Harry, impossible to kill?

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 177730

> > Jen: 
> > I read it all pretty simply and know there's a gap in my 
> > logic somewhere but I'm not sure where:  The AK killed the soul 
> > piece, almost killed Harry in the process, that caused the blood 
> > protection to kick in, and the blood connection is why Voldemort
> > went with Harry to his near-death experience.  I understood that
> > the AK didn't rebound because it 'found' part of LV inside Harry
> > to hit instead.
 
> zanooda:
> I don't know why I didn't think about the blood connection as a
> reason for LV to be knocked out, it seems logical enough, thanks! I
> mostly agree with your ideas, except for one thing. You say that AK
> hit the soul-bit instead of Harry, but I always thought that AK 
> *had* to hit and kill Harry, otherwise the soul-bit won't be 
> destroyed. 
> 
> To eliminate a soul-bit inside a Horcrux, you need to destroy the 
> Horcrux (the container), that's what DD's book on H-xes states. 
> Harry is the container, so he needs to die (be destroyed), then the
> soul-bit will be destroyed also. That's what I always believed, so 
> your remark about the AK killing the soul-bit directly was 
> unexpected for me.

Jen: I'm trying to work this out in my mind.  So the AK killed the 
soul piece and destroyed the container.  But because Harry's tethered 
to LV he can't really die, just as LV can't really die; 'Neither can 
live while the other survives'?  OK, that does make sense to me if 
I'm understanding your reasoning.  When I said the AK 'almost killed 
Harry in the process,' now that sounds incorrect.  I was thinking he 
couldn't have died because he didn't 'go on.' But that's the point, 
Harry's not dead because he's tethered to LV, not because he wasn't 
actually killed.  I think. :)  Tell me if I've muddled you're 
explanation instead of understanding it!