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....

[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*!!!