CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 160480

Carol earlier:
> Forgive me, but you're begging the question here by taking your point
> for granted. As I said, we don't know the characteristics of a
> Horcrux, other than that a Horcrux contains a soul fragment, anchoring
> the main or core soul to the earth and preventing the wizard from
> dying. And the "bit" of Voldemort contained in Harry seems to be some
> of his powers, including Parseltongue. We do not know and have not
> been told either by DD or the narrator that that "bit" is a soul 
> fragment.
> 
> 
> Snow:
> 
> This is speculation at this point backed by canon you can produce,
or am I wrong?

Caorl responds:
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking. I'm not saying that
you're wrong, only that you were stating your point as if it were
proven when there's no canon to back it up. All we have canon for is
that Harry acquired some of Voldemort's powers (I speculate that they
also include possession, but of course I don't have canon for that).
All I'm saying is that the "bit" of Voldemort in Harry is not
necessarily a fragment of Voldemort's soul. It could as easily be a
drop of his blood. I've already cited canon that magic is in the
blood. I can produce a page number for the Dursley quote ("not a drop
of magical blood in their veins") if need be. I'm sure you don't need
one for the use of Harry's blood in the restorative potion or all the
references to "pure blood," etc. And the potion that created LV's
rudimentary body contained unicorn blood, if that's relevant.

If you can produce canon that Harry or his scar contains a soul bit,
please do so. Otherwise, as you say, it's speculation. 
 
Carol earlier:
> 
> The diary, even without Ginny's soul, is different from the other
Horcruxes because it contains at least one *memory* of Tom Riddle in
addition to the soul bit.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> How, oh yeah because it had a possible living soul within its binding?

Carol again:
Actually, no. Please don't resort to sarcasm, okay? It's different
because it's designed to be interactive, not merely to encase a soul
bit to keep the main soul earthbound. The other Horcruxes we've seen
(except for Nagini, if she is one) are hidden away, protected by
curses (the ring) or potions and Inferi and an anti-opening spell (the
locket, which may also have a curse on it to attack anyone who dares
to open it and release the soul bit).

IMO, the diary was already a powerful magical object designed for the
purpose that LV told Lucius Malfoy about, opening the Chamber of
Secrets and releasing the Basilisk to kill "Mudbloods." Making it a
Horcrux gave the "mere memory" that had already been placed inside the
diary when Tom was sixteen additional powers, not merely possession to
cause someone to open the CoS but the ability to in essence suck out
that soul and bring Memory!Tom to life. No such memory has been
preserved in the other Horcruxes, which contain only the usual soul
bit, whose sole power, so far as we know, is the one that most
Horcruxes are designed to have, keeping the main soul alive and
earthbound even if the body is destroyed. (Can you see Dumbledore
interacting with the ring or Harry with the locket in the same way
that Harry and Ginny did with the diary? There are no pages to write
on, no responses to read, no memory to fall into. The diary had a dual
purpose unlike the other Horcruxes, none of which, IMO, could result
in a new body for Voldemort. Nor could they even be individually used.
They can only hold a soul bit indefinitely (in LV's view, forever)
and, collectively or individually, keep him "alive." As long as he has
even one Horcrux, he can't die. Nor does he need Horcruxes to create a
new body, as Wormtail demonstrated. All he needs is one follower
willing to carry out his instructions.

Carol earlier:
> 
> Consequently, we can't use it to determine the characteristics of
> a standard Horcrux, which is merely an object (preferably a
valuable, magical object) in which a soul bit is encased. It may or
may not contain a protective curse, as the ring did. (I expect that
the locket and the cup will be similarly protected, but we just don't
know.)
> 
> Snow:
> 
> I totally agree again that we cannot treat the Diary the same as the 
> other Horcruxes that were made because of the living soul aspect.

Carol again:
Well, I call it the memory aspect, but I suppose we agree on this
point, more or less.
> 
> Carol:
> 
> As for Nagini, her closeness to Voldemort is the antithesis of
Harry's enmity, and Voldemort can possess her without killing or even
paining her (Harry seeing from the snake's pov felt no pain)--very
different from the pain Harry feels in his scar even before Voldie is
restored using his blood. So, yes, I agree. Harry is not like any of
the Horcruxes, including Nagini, who is a living being with a will of
her own whether or not she has a soul.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Voldemort possessed Nagini not Harry! Harry sees what Voldemort
sees, which is why when Voldemort possessed Nagini Harry saw the
events through the snakes eyes. 

Carol:
Possibly you're misunderstanding me. Of course he possessed Nagini,
not Harry, in the MoM scene and Harry was only seeing through her eyes
because LV was possessing Nagini, as Snape says. But he can possess
her without causing her pain. When he possesses Harry, he causes Harry
such agony that he wants to die and join Sirius Black, at which point,
Voldemort suffers agony, too, because of the blood protection. But if
Harry contained a soul bit, as Nagini apparently does, surely LV could
possess him *physically* without agony to either of them because the
soul bit would already, in essence, possess him mentally or, erm,
spiritually.

Snow: 
> Nagini is a soulless creature, which is where Harry and `her' part 
> company. Nagini cannot think for herself and has no outward
feelings, which is a very big part of a soul; therefore Harry's
uniqueness is  quite solitary. 

Carol:
I think that Nagini *can* think for herself. Certainly, she tells
Voldemort that there's an old Muggle on the stairs, and we experience
her conflicting thoughts (the desire to bite vs. the Voldie-controlled
thought that she must not disturb the man). Snakes can speak, right?
Look at the conversation with the nonmagical boa constrictor in SS/PS.
Wormtail talks to his rat friends and gets information about the
nameless terror that possesses small animals from them, and post owls,
magical creatures like Nagini, deliver mail without even knowing the
address. Hedwig understands Harry when he talks to her. The
half-kneazle cat Crookshanks converses with Sirius Black when Black is
in his Animagus form. Dumbledore thinks it's unwise to place a soul
bit in a creature that can "think and move for itself." So, soulless
or not, I think Nagini *does* think and feel, not to mention
understand LV when he promises her victims to feed on and providing
him with information. Even a dog in RL can think and feel on a
rudimentary scale. Nagini is much more intelligent and more loyal than
any Death Eater except Bellatrix and Barty Jr.

As for Harry's uniqueness, I think he would behave more like Nagini if
he were a Horcrux, or there would be a conflict between the
pro-Voldemort elements in the soul bit and his own hatred of the
wizard who killed his parents. What's unique about Harry is the scar
connection and the pain he feels around Voldemort, which IMO does not
require a soul bit, only a magical connection forged by the AK that
failed. And, of course, he's the only person or creature that shares
some of Voldemort's powers. Horcrux!Nagini has a close connection with
him and naturally speaks Parseltongue, but I doubt that she has the
powers of Legilimency or possession.
> 
Carol earlier:
> Certainly, he murdered Harry's mother though it was Harry he
intended to murder, and the soul bit created by Harry's murder that he
intended to encase. To me, that's clearly the reason that he wanted
Lily to step aside. The soul fragment detached by her death would be
too insignificant, in his view, for a Horcrux. (We're left to presume
that James's death in a duel or battle didn't qualify as a murder for
the purpose of creating a Horcrux, however unfair Voldemort's tactics,
and to wonder what became of the soul fragments from all those other
murders.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> So glad you brought this up since it is very relevant. What was the 
> difference between Voldemort killing James that night and his
killing Lily? James fought back and Lily didn't. Most every death that
was used as a Horcrux was an unarmed victim, which is murder! But
worse than that would be an unarmed victim that was begging not for
them self but for someone else!

Carol again:
So we agree that Voldemort didn't count James's death as a murder. But
 do you agree that Voldemort didn't want to split his soul using
Lily's death, which is why he told her to step aside? (I won't even
get into how he could be sure that the next murder would result in
splitting off 1/7 of his soul!) Also, I'm not sure how this part of
the argument strengthens the Harry!Unofficial Horcrux argument. It
does, however, explain why LV tol Lily to step aside. Her death wasn't
significant to use for making a Horcrux with, as he intended to do
with Harry's. (I don't think that he begging for mercy for Harry made
her more significant. Myrtle's murder would be significant as his
first; the Riddles would be significant because he was wiping out his
Muggle bloodline; Hepzibah Smith would be significant as a Hufflepuff
descendant and the owner of two valuable artifacts that he wanted to
make into Horcruxes; Harry would be significant as the Chosen One.
Lily is just a "Mudblood," a "silly girl," no more significant than
any other Order member. If he managed to kill Grindelwald after DD
destroyed his Horcrux, that would also be a significant and
Horcrux-worthy murder.)
> 
> Carol snipped slightly:
> 
> But a split soul does not a Horcrux make, or most of the Death
Eaters and every other murderer in the WW would have one. (We don't
even know whether all killing results in a split soul or what exactly
a split soul means.) 
> 
> Snow:
> 
> If someone commits a hennas crime there soul may surely be split but 
> without a spell and/or destination for that split to adhere to, it 
> may just dissolve without a soul to keep it alive but only in the 
> event that such an occurrence coincided almost simultaneously with 
> there own death, which of course in this particular case it did. 

Carol:
I don't think so. I think the soul is just damaged but remains with
the murderer. The soul fragment created by the murderer is
detachachable if the murderer wants to encase it in a Horcrux, but
ordinarily, he doesn't do so. I have some hope that a split soul can
heal if the murderer repents (Snape!), but I think that in LV's case,
the soul fragments from his various murders remained detachable until
and unless he encased them in a Horcrux. (Exactly how he could choose
the soul fragment he wanted to use or guarantee that it was exactly
one-seventh of his soul is beyond my comprehension.) I don't think
that those soul bits floated free when his soul was expelled from his
body. I think they remained with the main soul. Only the fragments
that he deliberately detached and encased would be Horcruxes. (If you
can produce some canon for free-floating soul bits, please do so. I'm
waiting for JKR to crush this particular rumor on her website. :-) )
> 
> Carol:
> 
> Did it? Where is your evidence that it didn't stay with the core soul?
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Evidence? I though we were speculating but I'll go with it
 To 
> separate does mean to split or am I wrong again? If the soul split 
> and the core goes with Voldemort where does the fragment caused by 
> Lily's death go?

Carol:
No, "split" and "separate" are not exact synomnyms. Have you ever had
a pair of pants split along the seams but not separate into two
pieces? I think the pieces that were split, ready to be detached but
not yet removed, stayed with the damaged main soul. (Doesn't
Dumbledore use that very word, "damaged," to describe LV's soul?) But
suppose you're right and the soul bit was detached. Why would it go
into Harry rather than dissolving or going beyond the Veil, which I
take to be the ultimate destination of all souls. It wouldn't be
earthbound like the main soul or the destruction of a Horcrux couldn't
result in the loss of a soul bit. And what about all those other
murders, which also fragmented Voldie's soul but weren't used in
Horcruxes? If all of those floated away or went into Harry, Voldie
would have something like 1/100 of a soul left!

> 
> Carol:
> 
> Certainly he didn't deliberately detach the torn soul and encase it
in an object, which requires both an object (not a person) and a spell.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Voldemort did not deliberately cause this event nor did he use a 
> spell, which is why Harry is not a Horcrux. <snip>
>
Carol:
Well, at least we agree on that, though otherwise your scenario is
exactly like that of the Harry!Horcrux advocates. I think that
whatever is in Harry is not a soul bit because the soul bit couldn't
get into Harry without the encasing spell. A drop of blood landing in
his cut, on the other hand, could easily have mixed LV's magical blood
with Harry's own, just as Harry's blood now runs in LV's veins thanks
to the restorative potion.

Are you saying that Harry doesn't have to be killed because the
Horcrux spell wasn't performed and his soul bit isn't doing the job of
holding the main soul to earth? That's the only point I can see in
having him as a non-Horcrux soul bit container. But I think that if
Harry thought his scar contained a soul bit, he'd see himself as a
Horcrux and believe that he has to be sacrificed, which takes us back
to the unsolvable dilemma of how to destroy himself, the last Horcrux,
and kill Voldemort, too. Much better, IMO, if the climactic
penultimate battle is with Horcrux!Nagini (Mr. Potter in the graveyard
with the Sword of Gryffindor, ;-) ).

Carol earlier:
> 
> and what about all the other murders he committed that weren't used
> for Horcruxes?
> 
> Snow:
> 
> I have accounted for the majority that could possibly fit into the 
> Lily scenario in the past and don't wish to rehash unless necessary.

Carol again:

Actually, you haven't explained what happened to those soul bits,
which is what I'm asking. 
> 
> Carol:
> 
> We have, at the very least, Myrtle, three Riddles,
> Hepzibah Smith, an Order member he killed personally, James if he
> counts, and Lily. That's eight, more than enough for the five
> Horcruxes he would have had before Godric's Hollow if DD's
> calculations are correct. There are certainly many others considering
> the number of Inferi in the cave.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> It depends on how you look at the murders. If you count all 
> Voldemort's appointed murders by his deatheaters as his killing them 
> then we will come to a draw on the subject. Myrtle was not killed by 
> Voldemort anymore than Cedric was. 

Carol:
I disagree. Tom killed Myrtle using the Basilisk as his weapon. If you
sic your pit bull on someone, ordering the dog to kill the person, and
the person dies, aren't you guilty of murder? 

I agree that Cedric's death doesn't count as a murder, but he's not on
my list. Nor am I counting murders committed by Death Eaters. Look at
the murders LV has committed personally just since he got his
rudimentary body in GoF: Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, and Madam Bones.
Do you really think that he limited his murders in his glory days to
the ones I listed or let this DEs do all the killing?
> 
Carol earlier:
> 
> But my point is, how do you know that the Lily fragment hid itself
> outside Voldemort's body? What was left of his soul was expelled
from his body, but how do you know that the Lily fragment didn't
remain with the core soul? 
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Because somehow, someway Harry did receive a bit of Voldemort, a 
> connection that endowed him with equal powers (as per the prophecy) 
> that night. The night that his mother saved him with her love by 
> sacrificing herself and ensuring that Voldemort commit the most evil 
> act of murder. <snip>

Carol again:

But "a bit of Voldemort" is not necessarily a bit of Voldemort's soul,
as I keep saying. Just committing murder does not create a Horcrux, as
we agree, nor do we have any evidence of free-floating soul bits at
GH, or soul bits that can lodge themselves in a host. If that were the
case, Harry would be possessed, and we know that he isn't.


> Snow:
> 
> I'm not sure what I can say this without reiterating everything I 
> have already said, if you don't get where I'm coming from at this 
> point, I'm at a loss for words. 

Carol:
I do know where you're going. I'm just explaining why I don't agree
with you.
> 
Carol earlier:
> 
> All we know is that he has some of Voldemort's powers, which could
as easily have entered the cut that would later become a scar through
a drop of LV's magical blood as through a detached soul fragment. 
> 
> Snow:
> 
> This is not just about obtaining some of Voldemort's powers through 
> some means. This is also about a connection that was forged between 
> them that happened when Harry received the scar. <snip>

Carol:
The scar itself creates the forged connection, along with the
circumstances and the "powers." I see no need for a soul bit, only a
mutual Legilimency (one of the shared powers). The scar was not
created by the AK entering Harry's head (AK's don't make a mark). Nor
was it caused by a Horcrux-encasing spell, which we agree was never
cast. It must therefore have been caused by the deflected AK bursting
out. (We know that it was strong enough to explode Voldemort and blow
up the house, so certainly it would create some sort of opening as it
burst out--a nice, jagged, lightning-bolt shaped cut that would become
a curse scar even though it was most unusually caused by the exit
rather than the entrance of the spell.) The powers must have entered
through the cut, but the scar itself might be sufficient to create a
bond because of Lily's sacrifice or Voldemort's broken promise to
trade Lily's life for Harry's. We don't know what caused the
connection, only that it resides in the scar, which marks Harry as
Voldemort's equal because it apparently houses those unique powers.
We're no closer than we were to knowing how the powers got there. I'm
speculating a drop of blood through the cut; you're speculating that a
soul bit got in (by the same route?) accidentally and without a
Horcrux spell. I still don't buy it. Sorry.

> Carol:
> Granted. He has some of Voldemort's *powers*, including Parseltongue,
> a unique form of mutual Legilimency, and possibly possession, which I
> expect to see in Book 7. But we're told that magic resides in the
> blood (not a drop of magical blood in the Dursleys' veins,
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Not a drop? And yet Harry is most protected there beyond anything 
> that Dumbledore could have ever have empowered for a protection,
why? <snip>

Carol:
Because Lily and Petunia are blood relatives. But that doesn't make
Petunia's blood magical. Here's the quote:

"The Dursleys were what wizards called Muggles (not a drop of magical
blood in their veins) (CoS Am. ed. 3). The magic in Lily's blood must
be a mutation. It certainly doesn't come from her Muggle parents. And
the blood protection has nothing to do with her powers, only with her
sacrifice.

Snow:
> 
> Voldemort did not purposely put a scar on Harry's head, he did not 
> intend on giving powers to the babe that was pronounced to destroy 
> him, he did not foresee nor does he realize to this time, that Harry 
> will live when he conquers him cause neither can live while the
other survives. 

Carol:

Of course. I agree completely. So Dumbledore's words only mean that
Voldemort *inadvertently* caused him to "mark Harry as his equal" and
to transfer some of his powers to Harry. We're no closer to knowing
what the "bit" of Voldemort is or how it got into Harry.
> 
Carol earlier:
> So in your view, he might as well be a Horcrux. Wouldn't he have to
> die for the soul bit to be destroyed, just as he would if he were an
> official Horcrux? And in that case, how can he kill or destroy the
> Horcruxless Voldemort?
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Harry is unique! He is a living soul that does possess a portion of 
> Voldemort. Harry does not have to die but one of them does according 
> to the prophecy, neither can live
 

Carol:

I'm not following your argument here, nor am I arguing that Harry
isn't unique. Of course he is. He's the Chosen One, the Prophecy Boy,
the only one who can destroy Voldemort. But that does not make him an
unofficial Horcrux, nor does it mean that the "bit" of Voldemort in
him is a soul fragment. And the Prophecy states, "neither can live
while the other survives," not "neither can live," period. The
Prophecy merely states that "either must die at the hand of the
other," meaning "one must be killed by the other," not "both must die." 
> 
Snow:
> Harry is not a Horcrux, so all rules that we know of to the typical 
> Horcrux do not apply. The closest we come to a living Horcrux is the 
> Diary, which is controlled by a memory of the most evil person on 
> earth. Nagini is living but without a soul that can make her own 
> decisions. Harry is unique and in the end anything can apply. 
> 
Carol:
I'd say that Nagini as a living being comes closer than the diary,
which is inhabited by a memory, unlike any of the other Horcruxes, to
being what Harry would be if he were a Horcrux. Or perhaps he'd just
be a container keeping Voldemort on earth, with no special powers of
his own. Yet you say he's not a Horcrux because the spell wasn't
performed (that much I agree with); he's a living soul bit container
but unlike Quirrell and CoS!Ginny, he isn't possessed.

You could be right, but I don't think so. Yes, Harry has a "bit" of
Voldemort in him (though it's unclear how it got there). Yes, he has
some of Voldemort's powers, which, along with the blood protection and
LOVE, uniquely qualify him to defeat Voldemort. Yes, the scar provides
a connection between him and Voldemort. Yes, he is not a Horcrux. We
agree that Horcruxes can't be created accidentally.

But, no. I don't think we can reasonably conclude that Harry must be
inhabited by a soul bit, nor do I see how that could happen without
making him either an accidental Horcrux which must be destroyed or the
victim of possession like Quirrell (which we know he isn't).

If Harry is inhabited by a soul bit, he must be an accidental Horcrux.
If he's a Horcrux, he must be destroyed or Voldemort can't be killed.
If Harry's destroyed, he can't kill Voldemort. This is not a mere
JKR-style complication. It's an unresolvable dilemma.

"Either must die at the hand of the other," and I'm pretty sure that
"either" is Voldemort and "the other" is Harry, who I hope will find a
way to destroy Voldemort without using Avada Kedavra and to "live" as
the Prophecy implies he can once Voldemort no longer "survives." None
of that can happen if he's an accidental or unofficial Horcrux,
however unique.

Carol, still believing that the "bit" of Voldemort that gives Harry
his unique ability to conquer Voldemort is not a soul fragment and
that Harry will survive, losing only the powers that he acquired at
Godric's Hollow