[HPforGrownups] Re: Killing a person or soul

[Kathryn Jones]

No: HPFGUIDX 141961

justcarol67 wrote:


> First, your use of the term "Voldemort's souls" (plural) is
> interesting and is possibly the source of your confusion. As I
> understand it, a person has only one soul, the one he is born with.
> Voldemort has fragmented that single soul through murder and then
> separated the soul pieces by placing them in Horcruxes. As zgirnius
> pointed out, in so doing, he has "anchor[ed]" his soul in this world,
> preventing it from passing on into whatever afterlife JKR envisions.
> What he has not done is to create additional souls. No human being,
> wizard or not, can do that.

   KJ writes:

     You make a very good point here that Voldemort has only one soul, 
and this may have an impact in book 7. I do not find anything in canon 
that states that each one of the pieces of soul could not under the 
right circumstances, become a complete Voldemort. I am not convinced 
that their only purpose is an anchor, as there is canon to support the 
soul piece (and memory) becoming a live person at the loss of Ginny's 
life. It may have been to prevent this from happening that caused the 
damage to DD arm.

> In other words, to destroy one of Voldemort's "soul bits" is not to
> kill or destroy a soul, nor is it murder. Voldemort's original soul,
> however mutilated, remains in him, whether he is Vapor!mort or is
> occupying a restored body. Destroying the soul bits is necessary to
> make Voldemort mortal--like every other wizard in the WW. And
> Voldemort *must* die or be destroyed or the WW will never be free of
> the evil he embodies. (Whether killing him constitutes murder is a
> matter for another post.)

   KJ writes:

      I actually have no argument with this. I have seen quite a few 
posts where the poster believed that any kind of killing constituted 
murder and that Harry should not be encouraged to do this. I am thinking 
that in calling the spares a horcrux it takes away from the impression 
that these pieces are part of a soul. I am just curious that some 
posters have considered destroying Voldemort to be murder and 
unacceptable, but have raised no concerns about systematically 
destroying his soul, little bits at a time. Why or why not?


snip   Harry didn't "murder" Diary!Tom. He destroyed
> the memory (young Tom's body and personality) and (though he didn't
> know it) a bit of a slightly older Tom's soul. But *no real person
> died* as a result. Voldemort simply became a little bit less immortal,
> or rather, a bit closer to the mortality that is normal for a human
> being.

   KJ writes:

       As you say, Harry rather accidentally destroyed a memory rather 
than a live person in order to save a live person. I don't think that 
anyone had any issue with that and by the time we find out that the 
diary was also a horcrux, nobody cares. In HBP it is now brought out in 
the light. It is made plain that these are pieces of a person's soul 
(stinker or not), nothing is said about destroying them. I think that 
some readers will be disappointed if Harry actually kills V, but in one 
way, he is killing Voldemort with each soul piece that he destroys. 
Nothing is said about the piece of soul being restored to its original 
part. The indication is that it won't happen that way because Harry's 
strength is that he has a whole, undamaged soul. There is also nothing 
said about the sould pieces being released to go where souls go. In 
fact, Harry is concerned about the necessity of killing Voldemort and 
refers to it as murder in his own thoughts. I wonder if this will occur 
to him when he gets the opportunity to destroy a horcrux.

> Carol, who wanted to provide a simple, canonical explanation and found
> herself with a lengthy interpretation instead

   KJ
    Who finds it interesting that JKR has provided information on 
ghosts, and paintings, and photographs, but has avoided explaining souls.