|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:33 pm
|
|
|
|
So, when Dumbledore was telling Harry about horcruxes, did anyone else immediately think that Harry himself might be one (or his scar).
I think it makes some sense (though I'm not completely sold on it myself, yet, since it is a little hard to figure out how it could happen) and would more aptly explain the link between Harry and Voldemort and why Harry inherited some of his powers. After all, the link seems mostly one-sided, as Voldemort did not seem to be feeling Harry's emotions or viewing his reality in his dreams the way Harry was experiencing his (It wasn't until the snake attack that Voldemort recognized Harry's presence).
I do think that this would be accidental, since it was Voldemort's intention to kill Harry. Since we don't know how a horcrux is made exactly, it's hard to say how this could happen; is it a spell performed afterwards usually, or does it have to do with the intention when one commits the murder (you're not just intending to kill, but also to put your soul into something at the same time)? If it's the former, then obviously, Voldemort did not have the opportunity to perform the spell after the Avada Kedavra rebounded, but perhaps something else made it happen. If it's the latter, then he would have had the intention twice, therefore making two horcruxes: once when he killed Lily (on accident), and again when the curse rebounded on him (Or would it? After all, he himself technically didn't die, but then wouldn't a horcrux created by killing Lily be focused where he wanted, since he was still conscious, and therefore probably would not go in Harry?). It could also be something different totally. When the curse rebounded, after all, it made Voldemort not only the killer, but the victim. Since we know that killing splits the soul, what happens to the soul when it is hit by an Avada Kedavra while being split?
This is all a bit sketchy still, but I think if Harry (or his scar) is indeed a horcrux, it would explain so much and allow for an interesting ending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baby Phantomhive Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baby Phantomhive Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magnetic Conversationalist
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:00 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:15 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magnetic Conversationalist
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:17 am
|
|
|
|
KirikoAkushi BeeBrittney But didn't Dumbledore say that a Horcrux had to be an object? Then the theory wouldn't work. Because Harry's Scar isn't really and "object". But otherwise it is a good theory. He said it could be an animal (Nagini), so I don't think that it has to be an object. He didn't say that it couldn't be a human. I think that most people wouldn't choose a living thing, since that means their horcrux would die eventually, but if it's accidental, I don't see why not.
Hmm. That is a valid point. Maybe your right, it is a very good theory otherwise. It could make A LOT of sense too.
I want to look into this more now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:03 pm
|
Magnetic Conversationalist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|