Harry Potter is not a Horcrux

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 164481

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Clark" <kennclark at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpcentaur" <hpcentaur@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Harry Potter is not a horcrux because then it would be against
> > JKR's religion (Christianity). In the real world if someone has
> > a other soul in him then the person is possessed, by a demon for
> > example. But if someone is possessed then the demon (other soul)
> > takes control of the body where it is in. If Harry was possessed
> > then don't you think that Voldemort would just take control of
> > Harry without having to do a ritual to come back to life?
> > <SNIP>
> >
> 
> Ken replies:
> 
> "in the real world" there isn't such a thing as a soul (that anyone
> has ever been able to find) and in any case it's just a story so 
> even if Rowling believes in souls it doesn't mean she has to toe 
> the party line in her fiction.

Pip!Squeak replies
Well, Rowling is pretty clearly using the concept of souls in her 
fiction, so the argument of 'possession' is a reasonable one. 

If Harry was a Horcrux, he would contain one whole soul (his own) and 
a fragment of Voldemort's miserable little soul. So who would be in 
control? I'd go for the person with the soul entire.

There are hints in Order of the Phoenix that Harry might 
be 'possessed' - odd flashes of rage at Dumbledore, stuff like that. 
But the essential Harry is able to overcome this eventually - even if 
he does shout rather a lot before he does. That fits with the idea 
that a whole soul can defeat one split into parts.

I dunno; I think Voldemort was trying to use Harry's death to make a 
horcrux, the final horcrux, and that it's possible Harry is an 
accidental horcrux. But I think on the 21st July we're going to find 
that the biggest significance of the splitting of souls 
isn't 'where's the horcrux', but that Voldemort has weakened himself 
in a way he doesn't truly understand.

Pip!Squeak