[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as a horcrux

[Kathy King]

No: HPFGUIDX 157002

  Snow:
>
>
>
> I'm going to respond to segments without snipping.
>
>
>
> Carol responds:
> Hi, Amanda. You're not the only one who thinks that Harry is not a
> Horcrux. However, Dumbledore is only deducing, based on what he knows
> of Horcruxes and Riddle/Voldemort, not stating facts, so he could be
> wrong on more than one point. (He does seem to be wrong in stating
> that Voldemort used Nagini to kill frank Bryce, but that could just be
> a Flint.) I happen to think that Nagini *is* a Horcrux, but that she
> was made one much earlier, and with a more significant murder than
> Frank Bryce's. Also, Voldemort wsn't really in any condition to make a
> Horcrux using Frank's murder--he was in fetal form (Baby!mort), barely
> able to hold a wand and wholly dependent on Wormtail to feed him, etc.
> Since creating Horcruxes seems to involve some sort of physical
> transformation (smearing his features or making him more snakelike) I
> don't think he would or could have done it then, if only because
> Wormtail would be surprised by any change in his appearance and might
> start arriving at his own conclusions about LV's immortality. Since LV
> was already snakelike before Godric's Hollow (the DEs in the graveyard
> recognize him and show no surprise or horror at his appearance), I
> think Nagini was already a Horcrux before GH--which does not make
> Dumbledore wrong about LV still being one Horcrux short at Godric's
> Hollow--he would have the ring, the locket, the cup, something from
> Ravenclaw, and Nagini. So he could still want to use Harry's murder to
> create a Horcrux, but he certainly would not have intentionally made
> Harry, the Prophecy Boy he wants to kill, into a Horcrux.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> I do agree that If Nagini was one of the Horcruxes it would have been
> before Godric's Hollow because Riddle started to transform with snakelike
> features early on. However, this is not conclusive to Nagini since his
> family has an adept inbreed aptitude toward snakes. I would not be soooo
> surprised that he would not physically resemble one.  I do agree that
> Voldemort did not intentionally even consider Harry as a Horcrux container.
>
>
>
> Carol:
> So, in essence I agree with you, and I agree that it's probably
> impossible to create an accidental Horcrux.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Now here is where we disagree. Why would it be impossible to create an
> accidental Horcrux? I'll let you continue…
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> However, the procedure seems to be killing a person, which automatically
> splits the soul, then casting some sort of spell (I suspect that an
> elaborate ritual is
> involved since this is magic of the Darkest sort). I agree that the
> killing precedes the Horcrux creation--LV doesn't prepare a Horcrux
> and bring it with him to the murder scene as some people have
> suggested), but he wouldn't use Harry's murder *as* a Horcrux; he
> would use it to *create* one--after the fact and in secrecy, without
> Wormtail or anyone else being present to witness its creation.
>
> What object he would have used, we don't know--perhaps he was still
> hoping to obtain something from Gryffindor at a later time--but it
> certainly would not have been Harry or the scar that did not exist
> until the AK backfired (and actually, it was a cut, not a scar, at
> that point).
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Herein lies the problem since we are very unaware of what happens to
> create the Horcrux and how involved the process is, If this wouldn't be
> enough we have the old magic that Lily evoked to save Harry, how might this
> old magic have affected the intended victim or any curse that was used on
> him?
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
> I think that some of the powers that Voldemort lost when the AK
> backfired went into Harry through that open cut.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Voldemort claims that he lost all of his powers except the one to possess
> creatures or humans.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> (How LV regained them, we don't know, but it's canonical that he did, and
> it certainly was not done by recovering lost soul bits.)
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Satellite!Harry still lives
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121617
>
> Anyone interested in knowing how Voldemort could still use his powers even
> though he was babymort should probably check this out.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> I don't think that the powers are in the soul. Magic seems to be in the
> blood, so maybe a bit of LV's blood got into Harry's cut at GH. That makes
> more sense to me than a soul bit getting in.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Interesting, I always thought that the soul was the person. We could be
> getting into a can of worms here but I will try to divert that avenue and
> simply reiterate that Voldemort knew that he lost his powers…all but one.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> IMO, when a soul bit escapes from a destroyed Horcrux, it goes wherever
> the soul of a dead person goes (beyond the Veil?). If LV had any loose soul
> bits--and he'd committed a lot of murders that weren't used for Horcruxes
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Sorry for the abrupt pause again but where does it state that Voldemort
> committed a lot of murders? I'm sincerely not trying to nitpick. I am
> however referring to Sirius' statement that Voldemort didn't kill anyone
> himself unless it was someone important (paraphrased badly, but same meaning
> [reference Regulus death as seen by Sirius]). I truthfully feel that
> Voldemort only killed someone himself in preparation of making a Horcrux.
> Really look at this one. Then again it would all come down to what type of
> death could be used as a Horcrux, I suppose. I submit that only the death of
> someone who is innocent or unarmed could be used as a Horcrux. I think that
> all of Riddle's victims that we are aware of have been thus.
>
>
>
> Carol continued:
>
>
>
> --they would, IMO, have floated off and been lost. But I don't think they
> were actually loose, or he'd have considerably less than one seventh of a
> soul
> (let's not look into the mechanics of soul-splitting and how
> equal-sized parts could be removed, each one exactly one-seventh
> regardless of how many murders he had committed!). I think that they
> were split off through the act of murder but not actually detached or
> removed from the main soul--the Horcrux-creating spell would be
> required to detach the soul bit and encase it in something other than
> the murderer's body--a complex bit of magic that can't be performed
> accidentally.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> But you need to accept an exception here since we are dealing with a
> person (Harry) who was protected by old magic and we don't know how that can
> act anymore than how it did act. How do we know how this attempted killing
> would act under an old magic protection? If Voldemort is prepared to kill
> Harry to make his final Horcrux (surmised by Dumbledore), but is vanquished
> (which he was) by old magic why couldn't this same magic have caused the
> Horcrux action to react? We don't know, do we?
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
> It's much simpler and cleaner for Harry to have acquired some of LV's
> powers without acquiring a bit of his tainted soul, which IMO his body
> would reject in any case because of the love magic, just as love
> forced Voldemort himself out of Harry when he attempted to possess him
> physically.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> First off we don't know how long it took before Harry's body could not
> sustain being possessed by Voldemort. This was a very young child who did
> have repercussion from the first attack but it was not a lengthy possession,
> was it? We don't know, but my guess is that it was not, which is why Harry
> lives. Dumbledore claimed in the first book that the attack from
> Quirrell/Voldemort nearly killed him. Yet, the fifth book Voldemort resides
> within Harry longer and would have remained if it was not for Harry saying
> that he would die rather than (a) allow the pain to continue (b) allow
> Voldemort to control him. The conclusion might be that, the older Harry
> becomes the more he can resist the control of possession.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> If Harry is a Horcrux, I see no way for him to destroy
> Voldemort without dying at the exact same time. (How can he
> kill/destroy Voldemort if he, the last Horcrux, is dead? And how can
> he kill/destroy Voldemort if he, the last Horcrux, is still alive?
> We'd be back to Vapormort, with no Chosen One to destroy him. If Harry
> *isn't a Horcrux, then JKR doesn't have to deal wit this vicious
> circle of unnecessary plot complications.)
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> You're probably not going to enjoy or accept my answer to this one anymore
> than my other attempts but…Harry is being made into a living Philosopher's
> Stone. It is the only way that Harry can survive the final destruction of
> Voldemort!
>
> Harry is a Horcrux intentional or otherwise (I think otherwise) and I do
> believe that Dumbledore long ago suspected such a link was possible but not
> probable but he still kept it in mind. Dumbledore evoked all manners of
> protection but the ultimate would be what he learned from dear Nicholas
> Flammel. This would ensure (and be the last stitch effort) Harry's safety if
> everything else failed. If it came down to (what Dumbledore feared was the
> truth, Harry was an unintentional Horcrux) Harry's seventh year and
> Voldemort was still not vanquished, all the Horcruxes were not found and
> destroyed then the inevitable must happen and Albus must die in sacrifice to
> ensure the alchemy of the living stone.
>
> I knew you wouldn't like it Carol but I just had to say it ;)
>
> Carol:
>
>
> In any case, Harry!Horcrux is *not* a given, and not everyone accepts
> the theory. I am quite sure that DD would have thought of it and
> mentioned it to Harry when he told him "everything." It has already
> been established that Harry is not possessed or possessable.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> First, Harry is possessable if Voldemort wants to live there, which he
> could not at the point that he attempted it, but to say that Harry could not
> be possessed is an assumption I think. And secondly I truly believe that
> Dumbledore was quite aware of the possibility that Harry was a Horcrux from
> the very beginning. Dumbledore said that he had conclusive proof with the
> Diary that a Horcrux had been made but that does not mean that he had not
> considered that possibility long ago.
>
> As far as Dumbledore mentioning the possibility, why would you scare the
> kid…if Harry knew that He was a Horcrux, wouldn't Harry have thought like
> you and figured that he was dead before he had a chance?
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that he's not "Horcruxable," either, and that Harry
> acquired some of LV's *powers,* as DD has said at least twice, without
> acquiring any of that filthy and contaminated soul.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Again, Voldemort claimed in the graveyard that he lost his powers all but
> the one of Possession.
>
> Carol, who can provide links to her other "Harry is not a Horcrux"
> posts if anybody wants them
>
>
>
> Always open-minded
>
> Snow
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]