Harry Potter is not a Horcrux

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 164522

Carol:
<snip>
> They think that a Horcrux can be created accidentally. Some, not all,
> of them think that the spell can be performed in advance (which still
> doesn't explain how the soul bit got into Harry, who surely wouldn't
> be an ideal container for the soul bit created from his own murder). 
> 
> At any rate, while I entirely agree with hpcentaur that Harry is not a
> Horcrux, I disagree that her religion has anything to do with it. I
> simply think that the arguments for an accidental Horcrux are
> unconvincing, that the powers in his scar can be otherwise explained,
> and that the whole concept would cause unnecessary plot complications
> in an already complex plot. 

Jen: I'm interested in the point about the scar being otherwise 
explained and how Harry as a Horcrux adds an unnecessary complication.  
As of yet there's no explanation for the scar connection, no mechanism 
has been introduced and Dumbledore only says they are 'connected by the 
curse that failed' and can't explain why.  

What it seems to come down to is whether JKR wants to introduce a 
mechanism for an accidental Horcrux or one for how the rebounded AK 
connected Harry and Voldemort.  Neither would add to the complex plot 
so much as explain something in need of explanation.  At least the scar 
being a Horcrux, if true, would not introduce a completely new concept 
into the story.

The biggest evidence I see against the scar as a Horcrux is that Lily's 
protection is supposed to keep Voldemort from touching Harry so how 
could his soul piece make it into Harry's forehead?  Unless the soul 
piece squeaked in before the protection took place <g> or the 
protection is just against Voldemort's body.

But JKR could easily explain an accidental Horcrux the way she does the 
scar connection--strange things happen and not even Dumbledore knows 
why! 

Jen