Search Beyond Hogwarts:
by Jan-Marie Spanard
How does a wizard learn about the existence and properties of Horcruxes? Who knows what they are, how to make them, what they can do? What wizard would make a Horcrux? Under what circumstances? And for what reasons? And why are they so evil? Hermione is working very hard to answer these questions. As Hogwarts virtual library search-engine, she is coming up empty. But Tom Riddle did it, somehow.
> Read the full article
Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... > >>
Reader Comments: (Page 9)
Ashat, you make an excellent point. Fawks is essentially immortal, DD could never really . There's NO WAY he would sign up for that.
Posted by Kevin from Wisconsin on November 22, 2006 07:18 AM
What a wonderful thread of reasoning I am reading on pages 8 and 9 here... Some very intriguing analysis going on here.
Here are a few quotes from canon to keep us on track:
"A Horcrux is the word for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul... you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one's body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot , for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged. But of course, existence in such a form...few would want it, Tom, very few. would be preferable." (p. 497 US edition HBP)
"By committing (one can split the soul). ing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion (in a Horcrux)." (p. 498 ibid.)
Several key points here:
(1)The Horcrux is a container, not something evil in and of itself. It is just a container for a fragment of soul.
(2) A Horcrux is made to protect oneself from resulting from an attack. Anyone who thought their would be a detriment to the Wizarding world's survival might very logicially create a Horcrux to preserve their ability to fight their attacker.
(3) "Very few" would want it. Very few indeed. And it is feasible to see Lord Voldemort's reason for wanting it as well as Dumbeldore's. Voldemort wants to be immortal. Dumbledore, on the other hand, surely knows that the chances of finishing Voldemort without his presence are very slim indeed.
(4) It is curious that Slughorn says, "the wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage (to his soul) to his advantage," rather than condemning the wizard who might even consider this. This description of a wizrda creating a Horcrux is actually quite benign, given the horrible status of a Horcrux.
(5) When Dumbledore tells Draco (on the tower) that ing someone is a very difficult thing to do, I believe he says this from his own experience (with Grindlewald, at least, if not with other evil wizards over the decades as well).
I don't think a Horcrux is necessarily a good thing, but it is a type of life-insurance policy in the wizarding world -- one that comes with a high up-front premium. If Dumbledore had to Grindelwald, he could "use the damage to his advantage" and make himself available to assit in the defeat of evil for many years to come. What did Dumbledore say about defeating evil? You can't wipe it out, but you can keep on fighting it and keep it at bay. I think Dumbledore knew quite clearly that he was uniquely suited to defend the good people of the Wizarding world. And I think he resigned himself to creating a Horcrux in order to meet that responsibility as best he could.
Posted by Jan-Marie from New York on November 22, 2006 09:46 AM
I wonder why in HP and order of the phoenix HP is scared by the Thestral that pull the school carriga. Because Carlo d in HP & th goblet of fire so he should have seen them already a few months earlier at the end of school year
Posted by johan from Holland on November 23, 2006 03:51 AM
Actually, Harry should've seen Thestrals ever since he entered Hogwarts as he had seen his mother (though he was very small). So I guess its just a mistake in the book.
Posted by Aditi from Nagpur, India on November 23, 2006 06:53 AM
Hey Kevin,thanks for supporting my theory,and my name is not Ashat,its Akshat.
This horcrux theory is really cool,but in the end whatever has or should happen is upto J.K.Rowling as she is the one who has to decide what actually has happened,this is the only true theory applicable,however as you agree Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore would never opt to have a immortal life,so do I,as he had chance to become immortal in the first book itself.
So the most promising Horcrux would be the Gryffindors Sword,hanging in his office.
However one thing is very intresting that none of the readers still dont think about the arch in the Department of Mysteries,through which Sirius Black fell (according to me there is no mentioning that they found his body) and Harry heard voices.
Maybe that arch and the veil have a very important part to play in the story,however if J.K. is by any chance reading this,i would like to request her to atleast make Sirius alive so that the story perhaps reaches a happy ending.
Posted by Akshat from Jaipur,India on November 23, 2006 07:58 AM
Well, there's always that theory that Sirius merely fell through the veil of life and , and he's not at all, Akshat, just stuck on the other side and when he finds a way out Dumbledore can use him to bring a message to Harry.
I've always been struck by the passage in the fourth book in which Dumbledore's eyes burn with something like triumph when hearing of Voldemort's resurection. I think its an important clue in this mystery.
Posted by Heather from Iowa on November 23, 2006 1:55 PM
I apologize Akshat... The only thing worse than my spelling is my typing...
I may be wrong,but I don't think the sword was known of before Harry pulled it from the sorting hat.
The hat also once belonged to Godrick Gryffindor. It's possible that he himself hid the sword in the hat until some one the hat felt was worthy of it could call it forth.
I don't know, but I don't think any one had access to the sword to make a horcrux from it. There is, however, no end of stuff in DD's office that could have been used.
Some one corect me if I'm wrong(and I trust you ) dosen't Nicholas Flammel's frog card say he's the only "KNOWN" maker of the sorcerers stone?
As to the veil, I agree that there has to be something more in the arch than we have seen so far.
A one way portal of some kind? A window into the beyond? I'm open to any opinions.
One last thing, I would like to also appologize to all the people who have been kind enough to explain to me in excruciating detail the folly of comparing Harry Potter to the Lord of the Rings...
Posted by kevin from Wisconsin on November 23, 2006 2:31 PM
If you trust me, Dumbledore is either or stuck midway, but there is another thing to the whole story, as someone from the earlier pages suggested, that Dumbledore has never actually rescued Harry from any sticky point, what if there is something more to our dear character?
However I don�t want that this hunch turn out true as i myself did not felt good when Dumbledore was 'ed' in the tower.
Talking about the arch, it has definitely got something to do with the story (Neither Sirius's body was mentioned nor his ), and that Luna Lovegood is quite spooky (either spooky or a crack). As Dumbledore said about the room in the Department of Mysteries, that it contains such power that is more beautiful than life and more terrible than at the same time, (I don�t remember the line exactly), maybe he or atleast Sirius is going to walk out of it some time in the later story.
Talking about the sword, it was with Godric Gryffindor some thousand years ago and he did not essenntialy stuff it in his talking hat on his bed, and what Kevin you are forgetting is that Dumbledore (i should say Mr.Dumbledore as he is/was appx. 70 years older than me, im 18) was himself in Gryffindor.
And he himself should be a true Gryffindor himself, and would have found or pulled out Gryffindor's sword from the hat. So he would have had made a horcrux into the sword, and to hide a horcrux, who would think that there is a one metre long sword inside the old hat and that too is a horcrux.
However to the matter of placing it back, i say who says if you can pull something out you cant kick it back in. He had the sword well hidden, but when he came to know about Harry having fun in the Chamber of Secrets he was forced to send the hat (eventhough he himself should have appeared hanging from Fawkes claws) out of which Harry pulled out the sword.
This is the best possible way to see Mr. Dumbledore alive without making him immortal by tieing to Fawkes's immortal soul.
Posted by Akshat from Jaipur,India on November 24, 2006 12:16 AM
Akshat, what did you mean when you said DD has never rescued Harry from any sticky point? DD definitely saved Harry's life in the Ministry duel and that was a 'very' sticky situation.
Also, in the lake of the Inferi, DD conjured the circle of fire or else the Inferi would've ed Harry.
DD also saved Harry in the first book. I mean Harry did have magical protection in his blood, but later in the hospital DD explained to him that for a moment he feared that the effort involving the rescue of the stone could've almost ed Harry had DD not arrived on time.
Posted by Aditi from Nagpur, India on November 24, 2006 11:17 AM
Well, Aditi, Dumbledore would surely want to have Voldemort dissapear from the scene, therefore he always need Harry to do the mercenary job for him, as you know about the prophecy.
He could have done much better in the story, (even though it depends upon J.K.R.), I know that in a fiction the Hero is supposed to do all the fun.
Posted by Akshat from Jaipur,India on November 25, 2006 01:22 AM
DD was born around 1840... so he would be 150+ by the time Harry starts at Hogwarts.
My guess is that Grindelwald was not the first dark wizard DD tangled with...
that took place in 1945...perhaps related to WWII?
DD would already have been about 105 yrs. old..
It is likely that he would be able to subdue a wizard without ing him, unless absolutly necessary,
It is possible, as I've said before, that the DD we know now, is not the DD that has always been.
Another question, would DD sacrifice Harry for the greater good?
Posted by Kevin from Wisconsin on November 27, 2006 11:30 AM
does anybody know the particular reason why noone can apparate in hogwarts? was it DD who did this enchantment? i think this could be quite important, because if DD would be , the spell would lose its power, but snape and the eaters had to get away from the area to disapparate.
its pretty much the same as the problem with the impediment jinx DD does on harry in the tower...
Posted by Jay from Heidelberg, Germany on November 28, 2006 5:51 PM
Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... > >>