Harry as a Non-crux - Soul Pieces in Context

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 158028


> Carol responds:
> I don't want to go into Horcruxes in any depth, but I'm pretty sure
> that the core soul piece, as Steve calls it, is "anchored" to the
> earth and can't die (go beyond the Veil) as long as a single Horcrux
> exists. There's no need to "use" a Horcrux to restore it. The
> existence of any Horcrux is all that's necessary. 

Ken:

This core soul anchored to the Earth by a horcrux idea is the way I
have long held horcruxes to work. And then one day it struck me that
it was totally wrong, Slughorn clearly says that part of the soul goes
beyond when a horcrux owner is attacked. Presumably it is the part
inside the wizard (what many of you call the core soul) not the part
inside the horcrux that goes on since the horcrux itself was not
attacked. And then a few days after that I realized that DD *totally*
contradicts this. DD says that *all* of the horcrux owner's soul
remains Earthbound. Taken together his statements imply that only the
soul bits stored in horcruxes can be sent on (by attacking the
horcruxes) while the "core soul" is still bound to the Earth by any
intact horcrux and that your "core soul" can only be sent on after all
your horcruxes are destroyed.

This enormous discrepency is either an editing error after Rowling
changed her mind about how horcruxes work, or it is a clue to ... to what?

> Carol:

> At any rate, I think that the diary was a special case and that the
> *memory* (or memories) of Tom Riddle at sixteen was (were) placed in
> the diary some years before it became a Horcrux. Just because this
> particular soul bit enabled the memory to come to life (or nearly so)
> after taking most of Ginny's soul doesn't mean that other Horcruxes
> work in the same way. I don't think the cup, locket, ring, etc., are
> designed to interact with others the way the diary was designed to
> lure in a reader, who would then kill "Mudbloods" using the Basilisk.
> Essentially, they're just containers to "encase" the soul bit and keep
> the wizard who created the Horcrux from dying even if his body is
> destroyed. Any "interaction" is, IMO, the result of a protective curse
> like the one that snape somehow prevented from killing Dumbledore.
> 

Ken: 

I agree. I think the diary was a most unusual horcrux and I believe DD
backs us up on this one.

> Carol:

> The problem is, we're not told that "thrilling tale" or what "timely
> action" Snape took to save Dumbledore's life. 

Ken:

I don't know what it means but has anyone else noticed that Snape
takes "timely action" on TWO occasions when DD returns from a horcrux
hunt? When I thought it likely that DD was still alive I thought it
might be a clue to the fact that DD is still alive. Now, ... well now
it could just be an ironic coincidence I suppose.

> Carol:
> 
> But the Core soul can't become a free soul piece as long as a single
> Horcrux anchors it to earth. Of that much I'm certain. It's the whole
> point of creating a Horcrux in the first place

Ken:

I disagree, or at least I am *not* sure. By Slughorn's account the
horcrux owner is kept "alive" if *any* part of the soul remains
Earthbound. Slughorn's account is what makes it seem like there must
be a *third* component of a human being and I have called that the
spirit since a fair amount of human thinking has historically
described us as consisting of body, soul, and spirit. LV even
describes his exisitence during his interregnum as that of a spirit or
to be accurate as less than a spirit. Slughorn says that what you all
are calling the core soul is sent on when the horcrux owner is
"killed" and only the bit in the horcrux remains Earthbound.
Slughorn's account pretty much demands that a human being have a
spirit that is distinct from both the body and soul if we are to
explain LV's continued senitent exisitence in the period between his
two bodies.

DD's account matches what you are saying, Carol, and given his
reputation I am inclined to agree with both of you. Yet I still have
to wonder if the discrepency between our two horcrux experts is
intentional and a clue to something or a justification for an
unexpected turn in book 7. DD's account does not require that humans
have a spirit that is distinct from the soul.

> 
> Carol, wondering if Harry is as confused as we are
>

Ken:

If he isn't he should be!! It may take Hermione to point this out to
him if it isn't just an editing error. I wish someone would ask JKR
about this in an interview sometime soon.

I've had another wild, random horcrux related thought. I believe JKR
still owes us some additional information about ghosts and why some
wizards become ghosts and others do not. Nearly Headless Nick mentions
his fear of death as being a contributing factor. Tom Riddle certainly
has that. Do you suppose that *one* way that a wizard can guarantee
becoming a ghost is to create a horcrux and that *all* horcrux owners
are doomed to becoming ghosts instead of journeying on? I know that
this cannot be the only way, at least I doubt very much that Moaning
Myrtle had a horcrux. We've all wondered how, when, and from whom Tom
learned to create a horcrux, maybe it was as simple as asking one of
the Hogwarts ghosts. 

Hmmm, I wonder if a ghost could help you find a horcrux? Nah, I
suppose DD would have done that if it were possible. 

Ken