Killing tears the soul apart redux.

[Tammy Rizzo]

No: HPFGUIDX 139478

On 4 Sep 2005 at 1:21, houyhnhnm102 wrote:

> It has been argued by you and others that Dumbledore could not have
> told Snape to sacrifice him if it was the only way to save Harry,
> Draco, and Hogwarts, because Dumbledore would not order Snape to do
> something that would tear his soul. "Killing tears the soul". I've
> read that over and over on this board.
> 
> Not cold-blooded murder for gain or immortality (Voldemort) or
> hot-blooded killing for revenge (Sirius and Lupin). Any killing for
> any reason, regardless of motive or circumstances. A blanket statement.
> 
> I'm asking for evidence that this claim has been made anywhere in the
> books or interviews. You have not provided it. You can't, because it
> doesn't exist. 

Okay, page number and edition and all that.  American hard cover edition, chapter 23, 
'Horcruxes', page 498, fifth line from the top of the page.  Slughorn is discussing horcruxes 
with young Tom, in the true pensieve memory.

"But how do you do it?"
"By an act of evil -- the supreme act of evil.  By committing murder.  Killing rips the soul apart."

Right there in black and white, very much canonical.  *Killing* rips the soul apart.  The act of 
taking another's life tears your soul apart.  Slughorn doesn't say anything about tearing your 
soul in half, though, nor does he mention extenuating circumstances to the killing.  He just 
states, flat out, that killing rips the soul apart.  However, and this is only my opinion and 
interpretation, souls can *HEAL*, if the torn parts are not separated.  The reason horcruxes are 
such dark magic, IMO, is because using one forever prevents any such healing to occur; the 
damage to the soul would be irreparable, as the torn pieces are forever kept apart.  It would be 
like if you cut off your arm, or something.  With immediate, careful surgery, the arm can be re-
attached, and with rehabilitation, you can regain much, possibly all, of the use of it you once 
had.  However, if you cut off your arm and hide it somewhere, that's it, you'll never have your 
arm back again.  Even if, by some chance, you later on try to have the arm re-attached, it's no 
good -- the arm would be long past saving.  My thought is that, while the bit of soul encased 
within a horcrux would not 'die' as the severed arm would, it would still never be able to be re-
integrated into the remaining soul left within you.  You would remain a torn, *incomplete* soul, 
which would be much worse than a once-torn, now-scarred, but *complete* soul.

As for killing someone for a good and valid reason, such as defending yourself or your loved 
ones, or hastening a slow and painful and inevitable or unavoidable death, these would also rip 
the soul apart.  Even so, time and forgiveness (from others and also from yourself) would 
eventually heal even the most shattered soul.  I'm sure that Dumbledore believed this.  I still 
haven't made up my mind about whether or not DD and Snape had ever discussed the 
possibility that Snape might have to kill Dumbledore, but I do think that, if it ever comes to light 
that they had discussed that, then Dumbledore would have comforted himself with that belief, 
that Snape's soul, given time and forgiveness, would heal eventually.  I imagine that even 
Voldemort, having killed more than just six people, I'm sure, would, eventually, have had a 
whole, though very scarred, soul, had he not turned to horcruxes.  Having done just that, 
though, and having put so many pieces of himself out there, the remaining bits of soul still left 
within him must be having a very hard time knitting back together.

***
Tammy Rizzo
ms-tamany at rcn.com

What were you in your pants that was still pining over and went to the
businessman?
          -- 'Atlanta Nights', by Travis Tea (chapter 34)