Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 164014

---  "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> > 
> ... Simple logic: the murder has to precede the
>  encasement. 
> 
> 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. ...
> 
> 

bboyminn:

Anyone who has been around a while and has been reading
opinions here will find it no surprise that Carol and I
are kindred spirits, or kindred-ish spirits. We 
frequently hold similar opinions based on similar 
analysis.

First, before I address the issue, let me ramble a bit.
There are two ways to approach any problem or mystery.
The first is to rationalize and the second is to be 
rational. To be rational means you gather evidence and
accept whatever conclusion the evidence tells you. 
Rationalize means you start with a conclusion and seek
out evidence you can interpret to support it. 

How does that apply to us? Well to some extent, here in
this group, we are all rationalizing, but we have no 
choice. We are dealing with a well crafted mystery in
which the most critical and revealing information is
withheld from us. Consequently, we are all force to 
strike a balance between 'rational' and rationalize'. 

Mike wants Harry to be a Horcrux, so he seeks out and
interprets available information to support that idea.
Others, don't want Harry to be a Horcrux, and so seek
out and interpret available information in a way that
supports that idea. The difference is that some of us
are stretching a little more in order to reach our
conclusions.

I believe, and surely no one is surprised, that Carol 
has stretched the least to reach her conclusions. My
first reason to support Carol is Dumbledore; directly
and tangentally, Dumbledore is the source of all 
information on this matter, and he doesn't seem to 
agree. Noted though, that Dumbledore is famous for 
withholding information, and I'm willing to change
my preception when new information is revealed. But
give what we have, Dumbledore's apparent lack of 
belief in 'Harry the Horcrux' settles it for me.

There are however a few other logical flaws. Voldemort
has killed many people, far more people than he has 
Horcruxes for. If the Horcrux object is pre-prepared and
ready to receive the Soul-Bit, then why doesn't one
of the many existing Soul-Bits just jump right into it?

Further, as Carol points out in both explanations and
quotations, Tom Riddle has many murders under his belt
and has the Gaunt Ring. locket, and diary before he has
fully determined how to create Horcruxes. Tom has 
objects that we know will eventually become Horcruxes
before, during, and after the time when he commited murder,
and they don't seem to be Horcruxes /yet/. 

This also touches on the issue of 'healing of the 
soul-bits'. Just using my general knowledge of religion
I think I fairly conclude that eventually torn soul-bits
heal. Yet, it takes a great deal of time and repentance
for this to happen. A deeply regreted death that occurred
many many years ago would probably be healed to a limted
extent. A cold blooded murder that has no regret or
repentance is probably still fully torn after those same
many many years. Based on that reasoning, I don't see any
need to rush the creation of any Horcrux. Anyone cold
enough to willfully create Horcruxes is not the type of
person who is going to have their soul heal quickly.
There was plenty of time for Voldemort to use the 
murder of is Father and Grandparents to make Horcruxes
at a later time. 

As far as being able to very selectively chose which
torn piece of soul was encased, I suspect the most 
freshly torn bit of soul is most available. That is, the
tear is still fresh and volitile, and therefore most
readily available. But beyond that I don't really think
Voldemort or anyone can chose.

I think they may be able to focus heavily on a particular
murder as the coax the soul-bit out, but I think for the
most part, any particular soul-bit is more symbolic of a
specific murder than literally associated with it. A
soul-bit is a soul-bit, for the most part.

> Carol continues:
> 
> ...
> Carol:
> 
> ...
> 
> We're never going to agree on this, Mike, but I think
> my reading of the canon is more straightforward than 
> yours. ...
> 

bboyminn:

We are all following a twisted path to reach our conclusion
mostly because we have no choice. We simply don't have 
enough evidence for a straight forward interpretation. Yet,
as will suprise no one, I think Carol's interpretation
follows the straightest possible path of logic and reaches
the most obvious conclusion. Sorry, Mike.

> Carol concludes:
>
> 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***. 

bboyminn:

Did you by any chance actually mean 'Grindelwald' instead
of Voldemort? If so, then once again, my dear kindred 
spirit, I agree. It seems very likely that in the course
 of the next book we will discover some connection between
Riddle and Grindelwald, though how we will get there and 
how that will move the story forward I'm not sure.

OK, admittely that was (another) long rant to really say
nothing more that 'I agree with Carol' which I do. But
I think I agree because Carol is using the most straight
forward interpretation of the avaible information. I think
those who support the 'Harry the Horcrux' idea are selecting
and twisting the information to suit their requirements, or
at least do so more than others. 

Now, I haven't absolutely ruled out 'Harry the Horcrux'. I'm
just saying that with the available information, 'Harry the
Horcrux' is an extreme and mostly unfounded conclusion. If
and when more information becomes available, or if it turns
out to be revealed as the climactic 'twist' then I 
will be more than satified and equally willing to eat my
electrons, but until then, I stand firmly behing 'Harry the
NOT Horcrux'.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn