Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)

[Mike Crudele]

No: HPFGUIDX 157373

--- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157206 
  > hickengruendler wrote:
 
> Nowwhere it is said in Canon, that any magic needs to be done 
> for your soul to split. It splits when you murder somebody.< break>
   
  Mike:
I don't mean to sound flippant, but we are talking about a series with wizards and magic, aren't we? You aren't really suggesting that the *magical splitting of your soul* can be accomplished without using magic to commit the murder, are you? Does that sound consistent with this book series?
   
  > hickengruendler cont.:
> When Voldemort poisoned Mrs Smith, his soul splitted, because 
> he commited murder. He has to do some spell to make the Horcrux,
> but this is after the killing (and could probably be done anytime 
> once your soul is split). His soul splits anyway, with or without 
> any spell. <break, again>
   
  Mike:
First off we don't know that Voldy poisoned Hepzibah, we only know that Hokie was *blamed* for poisoning her mistress. We, like DD, believe that Voldy killed Hepzibah and planted the *poisoning* story in Hokie's mind. Combined with the Ministry's bent towards eschewing forensics, it is quite possible that Voldy didn't poison Ms. Smith.
   
  Secondly, a poison potion does require magic to make. JKR has confirmed this. Despite all this, I'm still not convinced that Voldy either did use this murder to create a Horcrux or could have used a poisoning murder to create one.
 
> hickengruendler cont.:
> I agree with Carol. The Basilisk is IMO nothing but the murder 
> weapon. Voldemort killed Myrtle. He killed her as if he used a 
> dagger and stabbed her to death. Just that the "dagger" was 
> a magical creature. <break, again>
   
  Mike again:
See above, I cannot conceive that non-magical murder will achieve the same results re the soul as magical murder. Not in this WW. Granted, this murder required a special language to accomplish. But if Tom had used a train hit-hippogryff, commanding him in English, would you change your opinion? Based on your contention of using the *dagger*, I would say not.
  
> > Mike previously:
> > I don't see how you work out that "Kill her!" *operates* exactly the 
> > same way as "AK". One is a command to another entity, the second is 
> > spell casting which, we have been told, requires powerful magical 
> > abilities behind it. Besides, "Kill him!" doesn't ensure the desired 
> > outcome, whereas a properly cast AK (unless it's cast at Harry) 
> > does seem to do the trick every time, doesn't it?
> 
> Hickengruendler again:
> 
> I still don't see much of a difference. If you say "kill him" to a 
> dangerous monster, that is under your control, I would argue that the 
> outcome is pretty much ensured. Admittingly, the attack could still 
> fail, but an AK doesn't have to hit, either. Many AK's in the DoM 
> missed their aim. So I think the first has as good a chance to 
> succeed as the later.
  
 
  Mike:
  I would say that you missed my main point, but first let's tackle probabilities. I counted three AKs cast in the MoM battle between LV and DD. Two were foiled by DD, blocked and dodged, one was swallowed by Fawkes. Compare that to Harry's second year where four kids and one cat were attacked by the Basilisk and none died. In the second case, none of the attacks were defended by DD, they were on their own. 
   
  Furthermore, we have two cases where LV (once as Diary!Tom) commanded deadly poisonous *monsters* to kill someone and both of them survived. And both of these "attacks" were successful, in as much as both creatures managed to inject deadly poison into their "intended" victims. In fact, the only successful murder commanded of deadly *monster* AFAIK was Myrtle's and hers may have been accidental in as much as Tom may not have been targeting her.
   
  
But my main point, and perhaps I wasn't clear, was that the killing method matters in the Potterverse. A properly cast AK, that *hits the target*, is an investment of powerful magic. Creating a horcrux is against nature, so it makes sense that it would require powerful magic in each step to accomplish this. Also, the murder would have to be of another human soul possessor (I don't think I'm out on a limb with this assertion). Slughorn told us that one would have to "commit murder". This is very straight forward IMO, use one's own magical abilities to cause the death of another human.
   
  An AK also has an immediacy quality that confirms the intent matched the outcome. "The wizard intent upon creating a horcrux" (Slughorn, HBP) is left with no doubt that he has split his soul. And if, as I have postulated on other threads, the horcrux encasement spell needs to be cast prior to committing the *intended murder*, there is no doubt that the *intent* to create a horcrux was successful. But even if you are in the encasement spell comes after camp, the wizard stills knows immediately that his soul was split.
   
  Conversely, commanding a *monster* to kill (or brewing a potion) does not require the investment of powerful magic. Equally important, there is no immediacy. The command is made then the wizard has to see if the attack is successful and if that success resulted in the death of the victim. Using the attack on Arthur, the attack was successful but he didn't die immediately. Let's say St. Mungos couldn't find a cure and he died six months later. Would that scenario seem conducive to horcrux creation? I think not, but by your example, the 'murdering' wizard has a split soul sometime in the future after the *commanded* attack. 
   
  IOW, splitting the soul, especially for the purpose of horcrux creation, would require the powerful magic and the immediate impact of a killing curse cast by a wizard "intent" upon "committing" murder. Accidental homicide would not qualify, neither would commissioning a contract murder. The murder must be committed by the "hand" of the wizard to cause that wizard's soul to split. Remember the universe this is operating in.
   
  IMO, this has interesting ramifications vis-a-vis Harry and Voldemort. Is killing a wizard that is guilty of multiple murders (including your own parents) considered murder in the Potterverse?  Or is he satisfying something akin to a life debt by bringing the guilty party to justice?  Does Vlodemort have enough of a soul left to call killing him a murder of another human with a soul?

 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

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