Harry Horcrux redux

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 155097


> Carol again:
> Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. The explanation doesn't
> seem to explain, as Frodo would put it. It doesn't provide a
> *mechanism* for the transfer of powers. But you know those
> white-bearded old wizards. It's all the explanation we're likely to get.
> 

Neri:
It's possible, of course, but I hope not. Leaving it unexplained would
be very poor writing, especially as we are talking about one of the
most central events in the plot. 


> Carol:
> Seriously, until HBP, everyone accepted the transfer of powers as
> sufficient to explain why Harry can speak Parseltongue.

Neri:
I can't speak for everyone, but *I* certainly never accepted it as a
sufficient explanation. I even constructed a rather complicated
pre-HBP theory (search for Mind-Linked!Snape, aka VASSAL) that
explained it as part of Voldemort's immortality project.

BTW, I too suspect that Harry has more of Voldy's powers, possibly all
of them. But that would make the transfer of powers even more
important and dramatic, so a lack of explanation would look even worse.


> Carol:
> Granted, we don't know the mechanism, but it may be unimportant, at
> least in JKR's view. Consider her "explanation" of how Patronuses work.

Neri:
First – we did get an explanation of the basic logic, if not the
mechanism, behind the Patronus. "The Patronus is a kind of positive
force, a projection of the very things that the Dementor feeds upon —
hope, happiness, the desire to survive — but it cannot feel despair,
as real humans can, so the Dementors can't hurt it." The Patronus
spell uses the memory of a happy moment to battle despair. In the
framework of the Potterverse that makes sense. But the transfer of
magical powers as a result of a rebounded AK – that doesn't even make
sense. It sounds completely arbitrary.

Secondly, the Patronus spell isn't so unique and central to the heart
of the plot as the transfer of powers. It's a standard spell, used by
many wizards. Its existence is part of the basic assumptions of the
Potterverse. In contrast the transfer of powers seems to be an
extremely rare and unusual occurrence even in the Potterverse. We
don't have any other example of such a thing in the whole series –
unless you count Ginny using Parseltongue as a result of being
possessed by one of Voldemort's soul parts. 
 

> Carol: 
> Bottom line: We *know* that some of Voldemort's powers (or carbon
> copies of them) were transferred to Baby!Harry. We *don't* know that
> they were transferred via a soul bit. One is canon; the other is
> speculation. I could provide you with my own speculations, but they
> won't convince you, and I'm not sure of them myself.

Neri:
Of course it's a speculation and of course it's not the only one. But
it *is* the only one that is based on a mechanism already described in
canon. 


> Carol:
> there's no canon whatever to support the idea that a Horcrux can be
> created accidentally. Slughorn tells us that encasing the soul bit
> requires a spell (most likely a complex bit of Dark magic considering
> the heinousness and rarity of Horcruxes), and no such spell was or
> could have been performed at Godric's Hollow.
> 

Neri:
I really don't see why you consider Slughorn such an expert on
Horcruxes. He tells us himself that he's no expert. The only sentence
in which he mentions a spell is: "there is a spell, do not ask me, I
don't know!" Hardly sounds to me like a reliable source for concluding
anything. Certainly not that it couldn't have happened in GH.
Dumbledore, OTOH, who probably knows about Horcruxes more than
Slughorn, never mentions a spell and never tells us that it can't
happen by accident. Anyway JKR had already demonstrated to us quite
dramatically that spells can happen by accident in some unique
situations (Priori Incantatum). And what happened in GH certainly
qualifies as a unique situation.

But the fact is, we have already seen one of Voldemort's soul parts
possessing a girl *without* any additional "spell" by Voldemort
himself. Suppose for a minute that you've never read CoS and you don't
know what happened with Diary!Riddle. Wouldn't you conclude from
Slughorn's explanation in HBP that what happened in CoS is impossible
as well? 


> Carol again:
> On the contrary, the whole of OoP involves exactly that form of
> atypical Legilimency.

Neri:
Again, you explain something by the thing itself. The phenomena we've
seen in OotP regarding the connection between Harry and Voldemort are
exactly what we need an explanation for. Had we seen *another* case in
which Legilimency produced similar phenomena, then we'd have a basis
to conclude that it could be Legilimency. 

Snape tells us that it *is* Legilimency, but he also tells us that
Legilimency requires proximity, usually an eye contact, and cannot
generally be used through Hogwarts' protections. His conclusion is
that this is Legilimency through a special connection forged between
Harry and Voldemort. But the very *existence* of that connection is
what requires the explanation, and we've never seen or told about
another example of such a connection formed by Legilimency.

If this was just a special form of Legilimency that Harry acquired
from Voldemort, why isn't Harry generally good at Legilimency? Why
does this Legilimency work only with Voldemort? 


> Carol:
The scar as a conduit
> between Harry and Voldemort is canon, as is the ability to see into
> Voldemort's mind without the eye contact usually required for
> Legilimency. No Horcrux required, just the acquisition of powers that
> would otherwise be peculiar to Voldemort.
> 

Neri:
Except that you don't explain "the acquisition of powers that would
otherwise be peculiar to Voldemort" in the first place, and you don't
explain why the scar is a conduit, so the whole thing remains
completely unexplained.


  
> Neri:
> > OTOH we have a ripped soul part released into the air in GH (once
> Voldemort had lost his body). <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> Do we? I thought the wizard had to detach the ripped soul part from
> the main soul and encase it in an object using a spell. There's
> nothing to indicate any part of Voldy's soul floating around Godric's
> Hollow except the main soul expelled from his body.

Neri:
I never heard about detaching the ripped soul. Are you saying that if
a person who had just committed a murder is killed, then only one of
his soul parts leaves his body, while the ripped part remains there?
Doesn't sound logical to me. And what if the body is destroyed, as
Voldemort's body seemrd to in GH? What happens to the ripped soul part
then?


> Carol:
In any case,
> Voldemort killed two people, not one, before trying to kill Harry, and
> there's no indication that he intended to use either of those soul
> bits to create a Horcrux. And what about all the other murders that he
> personally committed (Marlene McKinnon is one of them, IIRC) but were
> not used for Horcruxes because they weren't important enough? Those
> torn bits must still be part of the damaged main soul because they
> were never ripped off and encased in Horcruxes. (I think of his soul
> as having a large number of perforations, like a sheet of postage
> stamps.) All those unused soul bits have to be somewhere, and I
> doubt that they're all floating around loose in the WW.

Neri:
Hmm. The words "split", "rip apart" and "the torn portion", used by
both Slughorn and Dumbledore several times, convey to me something a
bit more serious than stamp perforations. The word "detach" IIRC is
never mentioned by any of them. I tend to assume that a usual murder
rips the soul apart, but normally both pieces remain together within
the body of the murderer, so with time they might rejoin, although
probably not in a seamless way. But if immediately after a fresh
murder the body of the murderer is destroyed, I'd say the most
reasonable consequence would be that at least two parts of his soul
would be released. So we have a plan to create a Horcrux in GH, we
have more than one murder, and we have a torn soul part of a Dark
wizard who's an expert in possession released into the same room with
a baby whose forehead has just been punctured by a Dark curse. Your
honor, I'd say we have the means, the motive and the opportunity. 


> > Neri:
> > There's an obvious plot reason for Harry to be a Horcrux, and
> > especially the *last* Horcrux: It would mean that he has Voldemort's
> > memories up to the point when this Horcrux was created. IOW the
> > identities and locations of all the previous Horcruxes are stored in
> > Harry's head. He only has to come to terms with what he is and reach
> > deep enough into his own mind.
> 
> Carol:
> Obvious to you, perhaps. To me, it's obvious that the last Horcrux
> should be Nagini. Harry will have to kill her anyway. Why not kill two
> birds (or plot elements) with one stone?
> 

Neri:
Even if Nagini is a Horcrux, Harry already thinks she is and he can
find her. But finding the Hufflepuff Cup, or the Ravenclaw Horcrux
that Harry doesn't even know what it is, this would certainly be
easier if Harry was a Horcrux that was created after they were. And it
would also fit nicely with Dumbledore's words that Voldemort, by
attacking Harry, had created his worse enemy and gave him the tools
for the job.
 

> Carol:
> And where is your evidence that a soul bit contains memories? The
> diary contained a specific memory of an incident that occurred on June
> 13 fifty years before CoS. It may have contained other memories of
> that year as well--the ones that Tom recorded in the diary and wanted
> the person who opened it to read. There's no evidence that it included
> all of his memories up to that time--it was a one-year diary, and he
> may not have recorded memories for every day of the school year--only
> those that would help him carry on Salazar Slytherin's "noble work."

Neri:
Diary!Riddle recognized a Phoenix and remembered that Phoenix tears
have healing power. I guess you could say he remembered it because it
was written in the diary. He could use the powers of possession and
Parselmouth. I guess you could say that directions for using these
powers were written in the diary. Of course, his agenda included
things that could not have been written in the diary, such as killing
Harry Potter. In short, this Horcrux seemed to have a personality, and
this personality didn't sound like it had total amnesia about 15 out
of its 16 years history.

> Carol:
> When diary!Tom stepped out of its pages, *he* retained the memories of
> his earlier life, but would that hold true for a Horcrux in which only
> a soul bit, not a memory, would be encased? The other Horcruxes are
> intended to protect the soul bit, not to be interactive. I think
> you're assuming more than we really know.
> 

Neri:
Well, the process of theorizing sometime involves assuming more than
we really know <g>. Still, there are theories that are more likely and
theories that are less likely. The fact is that Horcruxes *do* exist
in the Potterverse and *can* have powers, memories (at least in the
form of written words and probably in other forms as well) and
agendas. That's much more than we know about any alternative mechanism
of what happened in GH.

And also ask yourself – what was the GH Horcrux intended to be? Maybe
Voldy meant it in the first place to be a living Horcrux (Lily
according to my theory, maybe Nagini, anyway we don't know of any
*object* that he had in mind). If that soul part was originally
intended to control a living Horcrux, then we shouldn't be surprised
if it had special capabilities, just like the Diary Horcrux.


> Carol:
> You like the resolution that you think Horcrux!Harry would provide. I
> see your version as only one possible version of the Horcrux!Harry
> theory, and Horcrux!Harry as only one possible solution to the
> destruction of Voldemort. There's nothing obvious or necessary about
> it.

Neri:
I'd say that out of the ones I heard it's the solution that explains
the largest number of mysteries with the least number of assumptions. 


> Carol:
Nor can you state as fact that Riddle's memories would be stored
> in Harry's head if he's a Horcrux. If that's the case, why hasn't Hary
> had access to them, especially in OoP, when he was so closely attuned
> to Voldemort?

Neri:
You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the name T.M. Riddle
sounded familiar to Harry in CoS, as if it was a childhood memory, and
that he knew instinctively how to destroy Diary!Riddle although he
never planned it or thought about it. How do you explain these
mysteries if Harry isn't a Horcrux?


> Carol, wishing she'd never heard of Horcruxes 

Neri:
I think we've finally reached the bottom of it. You simply don't like
Horcruxes. The truth is that I don't like them much either. But it
seems that JKR does, and this is what counts.


Neri