Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
•	Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
•	Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
•	Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Pages:  <<  <  11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ...  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 21)

Once more, in regards to the horcruxes. When Voldemort tried to Harry as a baby and the Avada Kedavra spell backfired, Voldemort should have been ed. Actually, he was, but due to having split his soul into several horcruxes, he was able to linger as a spirit. In order to linger, there definitely would have had to have been a horcrux used to stay alive. So one of the estimated seven of the horcruxes is gone when Voldemort should have d from his own spell. He would have to have had that 1/7th part back inside him somehow, whether it resided within him or in an object. So there would only be six. His own spell destroyed what would have been the 1/7th of his soul left within him, that saying IF he put the other six parts in other objects, he would have needed one of the other six to continue to exist.

Posted by MIke McGrath from Columbus Georgia on December 30, 2006 5:22 PM

A Horcrux doesn't get "used up" when it gets used. A wizard with one Horcrux could "come back" 100 times so long as that Horcrux remains safe.

It's only function is to hold the person's soul earth bound. The part of the soul that remains in the person after the Horcrux is made is the part of the soul that must "return to life". Morty explains it all in the "Graveyard Speech" in GoF.

Posted by Kevin from Wisconsin on December 30, 2006 6:27 PM

So, let's start arguing, er, discussing what the other horcruxes are. So far we have:
morphin's ring
diary (CoS)
locket
Hufflepuff's cup (Location unknown)
something of ravenclaw's (lu)
something of Griffendor's (lu)
possibly Nagini (w/ Morty)
Honestly, I'm not sure JKR can feasibly resolve all the emotional, philosophical, and plot entanglements AND locate and destroy these items AND do the battle royale betwixt Harry and Morty in less than 1,000 pages. Either she's going to disappoint a lot of people or she's put her family in stasis or she's going to have to write an 8th book (all in favor of the last option say aye.)
In any case, I can see her (hopefully) allowing someone else write a book or 2 following the surviviors (the way Anne McCaffrey and her son Todd transferred Pern.) I don't see it working indefinately- can you imagine someone trying to write more JRR Tolkien Middle Earth books?

Posted by kevins sister from racine wisconsin on December 30, 2006 7:13 PM

Kevin's sister (really?) - Well, the only confirmed horcruxes so far are the ring, the diary and the locket. The other ones are just theorys of Albus's but I daresay that the likelyhood of them being horcruxes is pretty high.

I doubt that she'll write an 8th book. Yeah, I can agree with the part where you say that putting the Horcrux hunting AND the final battle in a book which'll be as big as Half-Blood Prince (as far as I know) might be quite a challenge and it'll probably seem quite rushed. However, Joanne is a really talented writer, I think she'll be able to sort it out quite nicely, albeit still dissapointing some people.

Heck, she's already dissapointed me with that lame title.

Posted by Rane on December 31, 2006 09:18 AM

Rane, the dictionary meaning of Hallows is important. All Hallows Eve, to consecrate, a holy guy or gal a place in the woods ala Godric. There is depth to the name beyond the obvious.

I still hold that we have seen one Horcrux per book but just haven't spotted them. Harry IS a Horcrux or a very-long-term new pair of legs like Ginny was becoming in book 2. He speaks parseltongue and has the scar that throbs. Perhaps if more than one replacement is around at the same time then they interact on a viceral plane until there is only one left. His mother's final blessing (or Hallowing, if you would) has kept the two of the Dark Lord soul shards (one and two) more or less separate for the last 16 years.

Year 7 awaits us.

Posted by ken from la ca usa ea(rth) on December 31, 2006 1:09 PM

The fact that Voldemort didnt meant that he used a horcrux to come back, definitely in GOF. However, the 1/7th of his soul that was still within himself was lost when he attempted to Harry and instead actually destroyed himself, leaving only six horcrux left. One of those had to replace his own 1/7th of a soul to survive. I am not saying that the horcruxes could not be used several times, merely that one of the seven was destroyed the day Voldenmort tried to Harry. One seventh had to remain within himself to be "alive". He could have used a horcrux to regenerate, but the original part of his soul that was left is gone. Hence the reason for the horcruxes. So that leaves only six remaining; the diary, the ring, the locket, possibly Hufflepuff's cup, maybe something from ravenclaw, and whatever he used in GOF to return to a living body, either as the Voldemort form Wormtail dropped into the cauldron, or whatever he used to transform into what he is now. Some horcrux would have had to be used to come back in GOF.

Posted by MIke McGrath from Columbus Georgia on December 31, 2006 4:09 PM

Ken - Interesting point, the "one crux per book" that is. If so, which you'd reckon that they'd be? Personally, I'd say:

Book 1. Riddle himself, as the 7th part is assumed to remain within him. Well, the 7th part is the last fragments of a severely shattered soul.

Book 2. The diary.

Book 3. Can't think of any.

Book 4. We saw Nagini for the first time and Albus assumes that Riddle has put on of his cruxes inside (figuratively speaking) her.

Book 5. Obviously, the locket. If it is the actual locket which i think it is.

Book 6. The ring I suppose. But then again, we saw Hufflepuff's cup in this book too.

Book 7. To be announced.

Which more or less leaves us with Ravenclaws artifact and either the cup or the ring. I believe that the ring could be dismissed seeing as Albus already destroyed it. However, I couldn't directly think of something in the 3rd book but that doesn't say that we haven't seen the Cup, the locket, the ring or something of Ravenclaws in that book (I'm certain that Nagini didn't appear in the 3rd book, which is why I didn't mention her)

Posted by Rane on December 31, 2006 4:36 PM

Wow! I never thought the locket is in the Black's house. This is like the most helpful sight ever! You guys rock! I cant wait for HP and the DH. the names kinda depressing, oh well it, like the others be a work of genius! Until then I faithfully read more info on this sight!

Posted by lia from Pittsburgh, PA on December 31, 2006 5:00 PM

Well, Lia, if the heavy locket in the Black residence indeed was Slytherings locket (which is probably the case, seeing as Joanne is hinting heavily at it) then it's no longer there. As far as I understood, Mundungus nicked it when he pilfered through Harry's newly inherited house.

Posted by Rane on January 1, 2007 06:30 AM

I think that the whole Black theory is good but there is one part that bothers me. When you read the note from RAB, the person says I and NOT WE. This means that only one person was involved in destroying it. Ok so this next part is going to sound crazy but bear with me. What if RAB took either Amy or Dennis with them to destroy it, they would know where it was. Also, maybe the problem with Amy and Dennis was that young tom riddle found a way to put some sort of spell to erase their memory which is why they were different when they came back. Voldemort did not want ANYONE knowing that location, not even a muggle. so lets say RAB find out about the cave, gets Amy or Dennis to go in with them, has the muggle drink the potion and and then escapes himself. It would make sense that the boat would go because muggles have NO magical power at all.

Now I know this next thing probably seem completely different then what I just said, but I have to say that I really like the idea about Dumbledore being RAB (RAB IN BRIAN). Maybe that is how he found out the location of the cave. I know that it does not make sense why he would go with Harry a second time but I am pretty sure that there is a theory floating around that Dumbledore knew what was going to happen and some how needed to or appear ... Well something like that. (In comments on other articles) but if you think about it, do you honestly think that Dumbledore is not fast enough to the point where Draco could capture him? I mean come on! Draco is afraid of the forbidden forest and VOLDEMORT is afraid of DUMBLEDORE. No, Draco has always been easily scared and I think that it is nearly impossible that he could defeat Dumbledore. I think Dumbledore is very capable of immobilizing Harry and deflecting Draco's disarming charm very quickly.

Posted by Kate from Wisconsin on January 1, 2007 09:07 AM

When I read the note signed RAB I immediately thought of Sirius's brother...could it be so obvious? It does make a lot of sense.

Posted by Taryn from Warwick,NY on January 1, 2007 2:29 PM

DRACO was also shown to pick up any interesting object around him and then pocketing it. Perhaps HE has the locket by way of Kreatcher having rescued it from Sirius' puurge of a spring cleaning and then the Black's house elf smuggled it out to Draco's Aunts house to give to a pure blood to hold and then, in a private moment, when Draco is not being actively watched, he pockets it! Also some of the family silver, two pretty buttons, the entire third chapter of Guilderoy's latest blank verse, and 7 Galleons, 2 sickles, and 15 coppers.

Posted by ken from la ca usa ea(rth) on January 1, 2007 3:02 PM

Pages:  <<  <  11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ...  >  >>