The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene )

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 191177



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote:
>...
> 
> Geoff:
> How do you see Basilisk fangs and the Sword of Gryffindor fitting
> into your speculations as successful destroyers of Horcruxes?
>

Steve:

Again, the Method of Destruction must be strong enough the break the bond, the physical damage to the object is incidental. And, the objects, Diary, Cup, Locket, are not actually destroyed. Harry still uses the Ring. The Book still exists as does the Locket. The Ring has no more than a crack in the stone. 

When Dumbledore (or Ron) struck the object with the Sword of Gryffindor, it was not with the intention of destroying the object, but of destroying the Horcrux, and to destroy the Horcrux, you must simply unbind it from the object to which is is bound. Again, that invariable damages the object, but I still claim that damage in incidental. 

Someone else speculated that perhaps the process of making an object into a Horcrux imbues it with some protection against common physical damage. In a sense, making it invulnerable to all but Horcrux destroying magic (of whatever sort). 

I have mixed feelings on this idea. I think I'm leaning against it though. But whether it is true or not, it doesn't invalidate my previous post as an illustration. IF the Cup could be reforged into 20 rings, it wouldn't matter. Common fire and heat are not enough to break the magic bond holding the Soul Bit to the Object, and by extension, holding the 'soul' earth bound. 

Striking the Object with the Basilisk imbued Sword of Gryffindor causes only minor damage to the object, but has sufficient magical power to break the bond holding the 'soul' to the object. 

Steve/bboyminn