Basilisk venom, de-horcruxing, and Harry, A slight inconsistency in the Chamber I fear. Options

[Phoenix Animagus]

Hi,

Something has caught my attention! Maybe you have noticed too.

(Long time since I posted anything here... And, looks like... not a lot of people post at all any more but...)

Never mind. As much as I hate to say it - I think JKR has made a rather unfortunate error in the overall plot. Maybe you will agree.


We are told that powerful magic must be used in order to "de-Horcrux" a horcrux. In the story, usually basilisk venom is used to destroy the horcruxes. Basilisk venom was used on the Locket, the Ring and Nagini via use of the Sword of Gryffindor (which had the venom infused in it), and on the Diary and the Cup by using an actual basilisk fang.

There were two exceptions. Firstly - the Diadem, which was destroyed with fiendfyre. Secondly - Harry Potter himself - who was de-horcruxed when Lord Voldemort tried to kill him.

Before I go on it is worth saying that it is uncertain precisely what de-horcruxed Harry in all truth. Either A) it was the power of the Avada Kedavra curse or (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) it was because Harry "died" (as a consequence).

I do not believe it was the power of the curse itself that de-horcruxed Harry, because otherwise that would have sufficed for all the other horcruxes. There would be no need for basilisk venom, swords or fiendfyre. Instead, all the horcruxes could simply be struck with the killing curse. We must assume that it was actually the "death" of Harry that de-Horcruxed him. This is why Dumbledore believed Harry would have to be killed (sort of), rather than be just struck with the curse.

I re-itorate - it was the fact that Harry died that he was de-horcruxed - NOT the raw magical power of the curse.

(I know Harry did not fully die. Where I say he died, read he sort of died, but sort of did not)

SO!

This leads me on to my great questions.

ONE - Why?? Did Harry's death de-Horcrux him? After all - all the other Horcruxes (bar Nagini) were already inanimate unliving objects, and that did not stop them being horcruxes. Why did Harry's physical body not remain as a horcrux?

Was it his life force that was the horcrux? (Thus when that was briefly destroyed then so was the horcrux part.) That requires that he did actually die. It also requires that intangible "life forces" or "souls" can be horcruxes, rather than just material physical objects.

In other words why does killing a living horcrux de-horcrux them.

(Unfortunately we cannot consider Nagini, because she was simultaneously killed and brought into contact with the basilisk venom via the Sword. What de-horcruxed her? We cannot know. Darn.)

TWO.

This the BIG ONE.

Harry was de-horcruxed a LONG time before Deathly Hallows!

When?

When he was twelve years old. In the Chamber of Secrets (the book and the place) he was stabbed with basilisk venom!! His body was poisoned with the stuff! He only survived because Fawkes healed him.

Surely - the Basilisk venom would have de-Horcruxed Harry long ago!

The fact that JKR does not attempt to reconcile this blatant inconsistency in the text of Deathly Hallows (or anywhere else for that matter) seems to indicate that either A) She was not aware at the time of writing. or (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif) Was aware, but hoped no-one noticed.


I really like the books and I am a big admirer of Jo Rowling. I do not mean to disrespect her in any way!

I do wish that this was addressed somewhere though. Oh well....

[Dijares]

Hey Phoenix,

Glad to see you.

I have to agree that it was Harry's actual death that caused the separation. As far him having been infused with basilisk venom, this is a very good point. The only thing I could think of is that because Harry didn't die, and the phoenix tears cured him and removed the venom, that Fawkes saved both of them.

What an irony, though, huh? That that horcrux would have ended up killing one of the other horcruxes (Young Riddle could have killed the Horcrux within Harry).

[the_prisoner_of_...]

I thought when I read it initially that the reason the Avada Kedavra curse could be used on Harry but not on the other Horocrux's was something to do with them being contained in the inanimate objects. As far as I knew the killing curse can only be used on living things, perhaps placing them in inanimate objects was part of their 'protection'. Just a thought though, but Dumbledore then said that placing a Horcrux inside a living entity was dangerous, maybe because Nagini was suseptable to Avada Kedavra.

However, Harry has shown time and time again his reluctance to use the unforgivable curses. He even refused to use A.K against Voldemort. I wonder had he had the chance, would he have tried it against Nagini?

But I must say your reasoning seems far more likely than what I first suspected.

As for Harry being infused with Basilik venom...I think perhaps it hadn't reached "that part of Harry" yet. The venom had entered his system when Fawkes came to the rescue, but I wonder if it had 'reached' the horocrux? (seems a bit like I am trying to find Jo a loophole here)

ah dear, it's one of many things we may never have an answer too.

[Phoenix Animagus]

"The only thing I could think of is that because Harry didn't die, and the phoenix tears cured him and removed the venom, that Fawkes saved both of them."

Well, yes, I suppose it would have to be that. Or, perhaps like prisoner said the poison had not reached that part of him yet.

As I thouched on though - the fact that JKR doesn't bring this up either means she hadn't thought of it OR she knew it was a bit of a plot crack that needed cementing over slightly.

But I don't mind. I love the story and think she's done a fantastic job. I'm in awe of her writing ability.


What an irony, though, huh? That that horcrux would have ended up killing one of the other horcruxes (Young Riddle could have killed the Horcrux within Harry).

Ah yes, very interesting.

Mind you - Harry was a horcrux and he DID destroy one of the others. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

You know what's weird? Despite Dumbledore sending Harry on the great horcrux destorying mission... he doesn't actually destroy a single one himself in Deathly Hallows. Bizzare.

[Fizzing_Whizzbee]

An interesting thought. I'm going to agree with the idea that Harry's death caused the separation.

I haven't tken the time to look this up to be sure, but when Hermione is explaining how to destry Horcruxes I believe she says somethin to the effect that the object must be damaged in such a way that it cannot be repaired.

The diary got a big gash in it from the basilisk fang.
The ring was cracked down the middle.
The locket was stabbed by the sword.
The cup was destryed by a basilisk fang.
The diadem was burned/destroyed by Fiendfyre
Nagini was beheaded.
Harry died.

So each item was either destroyed completey/killed or received damage that was unable to be repaired.

In the case of Harry being poisoned with basilisk venom, there was a still a cure (albeit an extremely rare one) in the form of phoenix tears. Thus the damage wasn't permenant and the Horcrux was left in tact.

[Phoenix Animagus]

An interesting thought. I'm going to agree with the idea that Harry's death caused the separation.

I haven't tken the time to look this up to be sure, but when Hermione is explaining how to destry Horcruxes I believe she says somethin to the effect that the object must be damaged in such a way that it cannot be repaired.

The diary got a big gash in it from the basilisk fang.
The ring was cracked down the middle.
The locket was stabbed by the sword.
The cup was destryed by a basilisk fang.
The diadem was burned/destroyed by Fiendfyre
Nagini was beheaded.
Harry died.

So each item was either destroyed completey/killed or received damage that was unable to be repaired.

In the case of Harry being poisoned with basilisk venom, there was a still a cure (albeit an extremely rare one) in the form of phoenix tears. Thus the damage wasn't permenant and the Horcrux was left in tact.

Interesting, interesting...

Of course in Harry's case he didn't actually die though did he... so... it all makes it rather messy.

Still.

Interesting potatoes.

I wish we knew more about horcruxes. Suppose you made a really big horcrux? Like a castle, or... I dunno... a planet. I mean - what are the rules? I guess we'll never know...

[the_prisoner_of_...]

I wish we knew more about horcruxes. Suppose you made a really big horcrux? Like a castle, or... I dunno... a planet. I mean - what are the rules? I guess we'll never know...

I'm having a star wars moment here....*drifts into star wars world* "where is the location of the rebel base".....*ka-boom*!!!

[(O₂)]

Interesting, interesting...

Of course in Harry's case he didn't actually die though did he... so... it all makes it rather messy.

Still.

Interesting potatoes.

I wish we knew more about horcruxes. Suppose you made a really big horcrux? Like a castle, or... I dunno... a planet. I mean - what are the rules? I guess we'll never know...

*SPOILERS*






I think the clue here isn't really death, as we think of it, I think it is seperation of the soul from the body, essentially, Harry's soul was the Horcrux. Remember the thing in "King's Cross"? That was the part of voldemort, the horcrux. Once harry's sould was sperated from his body, the horcrux was also forcefully seperated, therefore removing the horcrux, and since it was left in "King's Cross", we can assume it did not accompany him back. Therefore, no more Harry Horcrux.

We can also, from this assume that since Harry's BODY was damaged by the basilisk venom, but he did not die, that the horcrux would not have been destroyed by the venom.

Nagini was the anomoly, her spirit would have held her horcrux as well, but she was killed by a basilisk infused sword, doublt killing the horcrux. However I belive the same is key of her, I don't think Voldy would have taken such care to protect her if she wasn't vulnerable to any such attack, because let's be honest, how many basilisk infused swords are there lying around. One. That we know of. I think her death would have seperated the horcrux no matter what.

This is of course all my humble opinion, as I'm not JK herself. But I think it's a pretty decent explanation.

[baty4potter]

*SPOILERS*






I think the clue here isn't really death, as we think of it, I think it is seperation of the soul from the body, essentially, Harry's soul was the Horcrux. Remember the thing in "King's Cross"? That was the part of voldemort, the horcrux. Once harry's sould was sperated from his body, the horcrux was also forcefully seperated, therefore removing the horcrux, and since it was left in "King's Cross", we can assume it did not accompany him back. Therefore, no more Harry Horcrux.

We can also, from this assume that since Harry's BODY was damaged by the basilisk venom, but he did not die, that the horcrux would not have been destroyed by the venom.

Nagini was the anomoly, her spirit would have held her horcrux as well, but she was killed by a basilisk infused sword, doublt killing the horcrux. However I belive the same is key of her, I don't think Voldy would have taken such care to protect her if she wasn't vulnerable to any such attack, because let's be honest, how many basilisk infused swords are there lying around. One. That we know of. I think her death would have seperated the horcrux no matter what.

This is of course all my humble opinion, as I'm not JK herself. But I think it's a pretty decent explanation.

Well it may be just your opinion, but it's a good one.

[(O₂)]

Well, thank you very much Baty.

[whitewolf]

To whom this may concern: Horcruxes are objects which through an act of dark magic becomes a recepticol for the soul. In itself The AV curse is a dark magic act. This is why Harry never used it. As you remember the only good preson that ever used the forbidden curse was Molly in the end when she had enough of Bella. Harry became a horcrux after Voldermort cast the killing curse at him, an innocent child. His mother's shield charm caused V's soul to fracture. The soul fragment once free of Voldermort adhered itself to the only living and powerful magical object in the room: Harry. The power of the shield was so powerful it then blew the now weaken Voldermort apart. In order to get rid of a horcrux you must destroy it, (and destroy it completely), with an object or substance of equal or greater magical power. Harry did not die. The bbok and Harry would have made two down, with the others vunerable because they would not have had Harry's blood to bring protect the new Voldermort. Your list is good except I think the point that you are missing is that the ring was opened by the Elder Wand and the sword that destoryed the locket and Nagini was the Sword of Gryffindor. The magic of these objects were powerful and unbeatable. Yes, Harry's soul was "infected" by Voldermort's soul: but as you remember the new Voldermort's body was created by taking Harry's blood and creating, for a lack of a better term, a paradoxical horcrux of himself for Harry. The Elder Wand was used to "kill" Harry which destoryed the Voldermort part of him, but because his mother's blood charm held, and existed in a living Voldermort, Harry could not be killed as long as Voldermort lived. As for the last battle. Harry was through his defeat of Malfory the true master of the Elder Wand, which would not act against him. All he needed to do was to obtain it at the right moment, and the curse cast by Voldermort would work against him. Again, Harry was not a dark wizard so the AV curse was not one he needed to use. So there, that was fun, hope it helps

[(O₂)]

To whom this may concern: Horcruxes are objects which through an act of dark magic becomes a recepticol for the soul. In itself The AV curse is a dark magic act. This is why Harry never used it. As you remember the only good preson that ever used the forbidden curse was Molly in the end when she had enough of Bella. Harry became a horcrux after Voldermort cast the killing curse at him, an innocent child. His mother's shield charm caused V's soul to fracture. The soul fragment once free of Voldermort adhered itself to the only living and powerful magical object in the room: Harry. The power of the shield was so powerful it then blew the now weaken Voldermort apart. In order to get rid of a horcrux you must destroy it, (and destroy it completely), with an object or substance of equal or greater magical power. Harry did not die. The bbok and Harry would have made two down, with the others vunerable because they would not have had Harry's blood to bring protect the new Voldermort. Your list is good except I think the point that you are missing is that the ring was opened by the Elder Wand and the sword that destoryed the locket and Nagini was the Sword of Gryffindor. The magic of these objects were powerful and unbeatable. Yes, Harry's soul was "infected" by Voldermort's soul: but as you remember the new Voldermort's body was created by taking Harry's blood and creating, for a lack of a better term, a paradoxical horcrux of himself for Harry. The Elder Wand was used to "kill" Harry which destoryed the Voldermort part of him, but because his mother's blood charm held, and existed in a living Voldermort, Harry could not be killed as long as Voldermort lived. As for the last battle. Harry was through his defeat of Malfory the true master of the Elder Wand, which would not act against him. All he needed to do was to obtain it at the right moment, and the curse cast by Voldermort would work against him. Again, Harry was not a dark wizard so the AV curse was not one he needed to use. So there, that was fun, hope it helps

Hmm, I will try and figure this out, as it seems well written, but it's hard to read with no real break in it.....

The making of a horcrux, if I remember correctly, does not actually require the use of AV, nor does AV automatically (or accidentally) make one, if I gather what you thought about it. A Horcrux uses the act of killing, or equally evil act, as power to be created. Any wizard can use AV, if they have the motivation, Molly had motivation to Bella because she had attacked her children and killed her friends.

Now, you are correct in that a horcrux must be destroyed by something more powerful than itself, but, if I remember correctly, even dumbledore said the Elder wand was nothing more that a wand with a very bloody and superstitious past, and object of great allure of those who seek power, but only because of their belief in the wands power. Te wand itself could not destroy a horcrux, I would believe DD would have used Fyndfire or the like on the stone, as it was cracked, and heat cracks stone...remember the Diadem, similar damage.

The same goes for the sword of Gryffindor, the fact that it was a sword gryffindor owned was what made it special, no magical properties, the only reason it could destroy horcruxes is that it was infused with basilisk venom by Harry in his second year. that it why it could destroy horcruxes.

Now, the sould fragment on Harry was a result of the damage his sould maintained when his curse backfired, but the sheild charm only had to do with the backfire, nit the horcrux, and since bok four has been basically useless, as Voldy had Hary's blood in his veins. But that would not change the nature of the horcrux, since I think we can agree that the horcrux in Harry was not a bodily attachment, but one in the soul, not affected by a mere cut on the hand or arm.

The reason that AV was able to de-horcrux Harry is that it, if only temporarily, seperate all parts of his soul from his body, in a way acting as a cleansing curse. Harry was given a second chance no doubt, and I don't think anyone can explain exactly why he didn't die, other than the fact that he WAS at the time master of the wand that voldy then held, regardless of the fact that ot was the Elder wand. Harry was allowed to return to his body, without the intrusion of Voldemort, because of some ancient rule of magic we do not fully understand.

And for the last battle, Harry only suvived because he was the wand's true master, and as such, Voldemort could not fully tap on it's power, allowing Harry to use Expelliarmus to deflect the spell back at Voldy. If Harry had so wished, I think he could have used AV against him, he has shown attampts at unforgivable before, so it wouldn't be nheard of. I think that he just had a kind of hunch once he knew everything that if he was patient, Voldemort would essentially kill himself.

Most f what i'm saying here is that a) Horcruxes must be killed by things stronger than themselves, the wand isn't stronger itself, but rather the spell of the wielder, the sword has no magic on it's own, but the venom is potent enough to destroy the horcruxes, and horcruxes on living things are aattached to said living things soul, so taking it's blood would have no effect on the basis of the horcrux at al, it did however, in Harry's case, circumvent the sheild charm, allowing him to connect with Voldemort more.

I think you have a lot of good ideas, I just humbley disagree with some of them, and I mean not to offend, but this board could do with some lively debate on such an abstract subject.

And i apologize, that was long.

This post has been edited by (O₂): Mar 12 2009, 09:59 PM

[whitewolf]

No offense taken. You will find I love a good debate. I hope that however, I make my points clearer. While, I can be accused of being a subjectionist, I try may best to be a purest and a literalist in a discussion, so bare with me.
1. AV: Yes any wizard or witch can use it. It is considered the worst of the Unforgivable Curses and are considered illegal. We learned that in the GOF when the Faux Moody taught them in class. Most white wizards, would not use this curse if it can be avoided, and even Auror's have to be given permission to use it by the Ministry. I think this was also found in the GOF and the OOTP. I'm not saying that Harry could not have used it, I'm saying he chose not to use it( which I agree may have been more of JK's choice to distinguish Harry from Voldermort than anything else).
2. Now Slughorn in HBP explains to Tom R. that "the surpreme act of evil-murder" is what tears the soul to pieces. That a spell( which no one actually says) said at the time of the act I suppose is what causes the effect of the making of horcrux. While we can agree that Voldermort's making Harry a horcrux was an accident, both Dumberdore's guess work and Voldermort's memory of the night James and Lily died show's that her shield charm cause the fragmentation, because the double murder cause his soul to split. In GOF Voldermort refers to it as "old magic". Remember DD triumphant smile when Harry told him what happened in the graveyard: I believe it was because he(DD) realized that Voldermort had done for him what he could not do; provide absolute protection for Harry aganist Voldermort being able to kill him. (For further proof reread pages 904-06 of DH "Kings Cross"). The blood charm that kept Voldermort from killing Harry in Petunia's house, was now part of Voldermort. Like I said before, he created in himself a kind of paradoxical horcrux where as long as he survived Harry would not died.
3. I have re-read the "Prince's Tale" in DH and we are both mistaken, DD used the sword to open the ring (p. 868). However, I will argue the independent power of the sword. Unless basilisk blood doesn't dry up or wash off, it was the sword that was a powerful object in itself. I think Hermione was the one in DH that concluded that the container had to be destroyed beyond compare by something rare and indestructible. The sword killed the snake; but Harry did not use it to destroy the book; he used a fang(that was ink and not venom you saw). A bloodless fang was also used to destroy the cup. This explaination of how to destory horcruxes also may explain why Harry was not destroyed by the vemon (p.142)While the container remained in tact so does the horcrux.
4. I think this brings us to our final opposing view: The power of the Elder Wand. It was Ollivander that explained that the EW had no real significant power, as did any other wand (like Voldermort's and Harry's ). Its just that the wand "chose and recongnized" it's master, and if a wizard conquered another wizard in battle, whether he killed him or not the wand would likely change it's alliegence to the new owner. However, if the destruction of a horcrux depends on the destruction of the holder "beyond repair", and it required an magical objected of great power, the Elder Wand qualifies as an horcrux destroyer, because it destroyed the soul fragment in Harry, who survived because of his mother's blood charm: (for further proof, recall that when Harry came too, Voldermort was down and out like a light. (A Flaw in the Plan DH)

I will end here. As you see I am pretty long winded myself. Thanks, this was fun. Looking foward to round2!!

[(O₂)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vrr3PkP-qQ

there ya go, didn't feel like typing so much.

[whitewolf]

I agree with the was pride and ignorance that killed Voldermort in the end. Remember DD told Harry at King Cross, it was what Voldermort did not know that was his weakness. And DD specifically mentions that it was Voldermort's used of Harry's blood that is the reason Harry was dead. As long as Voldermort remained alive Harry could not died. This made clear in King Cross of DH. We agree on the horcrux existence on a living thing, and on the fact that the thing at King Cross was Voldermort's soul fragment. I will even concede on the power nature of both the EW and the sword, however, I still hold to my stance that the sword itself and not the venom on it could be used to destory the horcrux. I'm researching the proof but I know I have seen it there. Also the cup was destroyed by a fang, no venom mentioned but I guess can be assumed. Have conceded the point on the AK curse, but you must also concede that it is amazing no good wizard used it, with the exception of Molly Weasly. Good Show.

[(O₂)]

Very true, it is amazing tht no good wizard really concedes to using AK.

And I forgot aout the cup, but the point on the sword still stands, ifused with the venom itself.

Also, not to beat a dead horse, does it actuall say Molly used AK? Haven't had a chance to reference the book, or did she just use some other curse whose cumulaive effect was death to Beelatrix?

[whitewolf]

You are good! I like that. However, research from GOF indicates there was no other curse or combination of curses that Molly could have used. In DH it states that the two witches were "fighting to kill". In GOF Moody in teaching the Unforgiveable Curses states that the AK is the only curse with no counter curse and that Harry was the only known person to have survived it. He survived it twice. While you correct that it does not state that Molly actually said the words it paints the scene from Harry's point of view, which he becomes reminescent of the moment that Sirius dies. Bella falls. Molly did it, and the only curse she could have used was AK.

[(O₂)]

Fair enough, I can respect that.

[whitewolf]

Thanks, this was fun. I have a new topic. Its about Voldermort and his mother; want to play?

This post has been edited by whitewolf: Mar 15 2009, 10:18 PM

[(O₂)]

I'll bite, where is it?