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

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 191196



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote:
>
> ...
>  
> 
> Steve: 
> > ....
>  
> > Again, none of the objects were truly destroyed. The Ring, Cup, Locket are damaged but generally intact. 
> 
> Geoff:
> I don't altogether agree...
> 
> 'Dumbledore took the diary from Harry and peered keenly down his 
> long, crooked nose at its burnt and soggy pages.
> (POA "Dobby's Reward" p.244 UK edition)
> 
> '... there was only Ron, standing there with the sword held 
> slackly in his hand, looking down at the shattered remains of 
> the locket on the flat rock.'
> (DH "The Silver Doe" p.307 UK edition)
> 
> '"So we're another Horcrux down," said Ron and from under his
> jacket" he pulled the mangled remains of Hufflepuff's cup.' 
> (DH "The Battle of Hogwarts" p.501 UK edition).
> 
> 'A blood-like substance, dark and tarry, seemed to be leaking 
> from the diadem. Suddenly, Harry felt the thing vibrate violently,
> then break apart in his hands..'  (ibid. p.510)
> 
> Personally, the use of the words 'mangled' and 'shattered' in these 
> circumstances would not project a sense of 'generally intact' to me.
> :-))
> 
> I assume that you wouldn't make the same observation about Nagini 
> either?
> :-(
>

Steve:

The Diary might have been singed and soggy, but it was still a book, not a pile of ashes. The Cup was still a cup, though likely bent. And I believe that 'mangled' is an overly dramatic word, in this case, for bend or misshapen. 

The Diadem is unique as it is the only thing we see destroyed by Fiend Fire. Yes, it broke apart, but it didn't turn to dust. In this case, I will give you that it wasn't 'damaged but generally intact'. But neither was it completely and utterly destroyed. 

As to the dramatic turn of a phrase, let's consider the Potter house in Godric's Hollow. At various places earlier in the series, we hear the house referenced as 'destroyed', which people took to mean utterly and completely destroyed. Yet, we find later in the series, when Harry visits the house, that only the bedroom in which the event occurred was destroyed. The house is 'generally intact'. 

"Mangled" doesn't necessarily mean that the Cup was crumpled up like an old piece of paper. It means it was damage to some degree, we can only infer that degree of damage. I contend, in my opinion, that it was certainly 'damaged, but generally intact'. 

"Burnt and soggy" means damaged, but clearly not destroyed.

The Locket is referred to as "Shattered", but do we really know that it was reduced to a handful of metal fragments? That is not the sense I get when Ron shows it to Hermione later in the story. It seems to be 'damaged but generally intact'. 

But then ... that's just my opinion.

Steve/bboyminn