Creating Horcruxes (Re: Harry as Horcrux)

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 164036

Let me start by saying that I have been focusing in on the Horcrux 
creating process to show that the accidental Horcrux theory is an 
entirely possible scenario. In that vein, I will start by making one 
last attempt to not only clarify my position but to also show how my 
reading of the books is just as "straight forward" as Carol's and 
Steve's. Buckle your seatbelts, this may be a bumpy ride. :-)

<Caveat: at some points within I may sound strident. I'm sorry in 
advance; my writing skills aren't advanced as others and I find it 
hard to be passionate without sounding argumentative>
< and Steve, please pardon the splicing of your post>
***********************************************************

Let me start by answering some of your concerns.
> > Carol:
> > <snip>
> >  
> > ... Simple logic: the murder has to precede the
> >  encasement. 
and Steve's question
> 
> bboyminn:
> 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?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> <patching in a lower paragraph> <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> <snip soul healing reasoning> 
> 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. 

Mike:
I finally realized where Carol and I are not connecting, she 
encapsulated our wavelength interference in her one simple question 
above.

Analogy time: 
1) If you have a corral full of horses and want ot cut one of them 
out, how do you go about that? Would you cut out the horse first and 
then build the sluice and new corral to put it in? Or would you build 
those things first before you seperate the horse.
2) You have a bowl of potato salad. Would you take the scoop out 
first before you go to the cupboard to get the bowl? Or would you 
have the bowl ready to accept your portion?
<probably the most analogous>
3) The pet store wants to sell one bird out of a cage with many 
birds. Does the employee open the cage and shoo one bird out and then 
go get a second cage and attempt to recapture the escaped bird? Not 
reasonable is it?
<now your cake analogy>
4) You want to cut a piece of cake and send it off with your kid for 
lunch. Do I ask you to put it into his tupperware container before 
you cut it? No, I'm just asking you to have the container handy, the 
knife in your hand and a spatula to scoop it up with before you cut 
the cake.
<not an analogy ;-)>
5) Do I want Voldemort to encase his soul piece before he committs 
the murder which cuts the cake, ... I mean rips his soul? No, I want 
Voldemort to cast his spell which designates the recepticle and 
indicates that the soul piece is coming from himself (a critical part 
of the incantation which is overlooked, imo) before he commits the 
soul splitting murder.

Number 5 is where I think part of mine and Carol's disconnect 
occured. I say part because, obviously as Steve points out, we are on 
opposite sides of the Harry!Crux front and that colors our 
perspective. 

As to Steve's two paragraphs above, I point to the 3rd analogy. If 
Voldemort doesn't have the spell pre-loaded, the bird flies away... 
the detached soul piece leaves the body without a hinderance to keep 
it around.

How do I come to this realization? In part, through all of the posts 
I've read on this board and in particular some of the most recent 
ones by Geoff, Annemehr and both Steve and Carol. But I also take my 
cues from canon.

What happened to Voldemort's soul at Godric's Hollow? When his soul 
was seperated from his body was there any restriction on where it 
could go? No, in his ethereal state it would have gone "beyond the 
veil" or crossed over, had he not had other soul pieces anchored to 
this plane of existance. But nothing restricted it's wanderings. So, 
what restricts a soul piece from escaping to "somewhere out there" 
once it's torn from the rest of the soul?

This is our only example in canon of a soul being seperated from a 
body and not passing over. Please note how JKR used the same 
terminology. Killing *rips* the soul, as per Slughorn. I was *ripped* 
from my body, as per Voldemort. Therefore, my straight forward 
reading is that when a soul piece is *ripped* from the main piece it 
escapes, it goes away, there is nothing to hold it in proximity to 
it's former self. If a spell hasn't been cast before the *ripping* 
occured, it's too late after. 

How else should I be reading this? Have you discovered somewhere in 
canon that the soul piece, once ripped from the main, hangs around in 
the body, or even around the body? I have only seen one imperfect 
example of this phenomenon, LV at GH. I saw nothing to indicate that 
the soul was contained, after being ripped from the body, in such a 
way as to give one the chance to cast the spell at a later time.

Granted, one must assume that the soul or soul piece must be 
programmed to depart the scene. Which I think JKR has indicated is 
the case. The soul "crosses over" if not anchored by Horcruxes (or by 
some nebulous manner which produces ghosts). Therefore, imo, any soul 
or soul piece has the natural programming to leave this world or this 
earthly plane, if you will. Whether seperated from the whole or 
seperated from the body, the soul or soul piece will naturally depart 
this earth and attempt to cross over. Isn't that why it is "against 
nature" to prevent the soul pioece from it's natural inclination to 
cross over? So, yes, I think a soul piece, once seperated from the 
whole, will depart the scene and attempt to cross over. Once that has 
happened, it's too late, time and space matter in magic, remember?

Straight forward reading of how to make a Horcrux: You bring an 
object with you to encase your soul piece, enchant yourself and the 
object, then commit the murder which rips your soul. No "saving the 
ripped soul piece" for later encasement. How does that jibe with a 
straight forward reading? Where in Slughorn's limited explanation 
does one interpret the ability to create a Horcrux at some time in 
the future?

This leads into another of Steve's points: 

> bboyminn:
> 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.  
> >>>>>>>>>>> <jump one paragraph> <<<<<<<<<<<<
> I think they may be able to focus heavily on a particular
> murder as to 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.

Mike:
So how would you square this with Dumbledore's pronouncement that 
Voldemort seemed to save his Horcrux creation for significant 
murders? If, in your reading, there is no particular piece to be 
selected and you can wait until a later date to produce a Horcrux, 
Dumbledore's statement becomes nonsense, doesn't it? Voldemort isn't 
reserving a soul piece, nor reserving a time of murder. So, how can 
he be reserving his Horcrux creation at all? This is independent of 
whether Voldemort actually does reserve Horcrux creation. I want to 
make sense of Dumbledore's statement in light of your position.

Let's move to the only reservation that Dumbledore told us Voldemort 
did make. How does this apply to Godric's Hollow? Let me first state 
my conviction that only an "innocent" murder will split the soul. 
That is, killing in combat between two witches/wizards does not a 
soul rip. Had Bella continued and killed the Longbottoms, there she 
would have split her soul. But her killing of Sirius (that is if he 
is dead, let's not go there now) would not be a soul ripping act. The 
murder of a helpless, defenseless "soul" is needed to trigger the 
soul splitting. JMO.

So at GH, Voldemort killed Lily and thereby activated the *love 
protection*. He then brings out his valuable object (whatever he was 
intending to use as a Horcrux) and performs the Horcrux creation 
spell, designating himself as the soul piece donor and marking the 
object as the soul piece recepticle. When his AK rebounds off of 
Harry and *murders* his own self, his soul is split. (He wasn't in 
combat, he had no defense against his own AK). Was he intending to 
make *Harry* into a Horcrux? I'll answer that with the question: Was 
he intending to *kill* himself that night? Not just no, but Hell No. 

Why didn't the soul piece transfer into Voldie's designated object? 
**I Don't Know.** Maybe the object was destroyed, maybe the *mark* on 
Harry was a more powerful pull than the marked object. JKR has told 
us that the things that happened at GH had never happened before. 
Maybe this was one of those things. She has promised to enlighten us 
further on what happened that night. I can only extrapolate from that 
point forward and match what we know to what we think.

Let's do that now. Back to Steve:

> bboyminn:
> 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. <snip>

Mike:
Let's see if I'm stretching.

- Parseltongue - Other than Salazar Slytherin and his direct 
decendants, we have two people in canon who have spoken Parseltongue; 
Ginny and Harry (we don't know if DD spoke it, understood it, or 
what). How did Ginny speak it? A bit of Tom Riddle's soul was 
occupying Ginny, undoubtedly using her to speak much like Voldemort 
used Harry in the MoM. So where did Harry get this ability? 

"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry, ... because Lord Voldemort ... 
can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some 
of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not 
something he intended to do, I'm sure ..."

"Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*? ...

"It certainly seems so."           (CoS pp. 332-3, US)

Harry asked if Voldemort put a **bit** of himself into [me] and 
Dumbledore says yes. What is your straight forward reading of what 
this **bit** is, if it isn't a soul piece? Keeping in mind that Ginny 
speaks Parseltongue because she has a **bit** of Tom's soul in her. 

Is it more straight forward that the bit was some of Voldemort's 
blood that came from somewhere and happened to hit the cut on Harry's 
forehead that we don't have any reason for being there? Keeping in 
mind that we only know that Voldemort disappeared that night, nothing 
about his body blowing up into a bloody mess. And where do we have 
something in canon that tells us that receiving a Parseltongue's 
blood allows one to speak it themselves? So, which one of us is 
stretching here?

Let's explore another related point.

> bboyminn:
> 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.

Mike:
Yes, and Dumbledore confirmed that Harry had a bit of Voldemort in 
him. But as to whether he should be telling Harry, in HBP, that the 
bit of Voldemort is a bit of soul, ... well, you answered that 
yourself when you noted Dumbledore's reluctance to release critical 
information. Not only is that perfectly in character for DD, but I 
can honestly see a reluctance to tell Harry that he has a guest soul 
piece especially if Dumbledore doesn't know how to get it out. Now 
you ask, what makes me think this of Dumbledore?

"Is that where -?" whispered Professor McGonagall.

"Yes," said Dumbledore. "He'll have that scar forever."

"Couldn't you do something about it, Dumbledore?"

"Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in handy. ..."
(PS/SS p.14, US)

Dumbledore knows that healing spell, he used it on himself in the 
cave. He also knows that Dittany will prevent scarring. So why can't 
Dumbledore do anything about that cut-soon-to-be-a-scar on Harry's 
forehead? Note that he starts his answer with "Even if I could,". He 
is admitting, in a very subtle way and later masking it with humor, 
that he can't do anything about a simple cut? But, if it is a piece 
of Voldie's soul that entered Harry there, and Dumbledore doesn't 
know how to safely remove that soul piece, now this short confession 
make sense. This last part may seem a stretch. Of course, I'd like to 
hear an alternate reason for Dumbledore's "Even if I could".

*************************************************************
On a related but slight aside topic:
> 
> bboyminn:
> 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/. 

Mike:
I've hashed most of this out above. The argument over when Tom Riddle 
created his first Horcrux is beyond a dead horse, it's dog food by 
now. Beating it again would make a mess all over the kitchen ;-) One 
quick faut pas: Tom doesn't have the locket until after he leaves 
Hogwarts.

> 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.

Mike:
No problem, Steve. You present a very coherent argument. I hope my 
response is just as reasoned.