Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 163985

Carol:
> > There's no evidence for preparation. 
> 
> Mike: There's no evidence at all. We have not been told in canon how 
> the spell works. Nobody knows. It's all conjecture.

Carol:
Then we're even. However, we do have Slughorn's answer to the
question, "How do you encase the soul bit?": "There is a spell." A
spell to encase the soul bit, which therefore must already exist.
> 
> > Carol:
> > We're told that the spell *encases* the soul bit, which means that 
> > the soul bit must be available *before* the spell is performed. 
> 
> Mike:
> No it doesn't. Have you seen those sanders or table saws with dust 
> collection bags. You turn them on and they start with the suction. 
> But there isn't any dust to collect until you start sanding/cutting. 
> If you knock over a plant while vacuuming, do you have to turn off 
> then turn back on the vacuum before you suck up the spilled dirt? <snip>

Carol:
I don't know about sanders, but the vacuum can't suck up the spilled
dirt until the dirt is spilled. By the same token, you can't encase a
soul bit until the soul bit is split off. Simple logic: the murder has
to precede the encasement. The act of murder splits off the soul
bit--that's what Slughorn tells us. Once the soul is split, the soul
bit is available. There's no canon anywhere for a time limit on
Horcrux creation, or for healing of the split soul (unfortunately for
Snape). I'm not trying to make a definitive statement, just firmly
stating my opinion, which seems to me to be firmly supported by
Slughorn's words. 

Mike:
> Is there canon for my position? No. Is there canon against my 
> position? No. Is there canon for or against the spell-after-murder 
> position? No. 

Carol:
No canon except Slughorn's words. But there's also simple logic. You
can't encase what doesn't yet exist, and the soul bit is created by
the act of murder.

So I must look for other clues. I clued in on Slughorn 
> telling Ton that "[t]he wizard *intent* upon creating a Horcrux would 
> use the damage to his advantage:..." (HBP p.498, US, emphasis mine). 
> Slughorn told me that the *intent* must be established, i.e. the 
> spell must be cast *before* the soul is torn thereby establishing 
> intent. Thats my clue. What's your clue that the spell *must* come 
> after the murder?

Carol:
First, I think you're reading too much into the word "intent."
Essentially, it just means the wizard who wants to make a Horcrux
would use the damage created by killing someone to his advantage. It
doesn't mean that the murder can't be committed for other reasons. It
only means that murder is a prequisite to Horcrux creation. If you
want to create a Horcrux, you take advantage of your split soul. Or,
if you haven't yet killed anyone, you go out and kill them. But the
soul has to be split for the soul bit to be accessible for placing in
a Horcrux. There's really no question about that, or none that I can
see. No murder, no split soul, no Horcrux.

*My* clue is the word "encase." We're told that the soul bit is placed
inside an object by a spell, not the soul bit automatically places
itself inside a prepared object. Here are the relevant sentences:

"(Slughorn:) 'A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a
person has concealed part of their soul.'

"'I don't quite understand how that works, though, sir,' said Riddle.
. . .

"'Well, you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and hide part
of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one's body is
attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains
earthbound and undamaged. . . .'

"But Riddle's hunger was now apparent. His expression was greedy. He
could no longer hide his longing.

"'How do you split your soul?'"

"'Well,' said Slughorn uncomfortably, 'you must understand that the
soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of
violation, it is against nature.'

"'But how do you do it?'"

"'By an act of evil--the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder.
Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon making a Horcrux
would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion--"

"'Encase? But how?'

"'There is a spell, do not ask me. I don't know!'" (HBP Am. ed. 498).

To me, this explanation is straightforward. Killing, or at least
murder, rips the soul apart, whether the murderer wants to make a
Horcrux or not. A wizard "intent on making a Horcrux" has most likely
already committed murder. (Contrast Slughorn, who says, "Do I look
like a killer?" Tom, we know, has already killed, once using a
Basilisk as his weapon and three times using Avada Kedavra. Step one
has been completed four times over. Now, "intent on making a Horcrux,"
he can use that damage to make multiple Horcruxes, which explains his
next question about being able to make more than one. But the order is
clear. How do you split your soul? You kil somebody. (If you've
already killed, it's already split.) How do you make a Horcrux? You
encase the soul bit from the murder in an object using a spell. Not a
word about preparing the object in advance.

Here's the conversation in brief. "How do you make a Horcrux?" "You
split your soul." "How do you split your soul?" "You commit murder,
which splits the soul, and encase the torn portion in an object." "How
do you encase the torn portion?" "There's an incantation." You kill,
creating a soul bit, and *then* you encase the soul bit, which can't
be encased until it exists.

Carol:
> > Nor do we see Tom Riddle bringing prepared Horcruxes with him 
> > to a murder. <snip the Horcrux objects>
> 
> Mike:
> Nor do we see Tom Riddle at any of those murders. And if Tom Riddle 
> was intending to make his first Horcrux with his fathers murder and 
> therefore had his diary in his pocket, you wouldn't *see* it, would 
> you?
> 
Carol:

But it makes no sense to use the diary for his father's murder. The
ring he acquired from Morfin would be associated with that murder,
just as the diary is associated with Myrtle's. And both murders occur
*before* the conversation with Slughorn, which gives him some
indication how to make Horcruxes. (Slughorn, however, points out that
Tom is unlikely to find the information he wants in the Hogwarts
library. And just having he ring with him wouldn't make it a Horcrux.
He'd still need to *encase* the soul bit from his father's murder in
the ring--after he killed his father. 

Moreover, we know that Tom didn't go to Little Hangleton to murder his
father or anyone else. He went looking for information on the Gaunts.
It's only through Morfin's foolish comparison of his looks to "that
Muggle's" that he knew where his father lived. And Voldemort says
himself in GoF that he killed his father in revenge. (In CoS,
Diary!Tom speaks as if his "filthy Muggle father" is alive.)

We're never going to agree on this, Mike, but I think my reading of
the canon is more straightforward than yours. It follows the logical
sequence laid out by slughorn, and it takes at face value Tom Riddle's
questions about how to do it. IMO, the only reason to ask about
multiple Horcruxes is that he's already committed multiple murders and
has soul bits to spare. (I still say that he could easily make a
second one after he's protected by the first one. It seems like a
really odd question. It's only Harry's interpretation that it's the
question he really wants to ask. Note the greed and eagerness on his
face when he's asking how it's done.

I'm speculating now, but it seems likely to me that he found out how
to create a Horcrux, not from the Hogwarts library or Slughorn, but
from the one living man who had created one--Voldemort. And that would
be sometime after the murder of the Riddles and the conversation with
Slughorn but before the murder of Hepzibah Smith.

We're never going to convince each other, but this is what I think. No
preparatory spell, no accidental Horcruxes, no Horcruxes when he was
still sixteen. That's my view. I'm not asking you to share it because
you clearly have a radically different interpretation of the same
canon. But mine *is* canon-based, as you can see.
> 
> > Carol resumes:
> > Anyway, if anyone can provide any evidence for a preparatory spell,
> > I'd like to see it. 
> 
> Mike:
> Likewise, if you have any evidence that the spell can come after the 
> murder, I'd like to see that.

> > Carol:
> > Nor did he cast any preparatory spell on Harry to give him back
his own soul bit or he'd have known that Harry was a Horcrux and not
repeatedly tried to kill him.
> 
> Mike:
> Excuse me, but ... how do you know what happened that night? Did I 
> miss a chapter somewhere? <yes Alla, I can write sarcasm ;-) >
> If you were Voldemort, would you give up one of your Horcruxes to 
> kill the "prophesy boy"? I think he would. Besides, the logical time 
> for Voldemort to have discovered that Harry has one of Voldemort's 
> soul bits was when he possessed him briefly at the MoM. And *nobody* 
> has tried to kill Harry since, have they?

Carol:
Come on, Mike. There's no need for sarcasm. No, you didn't miss a
chapter somewhere. I'm going by Harry's Dementor-induced memories and
whatever else we *know* happened at GH, including Voldemort's
eagerness to kill Harry: Voldie fights James, order Lily to step
aside, kills her, tries to kill Harry, and is vaporized by the
deflected AK. Dumbledore says he thinks that Voldemort wanted to use
Harry's murder to create a Horcrux, but that doesn't make creating the
Horcrux the primary motive, as I think we agree. There's no indication
that he prepared a Horcrux before killing Harry, nor do I see a need
to do so. IMO, he would have plenty of time to seek for a suitable
object *after* the murder--and if he had one in mind, it was probably
the Sword of Gryffindor to complete his collection. But killing Harry
was the main objective. The Horcrux could wait.

Carol, apologizing for sounding a bit too adamant in her previous post