you on that one Christina! So how exactly *do* 
> you thing the Horcruxes operate? Do you think that AK's weaken 
> you're powers unless you make a Horcrux and encase your split soul 
> using the energy discharged from the AK curse?

Christina:

I think that while an AK might not necessarily weaken your powers per
se, it does do spiritual and perhaps mental damage as well.  I think
that the making of the Horcruxes enhances this damage.  When we look
at the young Tom Riddle, he is charming, charismatic, and very mindful
of his actions and general demeanor.  In the present time of the
books, he seems a touch deranged.  So, while Voldemort still might
possess the sheer force of magical power that he always has, I think
his reasoning skills and ability to act rationally might be a little
skewed (ie, I think he really fumbled the Draco Malfoy situation;
also, however convinced Voldemort was that Harry wouldn't be able to
duel, it was stupid to give him back his wand in GoF).  We know that
being in Harry's head hurt Voldemort a LOT- does this have anything to
do with the fact that Voldemort's soul is so fractured?

I think that it is our souls that make us human.  A soul broken by AK
would lead to a broken human, but actually removing parts of that soul
leaves someone who is *less* human.  Kind of like the difference
between injuring your arm and cutting it off.  I haven't quite decided
yet whether a soul split by AK can repair itself- I think it's most
likely that a split soul is damaged forever, but by retaining all the
pieces inside you, you can maybe make it so that one day the pieces
(while still individual pieces) can work together.  A Horcrux would
make this impossible.

> > Expectopatronnie:
> Can anything be a horcrux? 

Christina:

Hmmm...I'm going to say yes to this one, although I think some things
are better choices than others.  For example, I find it highly
unlikely that Voldemort would put a part of his soul into anything
living, since they would have their own free will.  This is why I find
Horcrux!Nagini such a strange notion.  However, I find myself running
into a few problems in assuming that anything can be a Horcrux.  What
if you try and make a ham sandwich into a Horcrux?  Where would the
person's soul actually be- in the ham, the bread, or the mustard?  Or
perhaps spread evenly throughout?  What if somebody *ate* the
sandwich.  Would that just destroy the horcrux, or would the piece of
your soul inhabit the hungry snacker?  OK, I sound silly, but it's not
that far-fetched a question.  Harry destroyed the diary by shoving the
poisonous fang in it, but what would have happened if he had decided
(not even knowing that the thing was a Horcrux) to rip out a page or
something to use as a parchment scrap.  Would that have destroyed the
horcrux?  Would he have not been able to rip it out at all?  Would it
have "split" the Horcrux into two Horcruxes- the one paper and then
the rest of the book?  I'm taking this pretty far, but I think it's
worth questioning- destroying a Horcrux doesn't look easy.  How will
Harry manage to get rid of the other ones?  How did Dumbledore strip
the Gaunt ring of its Horcrux-ness without destroying the ring itself?

> Expectopatronnie:
> Can you produce a horcrux from any AK, or does it have to 
> be a particularly cold-blood/meaningfull murder? 

Christina:

I think it can be any murder, but Voldemort likes the murders to be
meaningful (just like he likes the Horcrux objects he chooses to be
meaningful).


Christina