Harry as a horcrux

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 157020


> > 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 responds:
We're told that the Fidelius Charm, which hides a secret within a
Secret Keeper, is highly complex. (Geoff, do you happen to know where
that quote is?) It seems likely that the Darkest spell known to
wizardkind, in which a soul bit (already split off from the main soul
through the act of murder) is removed from the murderer and encased in
an object, would be equally complex. 

Carol earlier:
> >
> > 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 responds:
Exactly. And where did they go? Into Harry, apparently. Or at least
some of them did. We know that he acquired the power to speak
Parseltongue in this way. If he acquired the powers through, say, a
drop of blood entering his cut, he could have acquired the power of
possession, too. (The only reason that Voldemort retained that
particular power was that it didn't require a wand.) And the prophecy
says that Harry is "marked . . . as [Voldemort's] equal, so maybe he
acquired *all* of Voldemort's powers (not necessarily via a soul bit).
Let's hope that, like Dumbledore, he's too noble to use some of them.
(The power of possession would come in handy, though!)

> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > 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 responds:
I don't see the point you're making with the lost powers, and I've
already noted that Harry acquired at least one power from Voldemort
(Parseltongue)--DD says "powers" plural--twice, IIRC. And we're told
repeatedly that magic is in the blood--"not a drop of magical blood"
in the Dursleys, purebloods, Half-bloods, and "Mudbloods," the blood
protection, Harry's blood in the potion that restores Voldemort to his
body, etc., etc. We're never told that powers reside in the soul. If
they did, how could Voldemort have lost his powers?

> > 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.

Carol responds:
We have, first, the killing of the unimportant little "Mudblood,"
Myrtle, to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." Then we have the
three Riddles, two of whom did nothing to deserve their deaths. Then
Hepzibah Smith, killed to acquire her valuable possessions to make
into Horcruxes. We know that Voldemort personally killed an Order
member, Dorcas Meadowes. And then we have the Potters at GH--all
personally killed by Voldemort before the AK rebounded. There may be
more people--note DD's statement regarding the Inferi, which seems to
suggest that DD killed a lot more people than the ones we can name,
and I don't trust Sirius Black's word regarding his brother, either.
he doesn't *know* what happened and is only guessing that LV regarded
his brother as unimportant because he, Sirius, regards him as a little
idiot. Since GH, Voldemort has personally killed the unimportant
witch, Bertha Jorkins, the still less important Muggle, Frank Bryce,
and the very important witch, Madam Bones. That's eleven people that
we know of, and there are almost certainly more (possibly Salazaar
Slytherin)--more than are needed to create Horcruxes. And note that DD
tells Harry that LV would have reserved the *important* killings for
Horcruxes (another reason I don't think he used Frank Bryce), which
implies that LV also committed *unimportant* murders. Obviously, he
didn't kill *only* to create Horcruxes.

Snow:
> > 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 responds:
You may be correct about the deaths he used for Horcruxes being those
of innocent people, but he certainly didn't kill only unarmed victims,
as we know from James. Madam Bones and Dorcas Meadowes may have been
armed--we don't know. And he challenged Harry to a duel, so if Harry
had died, he would have been innocent but armed. Dumbledore says that
LV preferred *important* victims--important to him, personally. Myrtle
(probably used for the diary Horcrux) would be important as his first
victim. Tom Riddle (ring Horcrux?) would be important as the father
who deserted him and his witch mother. The senior Riddles, especially
his grandfather, would have been important *to him* as wiping out the
Riddle line. Hepzibah Smith would have been important as a descendant
of Helga Hufflepuff. If, and I'm only guessing here, he killed
Grindelwald after DD destroyed his Horcrux (see earlier posts for my
reasoning here), that would certainly have qualified as an important
death even though Grindelwald as a Dark wizard must have been far from
innocent. There's no evidence that only an innocent victim can be used
for a Horcrux and DD's word that "Tom" would have preferred important
victims. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I go with DD.
> >
> >

> > 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 responds:
What "Horcrux action"? He tried to kill Harry to thwart the Prophecy.
That's canon. And you've already conceded that he wouldn't
deliberately make Harry into a Horcrux. I'm arguing that the soul bits
from Lily's and James's murders (and any others that hadn't been used
for Horcruxes) would most likely have floated off beyond the Veil, as
the soul bit in a Horcrux must also do or there would be no point in
destroying the Horcrux. And I'm arguing that based on the murders LV
apparently used to make the Horcruxes, four of them committed before
he even knew the procedure for making one, the murder occurs before
the Horcrux. He would have killed Harry and then gone to some secluded
place to prepare the Horcrux--assuming that he had even acquired the
object he intended to use. Lily's accidental magic protected Harry
from the AK. Surely it would also have protected him from being
invaded by a soul bit.

> > 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. 

Carol responds:
You're mistaking my meaning. I'm not arguing that LV possessed or
attempted to possess Baby!Harry. He wanted to kill the Chosen One,
period. I'm talking about the failed possession attempt in the MoM.
Lily's magic protects him from possession then. It would, IMO, have
protected him from the invasion of a soul bit at GH as well.

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!

Carol responds:
Interesting theory, but I wouldn't claim that *anything* is the "only
way" that Harry can survive. And I repeat that his chances for
survival or even of defeating Voldemort are much greater if he is
*not* an accidental Horcrux. See upthread for the complications that
would ensue if he really is one, which you have not answered with your
Philosopher's Stone hypothesis.

Carol, still voting for possession as the power Harry will use to
defeat LV