Harry not a Horcrux

[Cyril A Fernandes]

No: HPFGUIDX 161266

Cyril here...

<Big snip>

> Neri:
> Hmmm. actually, it does work in your version. Lets see if I 
understand it. What you say is that a soul bit would naturally be 
attracted to humans. That it actually takes a special effort to make 
a *non-living* Horcrux, including clearing the area first of 
interferring humans? So, if anything goes wrong with the encasing 
spell, and there's an avilable human around, the default result 
would be a living Horcrux? I don't know any special canon for this, 
but it's certainly possible.
> 

Dung:
Yep, that's what I mean. Inanimate objects are not naturally capable 
of holding an immaterial immortal soul, but people (at least within 
the Potterverse) are. And, no, there's no canon!

Cyril here:

True, it is difficult to find canon to support this, but all the more leeway to speculate <g>

However, this makes a lot of sense in the way that, normally, when somebody would be doing murder, the act itself is what causes the soul to tear. However, the torn soul bit does not itself detach from the body, and needs a spell to do that. Furthermore some magic is used to create the Horcrux which then contains the split off piece of soul.

So, a reason for the torn soul bit not to split is the affinity to the host body in which it already is residing. No need to search for another one. But in this case, the split piece no longer had a host body, and so it could have gone to look for one, and hence found Harry readily available.

This would not require any ability to clear the area for humans (or any other living creatures) to make a non-living Horcrux, as the process to remove the torn piece and direct it into an object could be a continuous process, without giving the soul bit opportunity to choose nearby humans (else the human from which it originally was torn out would presumably be the closest living thing and it would always be coming back there only.

> > bboyminn:
> > <snipped>
> > Then Voldemort will turn on Harry, but instead of
> > killing Harry he will truly kill himself. He will destroy 
> > (or release) the last remaining soul-bit, the spell will 
> > rebound on a fully mortal Voldemort, and that will be the
> > end. 
> 
Dung:
Why didn't Voldy kill off the bit of Voldysoul when he tried to AK 
baby Harry in GH? Or is that why you intriguingly refer to 'a yet to 
happen set of circumstances?'

Dungrollin

Cyril here - the reason that this would not have happened is because that soul bit was not yet in Harry. It only entered Harry after LV's soul was split from his body, which was after the AK.

Also, am not sure if this has been covered before, but the current speculation seems to be that the split piece that entered Harry's body was due to the murder of Lily. However, if that was the case, even James murder would have created a torn piece which was also equally available to enter Harry. Given what our limited knowlwdge about Horcruxes and the process of creating them, it is difficult to say that Lily's or James murder was the one that created the torn piece that entered Harry.

However, given Dungrollin's theory, I have a thought that the torn piece was due to the attempted murder of Harry. When LV cast the AK to kill Harry, it split his soul. The intent to kill which was actioned was enough to split the soul (even though techncally murder had not been committed). However, when the curse rebounded, the split piece was no longer staying with the main piece, because there was no body to which it had affinity, so it went in search for a new host, which was Harry. The main soul piece itself however seemed to have escaped, and not gone looking for a host body. Not sure why, but that maybe because that was the main piece that still contained LV's sense of self, and hence was not looking for a host body, somewhat similar to what happens to a normal soul on death of the body.

Cyril, not originally liking the concept of Harry!Crux, but finding the possibility that Harry has a soul bit without being a Horcrux very interesting.

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