Neither Harry nor his Scar is a Horcrux (Was Re: Voldemort's Age)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 170303

> Carol replies:
> A mechanism exists to tear the soul through murder, but, according
> to Slughorn, a spell is required to encase the soul bit in an object
>(or living creature, if DD is right about Nagini). At least we agree 
> that he didn't (and, IMO, wouldn't) deliberately make Harry a
> Horcrux rather than killing or trying to kill him.

Jen: I don't think LV deliberately made Harry a Horcrux or arrived 
with object in hand/spell prepared only to have the process go awry 
with the rebounded AK.  My reasoning is the same as yours (I think) 
given how spells seem to operate in canon:  The spell for encasement 
of the soul piece in the object occurs after a murder - not before - 
and thus never took place.

Carol:
> Yes, Lily's murder would have freshly split his soul. But there's no
> indication from DD (or JKR) that Voldemort has lost any parts of his
> soul other than those he deliberately transferred to Horcruxes, yet 
> he apparently killed people before GH whose deaths weren't used for
> Horcruxes. The question is whether the soul bits created by murders
> other than those used to make Horcruxes (including James's if it
> counts as a soul-splitting murder), as well as the fragment created
> from Lily's murder, would have just floated away from the main soul
> seeking a host to possess rather than staying with the main soul
> because no Horcrux spell had been performed. I think that if any
> soulbits were released when Voldie vaporized, they would have shared
> the fate of soul bits in destroyed Horcruxes, floating off behind 
> the Veil. 

Jen:  Your proposal could be true.  It's more that I can't reject 
ouright the notion of a soul piece in Harry even though I do reject 
that Harry is a Horcrux because of what that would mean for the plot 
and the Horcrux hunt (and Harry, even though I see possibilites for 
locked door room when it comes to the soul piece).  JKR has 
introduced a mechanism for a soul piece to tear and exist outside the 
body and she hasn't introduced one for how powers alone transfer.  
She may well do that in DH.  

Carol:
> One thing's for sure: we know that Harry, unlike Ginny, is not
> possessed <snip> Nothing similar has happened to Harry, which to me 
> indicates that he isn't a Horcrux, accidental or otherwise. (If his
> scar is a Horcrux, despite the absence of a Horcrux-creating spell, 
> he must have some protection to prevent the soul bit from 
> corrupting or possessing him.  You'd think that Voldie sharing his 
> blood would undo that protection if it existed, but it hasn't done
> so. IOW, he hasn't suffered a fate similar to Ginny's possession 
> and near-death.) 

Jen: I don't see how a soul piece making its way into Harry would 
render him a 'Horcrux, accidental or otherwise' especially if the 
Horcrux process depends on the object and spell being prepared after 
a murder. 

If possession is a factor, and I'm not convinced it is other than 
with the diary Horcrux, then Harry would be protected from a soul 
piece the same way he's protected from being possessed by Voldemort 
in the MOM:  his 'ability to love' has always been his protection.  
Voldemort and his soul have never known love and one of his soul 
pieces, like Voldemort himself, would be repelled from possessing 
Harry for this reason.  That's my extrapolation from what happened at 
the MOM and Dumbledore's explanation.  

Carol:
> Anyway, I see no evidence that a soul bit, which has to be encased 
> in a Horcrux in order to anchor Voldie's soul to earth, would seek
> out a host to possess (if it did, destroying a Horcrux would not
> destroy the soul bit; the soul bit would simply possess the 
> destroyer of its "case" as the nearest human to possess); no
> evidence that such a thing has happened to Harry either at GH or 
> when he destroyed the diary; no hope for him if it happens when he 
> destroys the locket and other Horcruxes; no evidence that a soul
> bit can transfer power (Ginny spoke Parseltongue because she was
> being possessed, not because Diary!Tom's powers were transferred to 
> her).

Jen:  Again, I don't think we're talking about possession.  The soul 
piece isn't possessing Nagini as there's no indication she's been 
completely taken over or is dying from having a soul piece inside 
her.  According to Dumbledore that's what makes her a poor Horcrux, 
because she can 'think and move for herself.'   And I'm not sure what 
you mean about a soul bit not being able to be destroyed since we've 
seen it happen with the diary?  They aren't immortal as the host soul 
is, as long as there are surviving Horcruxes that is (for host soul).

There's also no evidence that a transfer of magical powers alone 
would cause the kind of connection Harry and LV have.  More on that 
below. 


> Carol:
> Actually, Dumbledore says, "You 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." It's Harry 
> who says, "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" and DD 
> replies, "It certainly seems so" (CoS Am. ed.). In this context, "a 
> bit of himself" means "some of his powers" rather than "a bit of 
> his soul." I don't think knowing about deliberately created 
> Horcruxes, or the fact that the diary was a Horcrux, need affect
> our reading of this passage. I agree with Steve that Dumbledore
> would certainly have told Harry if he even remotely suspected that
> Harry's scar could be an accidental Horcrux.

Jen:  My mistake.  I'll say that Dumbledore agreed with Harry's 
assessment of Voldemort putting a 'bit of himself' in Harry rather 
than correcting him and explaining, no, only some of his powers.  And 
will also add that both Harry and Dumbledore refer to the soul pieces 
as 'bits of soul' in the Horcrux chapter at one point.  That may mean 
nothing but it's how they reference the torn soul pieces at one 
point. 

Jen before:
> D) The two share more than powers as the story progresses, 
> including being able to think each other's thoughts and feel each
> other's feelings.

> Carol:
> Why would the sharing of powers increase because Harry or his scar 
> is an accidental Horcrux? It would have been one all along. Two
> things happen to affect the strength of the scar connection. First,
> Voldemort himself is becoming stronger, gaining first a rudimentary
> body and then his resurrected former body (don't ask me how that 
> could happen; it's magic!). Second, he shares some of Harry's blood 
> thanks to Wormtails' restorative potion. (Of course, the mind link
> is currently blocked by Occlumency, but otherwise, it would
> probably be even stronger now than it was in OoP.) 
<snip>

Jen:  I didn't say the sharing of powers increased in strength when 
Voldemort regained his body; I said that the two are sharing 'more 
than' magical powers when LV regained his body.  They are sharing 
thoughts and feelings, human qualities rather than magical powers.  
Meaning that it is no longer simply about a transfer of magical 
powers as I understood their connection.  

> Jen:
> E) 'Neither can live while the other survives,' can have several
> interpretations including a metaphorical one.  My thought
> is 'living' constitutes what makes up a life, i.e., thoughts,
> feelings, actions and for wizards, magical powers.  So Harry and LV
> are sharing more than powers as the story progresses, they are
> sharing elements of  what it means to be alive.  A living soul
> piece would be a reason for this while a transmission of powers
> appears to be an incomplete explanation for what they share.
 
> Carol:
> But "neither can live while the other survives" implies that neither
> is living *now.* Certainly, that's true for Voldemort, who is, as DD
> says somewhere, not truly alive, having lost 6/7 of his soul <snip>
> As for Harry, metaphorically, he, too, is surviving rather than
> living because so much of his life is devoted to the contest with 
> Voldemort (and, erm, Quidditch). <snipping>

Jen:  Yes, I said there are other literal and metaphorical 
intepretations for the prophecy.  I wanted to suggest the possibility 
that neither is 'living' in the sense of being his own person with 
his own thoughts, feelings, actions, and powers because they are 
sharing these aspects of themselves whether Voldemort is practicing 
Occlumency or not.  Occlumency is a temporary measure like shutting 
off the hose at the valve - the water is still ready to flow if 
turned back on. The scar connection and all they share because of it 
is still present between them until the connection is broken.

> Carol:
> Perhaps. ;-) But my feeling is that Dumbledore told Harry everything
> that he knew or guessed about Voldemort and the Horcruxes before
> embarking with him on what he knew would be a very dangerous 
> journey, particularly to himself. I don't think he would have gone
> after the Horcrux in the cave without first telling Harry 
> everything Harry needed to know. <snip> Not to tell Harry that his
> scar might be a Horcrux, or at least contain a soul bit without 
> being a true Horcrux since no encasing spell was performed, would
> be unconscionable, IMO.

Jen: I don't know the answer of course.  I don't believe Dumbledore 
suspects Harry to be a Horcrux per se because he seems to know all 
there is to know about Horcruxes and, in my opinion, would know 
exactly how a soul piece is sealed in an object.  And if the 
encasement and spell need to happen after the murder then Dumbledore 
would be wise to reject the hypothesis that Harry is a Horcrux. ;)  

If Dumbledore suspects Harry has a soul piece inside, well, I notice 
Mike has an intriguing idea that I'm going to consider next! 

Jen