[the_old_crowd] How to Reassemble using Horuscruxes

[elfundeb]

Back from vacation, not quite finished reading the hundreds of posts
on this list, and hoping this rambling speculation about Horsecrunches
wasn't already used to wrap last week's fish . . . .

Troels wrote:
> One very interesting difference between the normal folk-tales and Rowling's
> use of the Horcruxes is that Rowling has one fragment remain in the body.
> Traditionally the body is vacated, but still controlled, by the soul that
> has been hidden away in a (supposedly) safe place, and the body becomes
> invulnerable and immortal. It is almost as if leaving the last fragment of
> the soul in the body makes the body vulnerable while the Horcruxes make the
> /soul/ immortal.

Dumbledore seems quite certain of himself when he tells Harry that the
seventh part of Voldemort's soul still resides in his body.  OTOH, we
know that a person can exist without his soul - Lupin tells Harry that
in PoA.  But he also says that a soul-sucked person has no sense of
self, no memory, only an empty existence.   Well, I'd argue that
Voldemort definitely has an empty existence, but he does have a sense
of self, however distorted it may be.

Nevertheless, I don't think canon expressly precludes theorising that
Voldemort could have completely separated soul from body.  We do have
Slughorn's how-to memory on Horsecrutches, but we already know that
Riddle pushed that envelope far beyond what was previously considered
its limit.  I could see him pushing it further in an effort to excise
every bit of soul from his body as a self-defense mechanism.  As
Troels points out, keeping even a small part of soul seems to leave
the body vulnerable to attack.  At the same time, he'd want to keep an
eye on at least one part of his soul at all times, so . . . .

Of all Dumbledore's speculation about the remaining Horsecrutches,
Nagini was the one that didn't seem to fit with Riddle's modus
operandi.  It's not a Founder's relic, and it's not associated with
Hogwarts or his family except for a general connection to Slytherin
House and Parseltongue.  But he already had a Slytherin relic (the
ring) and a testament to his Parseltongue ability (the diary).

Dumbledore's theory on why Nagini would have been chosen as a
Horsecrack didn't seem very convincing to me, but it now occurs to me
that post-rebodification, Voldemort might have decided to deposit his
last bit of soul in Nagini in order to prevent a recurrence of the
body-less state in which he found himself after Godric's Hollow. 
Dumbledore does point out Voldemort's unusual level of control over
her, even for a Parselmouth.  We know from Harry's experience of being
the snake in OOP that Voldemort can simply possess Nagini in order to
do his dirty work.  And he keeps her close by.  I would, too, if that
was my soul.  And he used Nagini's venom as nourishment for his
UglyBaby form, another connection which perhaps imparted some of
Nagini's soul (or whatever substitute a snake may have) to Voldemort.

And one other piece of canon:  Tom Riddle, at 16, figured out how to
preserve a memory in a diary.  Could he have discovered how to remove
his soul while preserving his memories?  After all, there's no reason
why externalizing one's soul in Horcrucii *must* have the same effect
as the Dementor's kiss.

If Voldemort has dispersed every piece of soul, and if Harry is the
repository of one of those pieces (whether intentionally or
inadvertently -- I'm leaning toward the theory that Harry is an
unintentionally created bit of soul, with the possibility that
Voldemort still does not know about it), then there is a possibility
that the last remaining bit of soul keeping Voldemort alive will
repose inside Harry.  Voldemort would be unable to kill Harry without
killing himself.  The irony is that the life of Voldemort, whose
greatest fear is death, will depend on the mercy of Harry, who does
not fear death.  Either must die at the hand of the other, indeed.

Probably a swiss cheese theory, but it was fun, anyway.

Dungrollin wrote:
> >Oooh. As soon as I read about Golpalott's third law, I wondered
> >whether it could apply to Horcruxes as well as poisons... Could this
> >be an underlying principle in magic in general? That the sum of a
> >series of magics is greater than its parts, thus to undo them it is
> >not enough to simply counteract each in turn, there is an additional
> >*something* that must be found to complete the undoing.

Troels:
> There is a strong sense in Rowling's books that the sum of a union is
> stronger than the sum of the consituents, but with respect to the
> Horcruxes, I think that we are seeing the reverse. The sum of the split-up
> soul is less than the sum of the whole (united) soul -- divided he falls!

So, are you saying that something is lost in the ripping of the soul
caused by the act of murder, or alternatively in the creation of the
Horcrux?  I submit that that something is the power which Harry has
but which Riddle has not.  While we know Riddle has never loved, we
are not told he never had the capacity to love; the prophecy states
that Voldemort "knows not" the power and not that he "has not" got it.
 Perhaps it was lost through the repeated splitting of the soul and
having never experienced love, Voldemort didn't know what power he was
giving up.

Is it possible to put Riddle's soul back together?  In the Catholic
tradition, sin separates a human being from God's love, and confession
and repentance restores it.  In the Potterverse, murder and the
creation of the Hoarcrunchy separates the evildoer from the power to
love.  Would the destruction of the Horcrunchies, with an added dose
of genuine remorse, make Riddle's soul whole again?  Could Voldemort
repent?  And if so, would it be a satisfying ending or would we be
choking on the treacle?

Debbie
who will believe that Tonks is ESE! as soon as someone posts her HBP
backstory -- I want details!