Dementors and Horcrux-sucking

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 171579

Eddie wrote:
>
> The many theories that involve Dementors sucking bits of Voldemort's
soul out of Horcrux(es) is flawed, I think.  Just because the bit of
soul is Dementor-sucked doesn't necessarily mean that the bit of soul
no longer works as it did inside the Horcrux object.  The soul bit may
have moved from a locket (for example) to inside a Dementor tummy, but
the soul bit is still around. Right?

Carol responds:

I agree that the idea is flawed, but for different reasons. A Dementor
sucks out a soul through the mouth of the victim. I can't imagine a
blind Dementor, which senses rather than sees the presence of its
victim, sucking a soul bit out of an emotionless object, much less out
of Harry's scar when his own whole and untarnished soul would be
temptingly available through his mouth. 

In any case, the soul bits would *not* still be around (and serving as
reencased Horcruxes) if they were sucked by a Dementor. As someone
else pointed out, a soul sucked by a Dementor is annihilated. The same
would apply in the unlikely event that a Dementor acted on Harry's
request to suck out a soul bit from an object (which in any case has
magical protections on it to protect the soul bit) or, heaven forfend,
his own scar.

On a more technical note, souls don't go into a Dementor's "tummy" (I
don't think Dementors have internal organs). As I understand it,
they're sucked like air, not into the Dementor's nonexistent lungs but
into its very being, and they become part of that being (itself a
malignant spirit), irretrievable, utterly destroyed. (I find the whole
concept abhorrent since the soul is supposed to be immortal, but
that's how I understand what happens to a Dementor's victim from
Lupin's description.)

FWIW, the idea of sucking a soul through the mouth is linked, as far
as I can determine, to the ancient conception of soul or spirit as
related or analogous to breath, as shown in this entry from the Online
etymology dictionary. 

'spirit (n.) c.1250, "animating or vital principle in man and
animals," from O.Fr. espirit, from L. spiritus "soul, courage, vigor,
breath," related to spirare "to breathe," from PIE *(s)peis- "to blow"
(cf. O.C.S. pisto "to play on the flute"). Original usage in Eng.
mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the L. word translates Gk.
pneuma and Heb. ruah. Distinction between "soul" and "spirit" (as
"seat of emotions") became current in Christian terminology (e.g. Gk.
psykhe vs. pneuma, L. anima vs. spiritus) but "is without significance
for earlier periods" [Buck]. L. spiritus, usually in classical L.
"breath," replaces animus in the sense "spirit" in the imperial period
and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Gk.
pneuma. Meaning "supernatural being" is attested from c.1300 (see ghost)'

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=35

The connection of spirit with moving air (breath or wind) appears in
the New Testament where the Greek "hagios pneuma," meaning a holy or
sacred wind, breath, or spirit, is translated into English as "Holy
Spirit" (most notably, the Holy Spirit descends on the apostles with
the sound of a rushing wind)

http://www.gnmagazine.org/bsc/09/holyspirit.htm 
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4151

and in Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind" ("O wild West Wind, thou
breath of Autumn's being) where the West Wind is a spirit which
"inspires" or gives life to Autumn and to the whole concept of
inspiration. (Shelley is playing with etymology, both the Latin
spiritus and the Greek pneuma, in his brilliant and beautiful poem.)

http://www.bartleby.com/106/275.html

Or think of God blowing the "breath of life" into Adam: "The Lord God
formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being" (Genesis
2:7). Michelangelo depicts this moment as a touching of fingers,
presumably because that's a more artistic conception than God blowing
into Adam's nostrils. (I'm considering the Bible as a work of
literature or a cultural/linguistic document here, so please don't be
offended if you're neither Christian nor Jewish.)

To return to Dementors and the Potterverse, as I see it, a Dementor
sucks the wind/spirit/breath of life out of its victim as if it were
sucking air from the victim's lungs but without killing the person or
destroying his body. What it's stealing is his being, his essence. So
a soul-sucked body like Barty Crouch's is the opposite of the "less
than spirit" Vapormort, who was the battered remnant of a soul without
a body. Both are incomplete and horrible. A Horcrux, whether it's a
cup, a locket, or a scar (nad I don't think Harry's scar is a Horcrux)
has no soul, no breath of life to steal. Even Nagini, though she's
alive, has no soul in the sense that I'm speaking of. I can't imagine
what would happen to a Dementor foolish enough to attempt to suck the
Voldiebit from her. As far as I can see, it simply wouldn't happen.
(No need, in any case. I'm quite sure that Harry will kill her, as he
killed her Basilisk predecessor, with the non-Horcruxed Sword of
Gryffindor.)

I'm not sure where I'm going with this post, which is not really an
answer to Eddie or the original poster in the thread so much as my own
thoughts on Dementors and the concept of soul or spirit (not
necessarily the same thing yet surely related in terms of imagery and
concept) in the HP books. I don't think the books are internally
consistent with regard to the concept(s), but that perceived
inconsistency could simply reflect my own confusion.

To return to the topic, I think that a Dementor sucking the soul bit
from a Horcrux is extremely unlikely and the idea of Harry submitting
himself to be soul-sucked to remove a soul bit from himself or his
scar is abhorrent. What the Dementor would end up with is Harry's own
soul sucked through his mouth while the soul bit in his scar (if any!)
would remain there, still acting to anchor Voldie's main soul to the
earth despite Harry's having sacrificed his essence and identity and
selfhood. It would be a horrible and meaningless sacrifice which Harry
will surely not even contemplate.

I realize that the person who proposed this (IMO) monstrous sacrifice
doesn't think it will actually happen, only that Harry will be willing
for it to happen, thereby demonstrating his capacity for sacrificial
Love. But while I don't doubt for a moment that Harry's willingness to
sacrifice himself is crucial to his defeat of Voldemort, I don't think
the idea of having his (hypothetical) soulbit sucked will even occur
to Harry, who has far too much up-close experience with Dementors to
trust them to go after the soul bit in his scar (if any) rather than
his own soul. If he wants anyone to be soul-sucked, it will be Voldie
(as an alternative to "murdering" him), who would learn too late that
death is not the worst possible fate.

Carol, not so much arguing with anyone as exploring ideas in relation
to etymology, which she finds endlessly fascinating