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

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 191192



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> But, according to the book, the object *is* a Horcrux :-).
>


Steve:

Well, that's something I've been thinking a lot about lately. I calling the object a Horcrux simply common and convenient usage, or it it literal? 

Once the spell is cast, that spell creates a Horcrux by bonding the soul and an object. But, it the Bond the Horcrux or is the object the Horcrux, and keep in mind that none of the Horcrux objects has really been destroyed. They still exist, and like the Stone, are still usable. But the BOND has been broken releasing the bonded soul bit. 

Even if the Bond is the Horcrux, how can we refer to the object without complex and convoluted phrases. Far simpler, it to refer to the object as a 'Horcrux' - language of convenience. 

So is the use of 'Horcrux' absolute literal truth, or is it merely convenient language? 

I say the true Horcrux is the Bond. And it is the Bond, not the object, that needs to be destroyed. Again, the ring simply had a crack in the stone; it, the Ring, was in no way 'destroyed'. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn