Harry as a horcrux

[snow15145]

No: HPFGUIDX 157054



Carol:
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.

Snow:

I could definitely give you this one since I don't care completely 
for the unintentional Horcrux but more so that Harry received that 
portion of Voldemort's split soul. Harry would then contain 
Voldemort's soul minus the complex spell that creates the Horcrux. 
Harry is still a container for Voldemort's bit of soul but without 
the spell so
would that cause Harry to have to commit suicide to 
vanquish it? 

Carol:
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!)

Snow:

You know it's the one power that I don't think that Harry has access 
to only because Voldemort took that one with him. You never know 
though.

Carol:
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:

Religiously, when you die all that is you goes to Heaven the blood 
however stays with the body until the vampire sucks it out and 
replaces it with embalming fluid. 

I suppose it comes down to what you think about the Horcrux ability. 
Does a Horcrux have the capability of performing magic? We know one 
did
but that one had a bit extra in it. So let's move on to if a 
Horcrux can defend itself through magic, well we do know that 
Dumbledore had a blackened hand as the result of destroying one (and 
Harry didn't) but then again we don't know whether the protection 
lies within or was protected outwardly when it was hidden. I tend to 
think that because Harry could destroy a Horcrux without harm to 
himself that the magic lies within. 

I personally feel the Horcruxes that have been created all have magic 
ability from their master, which is why Harry has his capabilities. 
If Harry has [and he does :) ] Voldemort's capabilities of magic 
(like a Horcrux would have) and Harry denied Voldemort the use of any 
of his magic (because Harry can think for himself) then Dumbledore's 
suspicion that making a living object a Horcrux would be unwise. This 
could be why Voldemort was denied his powers for some time. Voldemort 
did not make Harry a Horcrux with the complex spell (like sharing 
himself with objects under his control) but left a bit of himself in 
Harry all the same so he couldn't access these powers since the child 
was too young. 

Carol:
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.

>Snipped a bit<

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:

Voldemort did not directly kill Myrtle the basilisk killed her. 
Bertha Jorkins is questionable whether or not Voldy disposed of her 
or had Wormtail do it. Madam Bones may or may not have been killed by 
Voldemort himself even though she is suspected of such a killing. 
That would leave; Grandma Riddle, Grandpap Riddle, Daddy Riddle, 
Hepzibah Smith, Dorcas Meadows, James Potter, Lily Potter and Frank 
Bryce. The very interesting note to this group of people is that the 
majority of them have the same thing in common; they were unarmed at 
the time of the attack. It appears that this is one of the conditions 
for splitting the soul; the person attacked can't fight back. 
There're only two people in this list that could have possibly been 
fighting back which would have been James and Dorcas, neither of 
which has been confirmed in the how-they-died-department
well unless 
you want to take Voldemort's word for James death. 

I suppose it isn't so much that Voldemort didn't kill many people as 
much as the fact that those who were killed by him, for the most 
part, were unarmed. This is what first alerted me to the assumption 
that Voldemort was carefully choosing his victims and using them for 
his Horcruxes and not doing the majority of the killings that 
occurred in the Voldy war in case he accidentally killed someone who 
could cause his soul to split. It makes Voldemort's words to Lily 
(step aside) much more meaningful. If this theory is true that you 
must kill an unarmed victim in order for it to split the soul then 
Voldemort was aware that by killing Lily it would split his soul and 
his intentions were to use Harry as his final victim. By killing an 
unarmed Lily Voldemort did split his soul and then turned to Harry

the rest is the possibility that Harry unintentionally became a type 
of Horcrux. 

Harry may not be a Horcrux because the spell, as you would assume, 
was not likely issued. This wouldn't negate Harry receiving a piece 
of Voldemort soul would it? We know that Harry does have a bit of 
Voldemort in him, Harry asks Dumbledore straight out and Dumbledore 
confirms that it certainly appears so. Dumbledore reiterates this 
fact again in OOP. So we know that Harry was inflicted with a bit of 
Voldemort
like maybe 1/7th of a bit.  

Harry fighting Voldemort in the graveyard is a perfect example for my 
theory. Voldemort does not simply kill the unarmed Harry
no; he gave 
him back his wand. You see, again Voldemort is assuring that he does 
not split his soul with this death because Harry is now armed. 

> 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:
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:

Or did Lily's protection, which involved her standing defenseless, 
actually cause the bit of soul to enter Harry? 

Carol:
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:

I thought it was simply Harry's ability to love that kicked the old 
boy out of his body. Furthermore I thought that Voldemort's renewal 
using Harry's blood dissolved Lily's protection. 

Carol:
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.

Snow:

Surprise! I'm going to agree with you here that Harry is not simply 
an accidental Horcrux. He does however contain that piece of 
Voldemort soul that was accidentally created by Lily's death. Do you 
like that one a bit better since Harry is not a Horcrux persay? 

I do still feel that the Alchemy theory should not be readily 
dismissed; there is much evidence for it. Dumbledore would want to 
cover all the possible bases that he could in order to protect the 
only source of Voldemort's destruction. Whether Harry needs this 
action or not is not totally dependant to this theory. It is however 
an option. 

Snow with many apologies for the last post with all the chevrons, all 
I can say is that it was a glitch from G Mail.