Why Harry Potter (or his scar) is NOT a Horcrux

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 171587

Karen wrote:
> Reasons why I think his scar IS a horcrux:
<snip>
> PS- "Scars can come in useful"
> 
> CoS- "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thuderstruck.
> "It certainly seems so." (DD)
> 
> GoF- "Because you and he are connected by the curse that failed, "
said Dumbledore. "That is no ordinary scar."
> 
<snip Phoenix feather core argument as I don't see how wand cores
relate to Horcruxes>
> 
> Other supports for this theory taken from Harry Potter Lexicon:
> LV wants a relic of each founder and harry is probably a Gryffindor
> decendant.

> Killing curses do not leave scars.
> No one tries to kill Harry besides LV- he wants him alive.
> 
> I do believe it was accidental though and while I have no quotes
from the books to back me up I really feel that somehow something 
rebounded due to his mother's love and Harry ended up with the scar 
as a horcrux.  I am not sure LV or even Harry's mother intended for 
this although I suppose it could be possible that Lily wanted to give
her son the opportunity to defeat LV that she and her husband did not get.
> 
> The details of why the scar is a horcrux are unclear to me but I am 
> certain that it is!
>
Carol responds:

The scar has certainly been useful, but that does not mean it's
necessarily a Horcrux. It's a souvenir of the failed attempt to murder
Harry, but how it occurred, we don't know. We do, however, know that
it was not a scar but an open cut when Harry was placed on the
Dursley's doorstep. We also know, as you say, that AKs don't create
scars, but we're talking about a *rebounded* AK. I think Lily's
sacrifice (there was no incantation, Bart, only her offer to die
instead of Harry) acted as a barrier, a kind of wandless Protego. IMO,
the killing curse entered Harry's skin but burst out again because it
was blocked by the ancient magic, tearing a lightning-shaped gash in
Harry's forehead on its way *out.*

The "bit" of Voldemort in Harry need not be a soul bit. In the context
of CoS, it refers to powers, specifically Parseltongue but possibly
possession and other powers unique to Voldemort that we haven't seen
yet in Harry, or the communication via the scar link, which amounts to
a peculiar sort of Legilimency. I think it's those powers,
accidentally given to Harry by LV, that "mark [Harry] as [Voldemort's]
equal." No soul bit is necessary. As far as I can tell, magical powers
reside in the blood. (Cf. "not a drop of magical blood in their veins"
in reference to the Dursleys, Wormtail's statement that any witch or
wizard could supply the blood for the restorative potion--notice that
Muggles are excluded, and the whole pureblood superiority ethic, which
must have some basis in WW reality to have persisted so long). I think
a drop of blood entering the open cut when Voldie explodes is at least
as likely as a soul bit entering him.

The Lexicon is not canon, so I don't think we can use it as support
for either side. Your assertion that Harry is "probably a Gryffindor
descendant" has no canon support that I know of. There's more support
(though not enough to constitute proof) for Dumbledore as Godric
Gryffindor's heir. However, Harry could hardly be considered a "relic"
of Gryffindor's as the cup is a relic of Helga Hufflepuff's, not to
mention that Voldemort is trying to *kill* Harry to thwart the
Prophecy. When DD says that he thinks LV would want to use Harry's
death to create his last Horcrux, he doesn't mean that Harry himself
would be that Horcrux, any more than Hepzibah Smith, Helga
Hufflepuff's descendant, is made into a Horcrux. DD means that
Voldemort would *encase* the soul bit created by Harry's murder in an
appropriate object (Gryffindor's sword would have been perfect, and no
doubt LV thought that with Harry dead, he could easily acquire that
last relic after he'd finished off Harry. DD would be no threat, not
with five other Horcruxes and the Prophecy Boy dead.)

Karen:

> The murder of Harry's parents was a significant murder and LV might
want a "trophy" from that murder.
> Harry is a parseltoungue.
> LV possesses Harry in OP.

Carol responds:
Er, I don't see how any of these arguments relates to Harry as a Horcrux.

James's death in battle with Voldemort might not even count as a
murder in Voldemort's mind, and he clearly doesn't want to kill Lily,
whose death clearly *is* a murder. He only kills her, as far as we
know, because she refuses to get out of the way and let him kill
Harry. And JKR has said that the spell LV cast against Harry *is* a
killing curse. It's an AK, not a Horcrux-encasing spell, that rebounds
on Voldemort and vaporizes him. Now granted, Lily's death is certainly
a soul-splitting murder, so *if* Horcruxes can be created accidentally
and *if* soul bits can float around and land in a cut, becoming sealed
in when it heals and creates a scar, then the significance of her
death matters. But thats not what DD said. He thinks that LV wanted to
use the soul bit created by the much more significant murder of Harry,
the Prophecy Boy, to create a last Horcrux. I.e., he wants a "trophy"
from *Harry's* murder, not James's or Lily's, since he already has
five Horcruxes and the death of "the one with the power to vanquish
the Dark Lord" would be much more significant than the deaths of his
Order member parents, however powerful in their own right. Also,
creating a Horcrux also requires an encasing spell, which was not
performed at GH.

Harry's being a Parselmouth (not Parseltongue, which is snake
language) only means that he has some of LV's *powers*, not that he is
a Horcrux. (With the exception of the diary, which had to be
interactive so that the reader could control the Basilisk, and Nagini,
who already has a mind and, it seems, an affinity for Voldemort, the
Horcruxes are just objects encasing soul bits, which collectively and
individually anchor the main soul to earth. They are protected by
curses or potions or Inferi, but they themselves exist solely to
prevent Voldemort from dying even if his body is destroyed. (They
don't have to be objects belonging to the Founders or having personal
significance for Voldemort; that's just his personal preference.)

Nor does Voldmeort's possessing Harry (thwarted by Harry's ability to
love) have anything to do with Harry's being a Horcrux. Voldemort had
that power before he ever made any Horcruxes. He may have used it on
the Muggle children he terrified in the cave. It was the only power
left to him when he was vaporized, so he resorted to possessing small
animals, usually snakes, until a human host by the name of Quirrell
came along. And Quirrell, whom LV abandoned to his death, was
certainly no Horcrux.

Lily's sacrifice saved Harry's life and provided him with blood
protection. It seems clear from JKR's interviews and the FAQ on her
website that she didn't know her sacrifice would have those results.
The ancient magic is sacrificial love, the power that Voldemort
underestimates (or "knows not") rather than any *plan* to save Harry.
(I used to think that she had performed some sort of protective charm
on him that served as an extra-strong Protego, but evidently not.)

Voldemort, OTOH, "marked Harry as his equal," giving him some of his
own powers (which, for all we know, Harry's wand core and the Sorting
Hat sensed). But those powers are not necessarily the result of a soul
bit in Harry's scar, and even if they are, the soul bit is not a
Horcrux because no encasing spell has been performed on it. *If* Harry
has a soul bit in him (rather than a drop of Voldie's blood or some of
his powers acquired some other way), that soul bit would not help to
anchor Voldie's soul to earth since no Horcrux-creating spell has been
performed on it.

Carol, conceding that Harry *could* have a soul bit in his scar but
not believing that such a soul bit makes the scar a Horcrux or
requires Harry to sacrifice himself, leaving no one with "the power to
vanquish the Dark Lord" since the Chosen One would be dead