Why 4 Horcruxes left, and not 3??

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 142222

> Christina
> > Can they?  Who have we actually seen execute a successful AK?

> Expectopatronnie:
> "...that's Marlene McKinnon, she was killed two weeks after this 
> was taken, *they* got her whole family... Benjy Fenwick, he copped 
> it too, we only ever found bits of him... That's Edgar Bones... 
> brother of Amelia Bones, *they* got him and his family' too ... 
> Gideon Prewett, it took *five Death Eaters* to kill him and his 
> brother Fabian... that's Dorcas Meadows, *Voldemort killed her 
> personally*... " (Moody showing Harry the picture of the old 
> Order, 
> OotP, Bloomsbury edition, p. 158, my emphasis). 
> Not to mention Amelia Bones, Emily Vance, Hannah Abott's mother 
> and DD (HBP, only Bones is mentioned as probably being killed by 
> VM personally).  

Christina:

Oops, I forgot about HBP (shame on me), so I'll give you Vance and 
Bones (who I think were *specifically* described as having been 
killed by an AK...blank stare, no visible physical damage, etc); 
however, I don't think it's right to assume that all of these deaths 
were caused by AK's.  We have seen murders committed in other ways- 
Bellatrix kills Sirius by sending him through the veil, Peter kills 
12 (13?) muggles by blowing up a street.  Benjy Fenwick must have 
been killed in another way- AK doesn't tear people's bodies apart.

> Expectopatronnie:
> For crying out loud - Sirius and 
> Lupin almost did in PoA (aiming at the rat, of course).

Christina:

I think Peter was actually in his human form when Lupin and Sirius 
aimed their wands at him, IIRC, but that's not too relevant.  I 
really don't think they had the ability to kill Peter even if they 
wanted to, but that's pure speculation and another discussion 
altogether :)

> Christina:
> 
> >One would think that the AK spell would be
> > *all* the DE's would be casting.  The fact that they didn't 
> >suggests to me that casting AK is extremely difficult.  
> ...
> >  These are the baddest of the baddies
> > here- why is anything but AK's being sent around?  
> 
> Expectopatronnie: 
> Because most of the battle, Harry's got the Prophecy,

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:
> They know perfectly well what will be the destiny of the Prophecy, 
> should they AK any of Harry's friends!

Christina:

Well the Death Eaters don't know the contents of the prophecy (even 
if LV told them all what he knows about it, he still has never heard 
the second half).  Harry's already pretty irritated at Voldemort- I 
doubt the Death Eaters decided to spare the lives of his friends to 
avoid angering him further (not to mention, they *did* kill one of 
his closest friends- Sirius!)
 

> Expectopatronnie:
> This is also an answer to the so-called mathematical problem: IMO 
> VM was weak after the rebound AK in 1981, and through some of the 
> books (up until the end of GoF), not because of the splitting of 
> his soul, but rather because of the lack of body for his mother-
> soul (no matter how distorted it is). 

Christina:

*After* 1981, and through to the present time, Voldemort was weak 
because of his lack of body and whatnot.  But I was talking about 
the original comment by Dumbledore that LV became less and less 
human over the years, when he was talking about Voldemort's state 
*before* 1981 (IIRC...and I really hope I do or else I'm going to 
sound pretty stupid right now).  So the fact that Voldemort has been 
in a weakened state since 1981 does *not* explain why he was getting 
progressively "less and less human" during his *original* reign.

> bboyminn wrote:
> You can kill a thousand times, and those thousand pieces of broken
> soul are still part of you. Certianly, you have done yourself
> spiritual harm, but not as badly as when you start removing pieces 
> of soul from yourself, which is exaclty what you do when you 
> create a Horcrux. Not only do you damage part of your soul in the 
> act of murder, but you lose part of your soul in the creation of 
> the Horcrux, and in losing, becoming separated from, part of your 
> soul, you lose a degree of your humanity.

> expectopatronnie:
> 
> I don't understand it that way: IMO when you kill you're ripping 
> your soul, and not merely damaging it. The ripped pieces evaporate 
> into thin air, unless you encase them with a horcrux. I really 
> don't think the actual making of the Horcrux increases the damage 
> to your soul

Christina:

I agree with Steve.  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)?  I don't have the 
books on me, so I could completely be making this up, but didn't 
Voldemort create one of his horcruxes with a killing that occured a 
good amount of time earlier?  That couldn't happen if your soul-part 
just sort of floats off (again, feel free to spear me if I'm wrong).

> M. Thitathan:
> Are we making too much of this? If we take DD's words that LV's 
> magical power does not diminish as his soul becomes more ripped as 
> canon. 

Christina:

Where does Dumbledore say that?  I'm not doubting that he said it, 
but I can't find it anywhere.

> M. Thitathan:
> Isn't it enough to assume that all the horcruxes contain soul 
> fragment with equal magical power and that Harry will have to get 
> rid of all of them before facing a LV that is just as magically 
> powerful as he was when all of his horcruxes were still intact?

Christina:

All I was trying to show was the meaning behind Dumbledore's "he 
became less and less human" remark.  The original poster of this 
thread used it to support a certain idea, so I was trying to show 
that Dumbledore was, in fact, saying something else.  The math was 
just for fun.  Also, considering the fact that Book 7 is essentially 
going to be "Harry Potter and the Search for the Horcruxes," I don't 
think it's a futile exercise to consider the possible ways in which 
horcruxes work.  As you can see from the conversation between 
Expectopatronnie and me, we don't have a very clear picture of how 
horcruxes fuction and it's possible to argue many different sides of 
the issue.

And as for physicist!JKR, have you read the very lengthy "physics of 
time travel thread" from this summer?  :)

Christina