Science Fiction and Fantasy Community Forums
Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Printable Version

+- Science Fiction and Fantasy Community Forums (https://forums.sf-fandom.com)
+-- Forum: Science Fiction and Fantasy Franchises (https://forums.sf-fandom.com/forum-5.html)
+--- Forum: Harry Potter (https://forums.sf-fandom.com/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: Happy Potter and the (7th book title) (/thread-21579.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Arcadia - February 9th, 2007

Deathly Hallows also fits the idea of Horcruxes considering that DD was injured disposing of one of them. We don't know about the locket yet or if it is deadly, but DD was poisoned trying to get it. And if the snake is one, it is pretty deadly. So if we are correct about the "deathliness" of the Hallows, or the deathliness of the Horcruxes, then this indicates to me that we'll see Harry find and destroy the Horcruxes, but that each will present great difficulty and danger. It won't be a simple matter of identifying a Horcrux and zapping it into oblivion.

And actually, it would be logical that the Horcruxes are lethal- V would hardly entrust his soul to something that is easily destroyed. Right?


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - GamgeeFest - February 9th, 2007

You mean like an easily-lost golden ring that melts when thrown into a volcano? Wink

I would imagine that, given everything they had to go through just to find the first Horcrux, which turned out to be replaced by a fake, that if the Horcruxes themselves are not lethal, then finding and recovering them will be.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Niphredil - February 9th, 2007

Yeah, I'm sure Voldemort would have taken measures to ensure they were well protected. Technically the locket wasn't the first, though it was the first Harry went looking for.

Number one was Riddle's diary -- destroyed by Harry with the Basilisk fang in Book 2 (with no adverse effects on Harry, iirc).

Number two was Marvolo's ring -- destroyed by Dumbledore, in the process essentially killing his hand.

Number three was Slytherin's locket -- presumably destroyed by R.A.B. (whether that is Regulus Black and the locket is still in Grimmauld Place remains to be seen... I have to wonder if that was just a big red herring, though)

I do agree that finding the remaining three (or four, if the locket in Grimmauld Place does turn out to be the Horcrux) Horcruxes will be difficult, painful, and even deadly. If anything, given the list above it seems like the consequence of destroying one is bigger as they go along.



Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Arcadia - February 9th, 2007

Oh that's right. The diary wasn't deadly was it. Although the use of it almost resulted in Ginny's death.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - RobRoy - February 9th, 2007

GamgeeFest Wrote:You mean like an easily-lost golden ring that melts when thrown into a volcano? Wink

Yes, exactly like that. But for a volcano, then we'd need to go on a quest of some kind. A mix of all the magical races should go. Harry for the humans, Hagrid for the giants, Dobby for the elves . . . hmmm, are there dwarves in Potter? A wizard certain. I would have said Dumbledore, but, well, clearly he's out. Perhaps someone else from his order? Now, that might not leave any room for Ron and Hermione. Ron, at least, shouldn't be allowed. My heart is against his going . . .

Oh, wait, I've heard of this story before . . . :bg:

Arcadia Wrote:Oh that's right. The diary wasn't deadly was it. Although the use of it almost resulted in Ginny's death.

Wasn't the diary somehow addictive, and would then use the person, slowly sucking their life while Voldemort became stronger?


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Darq Ali - February 9th, 2007

Waht we've seen of known Horcrux items so far does not suggest that the Horcrux items are "deadly" in and of themselves. They could be handled by anyone and were not harmful.

The diary was entrusted to the Sr Malfoy, who in his own time slipped it inside a used schoolbook of the young Ginny Weasley. She handled it and wrote in it, and it brought her no direct harm. She flushed it in a toilet, and it was picked up by Harry, who allowed Ron and Hermionie to handle it too, and none were harmed.

The Spirit of Tom Riddle at age 16 inhabited the Diary, however. He was able to possess Ginny, and also to influence her to certain actions. He was also able to influence Harry, and to show him things in almost exactly the same way as a Pensive. By this agency, the diary could have facilitated the death of Ginny, Harry and/or many others. But the diary, the book itself, was not "deathly".

The same is true of the Gaunt ring which Dumbledore discovered. It is unclear if Dumbledore was injured while releasing the soul fragment from the ring, or in the discovery of the ring {I think it was in the discovery}. But the ring, soul fragment gone, remained behind as a plain, damaged, ugly ring. The diary, soul fragment gone, remained behind too, a torn, soaked, dirty book. Neither was "deathly" or "deadly".

If the locket at Grimould Place is the real Horcrux locket LV made, it was handled by many. They could not open it; so if that is the real Horcrux {my guess is, it is, and remains a Horcrux. Hence, it can't be opened. If it weren't a Horcrux there is no reason for that. If it were but 'R.A.B.' managed to release the soul fragment, there is no reason it couldn't be opened now.}

Anyway, with the locket, what we saw as "deadly" was the booby-trapped hiding place. My guess is that similar "deadly" booby traps protected the old Gaunt ring, too, and it was that which casued D's injured hand. The Diary was not hidden, but entrusted to the care of a minion to hide, and so, wasn't "deathly" nor booby trapped.

The only proposed Horcurx which would be "deathly" in and of itself is the snake Nagini, which is large enough to eat people and has poison fangs. But her inclusion in the potential Horcrux list is speculative.

What is "deathly" is the possible booby traps; and the process of releasing the soul-bit encased in the object, about which we know nothing. D did "whatever" to release the soul bit from the ring, but neither we nor Harry knows what. Harry "just did it" when he shoved the Basilisk's fang into the Diary, and neither he nor we know why he realized he should do so ........ we can hope in similar circumstance, similar wizardint instincts will kick in.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Arcadia - February 9th, 2007

Thank you for the summary.

Was the 16 year old V in the diary the part of the soul of V? Or was it something else?


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - RobRoy - February 9th, 2007

Darq Ali Wrote:The Spirit of Tom Riddle at age 16 inhabited the Diary, however. He was able to possess Ginny, and also to influence her to certain actions. He was also able to influence Harry, and to show him things in almost exactly the same way as a Pensive. By this agency, the diary could have facilitated the death of Ginny, Harry and/or many others. But the diary, the book itself, was not "deathly".

I'm sorry, but this is like saying that it wasn't the gun that killed someone, it was the guy handling the gun. Both were necessary, integral for harm to occur. It was only while the book was extant that Voldemort could cause harm. Once the book was destroyed, Voldemort's ability (in that form) was lost. Just like a handgun, it wasn't in the handling of the book that caused the harm though, but in its use. Still, the potential for harm existed, just like a loaded handgun, thus making the book dangerous, or, if our interpretation of the terminology is correct, "deathly".

The other horcruxes seem to have similar attributes attached depending. Just because an item can be handled, doesn't mean the item is safe.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Arcadia - February 9th, 2007

How do we know that the diary was a Horcrux? If it is because the 16 yr old V was attached to it, could it be that the part of the soul that V transferred to the diary manifested by appearing as the 16 yr old V?

Another way of asking: If V had not stored part of his soul in the diary, would the 16 yr old V have appeared as he did?

The V in the diary, was it an actual part of V's soul that he had stored there. Or was the soul portion unseen and just inferred somehow?

If someone can help me by answering the above, then the following question arises:

Supposing that the 16 yr old V in the diary was indeed the soul fragment that V had stored in the diary, then we can assume, can we not, that a good chunk of the upcoming book will be not only Harry's locating and obtaining the Horcruxes, but also doing battle in some way with the soul fragments that are in them and may manifest in a similar way to the way the 16 yr old V did?


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Darq Ali - February 9th, 2007

Well, I don't disagree in one sense, but do in another.

The book {diary} would not alone harm a person who attempted to pick it up; nor did the ring {D wore it!}; nor did the Locket, for several at Grimould Place handled that, too. [Presuming that is an intact Horcrux item, which none of us really knows at this date to be sure.]

Even when Ginny attempted to flush the intact Horcrux Diary/Book, nothing happened to her for her efforts; no lightening stroke struck her down, no booby trap to protect the thing went off.

There was danger seeking the hidden Horcrux items we've seen hidden ...... the Gaunt Ring and the Locket. They were "guarded" by magic, spells which were dangerous, creatures which could kill. In this sense, seeking Horcruxes is a "deathly" persuit, I wholly agree. But the danger is not from the object, but the booby traps set to guard the object, surely a valid distinction.

Harry and D passed through many dangerous things to reach the locket hiding place, but once the poision was drained from the cup ......... the locket within could be picked up with impunity. Well, of course, I know that wasn't the real deal; but D did the same with the Gaunt Ring, and "R.A.B." the same with the real Horcrux locket .......... walked {err ....... rowed? paddled? floated ........?} away with it.

Now, you say, the Horcrux is akin to a gun held by someone who shoots you. If it is LV who does the harm when he pulls the trigger, still it takes the presence of the gun to inflict a wound, you would say. Likewise, if it takes an LV soul-bit to possess you, it is the presence of the Horcrux item which makes it possible for the soul-bit to do its foul deeds.

I get your drift but I think it misses the point. As D keeps pointing out, each time there is mischief, it is for the same reason {LV}. Theft of the SS? {LV}. Opening of the C of Secrets? Same person this time as last time in Hagrid's day {LV}. And so on. LV and his magic are ever a danger. Sometimes a Horcrux item has put a part of LV in the area to work his mischief, but it is LV, not the object which does so.

My point was that the Horcrux items were not dangerous to pick up and wouldn't make you keel over dead because you reached for them {except the snake Nagini if she is one; she can bite you}. Sure, each Horcrux contains a bit of LV and he is ever a danger, but he does not need to be a Horcrux to be so. Quirrel was possessed just as Ginny was, no Horcrux in sight. Harry was possessed in the M of Magic hall, no Horcrux around, just LV in person, no "guns" either. LV was the force behind the attack on Dumbledore, but Draco saw him in person, and was not entrapped by a Horcrux item soul bit, as Ginny was.

I guess I am agreeing {in a sense} but want to qualify it: The Horcrux items may be "deathly" because they are inhabited by the soul bit of a killer wizard, but it is clear that contianing a soul fragment does not render the object itself "deadly" to any who encounter it, see it, nor pick it up. LV has to choose to harm you, and it is his will to do harm and his actions that cause harm. Not the object.

And when the soul bit is released, the Horcrux {as such} is destroyed, but the object remains, damaged but harmless. The wet, slashed, stabbed, Basilisk venem soaked diary is just an old, damaged and harmless wreck of a book. The Gaunt ring is just an old, ugly, damaged ring with a cracked stone. They are not "deathly".

LV, in any form, and each fragment of LV's soul, is what is "deathly". If you are near him and he chooses to harm you, he may do so, but many have handled his soul-bits encased in something and suffered no ill effects.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - RobRoy - February 9th, 2007

Darq Ali Wrote:I guess I am agreeing {in a sense} but want to qualify it: The Horcrux items may be "deathly" because they are inhabited by the soul bit of a killer wizard, but it is clear that contianing a soul fragment does not render the object itself "deadly" to any who encounter it, see it, nor pick it up. LV has to choose to harm you, and it is his will to do harm and his actions that cause harm. Not the object.

I see your point, and I think we're coming at the same concept just from different directions. Keeping with the gun analogy, which I like for numerous reasons, a gun is not deadly in itself to any who encounter it or pick it up. Still, the potential is there to cause great harm. The horcruxes have this same potential not because they're designed to necessarily cause harm, but by the nature of the designer and their particular use, or misuse.

Quote:And when the soul bit is released, the Horcrux {as such} is destroyed, but the object remains, damaged but harmless. The wet, slashed, stabbed, Basilisk venem soaked diary is just an old, damaged and harmless wreck of a book. The Gaunt ring is just an old, ugly, damaged ring with a cracked stone. They are not "deathly".

Just as a gun is not "deathly" if it is damaged. You're right that it is Voldemort's pressence, his association and whatnot, with these items, but that does render them somewhat dangerous to have about, regardless. In the same concept, a gun in the right hands is a tool of the trade, nothing more. But in the wrong hands . . . well, there you have it, exactly as with Voldemort too close to someone he wants to harm. Clearly, this can happen through the horcruxes, whether they are used as agent or just catalyst.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Darq Ali - February 9th, 2007

About the Diary:

We know {think we know} it was a Horcrux, because that is what Dumbledore told Harry it was.

Of course, D may have been incorrect; he has been wrong before and we are told that, too. But if so, the whole theory of Dumbledores, the "LV didn't die when his killing AK curse, cast upon baby Harry, rebounded. His body died but he did not, he remained a weak spirit, but did not die, because he had made {several} Horcrux" Theory, is wrong.

D didn't know {all the long years} what happened at Godric's Hollow. When Harry encountered the long dead Tom Riddle and then got rid of him by stabbing the Diary, Tom's own old Diary, Dumbledore guessed then ........ it was a Horcrux.

It was the first of several LV made. And what a Horcrux is, is an object which encases a soul fragment, which the wicked wizard has split off from his own soul by that most evil of acts, murder. This is followed by a complex spell which encases the soul-bit.

The 'resurrected' Tom Riddle Ginny and Harry encountered in the Diary was a 16 year old Tom Riddle because that is how old he was when he made that first Horcrux. Dumbledore {and we} guess the occasion of the soul splitting was the death of Tom's parents at his own hand. Or, perhaps even the death of the student who became the ghost Moaning Myrtle, perhaps Tom's first murder? Though some argue the Basilisk killed her, not Tom Riddle; but I say, the Basilisk was the instrument of her death, Tom the cause, and her death lays squarely at his door ..........

Anyway, yes, we know the Diary was a Horcrux, and that the manifestation of Tom Riddle, aka LV, encountered there was a bit of his soul encased within. Because that is Dumbledore's explaination to Harry.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Arcadia - February 9th, 2007

Thank you!

So I wonder if we'll encounter in the other Horcruxes Valdemort at the time of life that he made those Horcruxes.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Darq Ali - February 10th, 2007

My guess is that we will not,

At the time Tom Riddle at 16 came nearly into being by drawing on Ginny's life force, fashioning a new existance for himself, the major part of LV was a disembodied and weak spirit, unable to take any form, exiled in the forests of Albaina or some such far away place.

The soul fragment encased in the Diary was awakened by Ginny writing in the Diary. Tom wrote back. Young Ginny was enamored of the great Harry Potter, who she was mooning over to Tom. And through Ginny, that fragment of LV learned of the fate of his body and main soul part [which up to that point, the 16 year old soul fragment didn't know about, having been "asleep" in the diary all those years]. Because there was no major LV body or on going life, the soul bit formed a plan to become reborn by some process, using Ginny's life.

He was "indistinct" still for the process was incomplete when Harry met him at last in the C of Secrets, where Harry was drawn, seeking to rescue Ginny. Had Ginny died, Tom would have taken her place as a life force in his new body, a recreation of the former 16 year old Tom's body. A new LV, young again! Of course, He did the typical Evil Overlord "make a great speech and explain everything to the enemy before doing him in" scthick, just as he later did in the graveyard after Peter the Rat helped the main soul part gain a new body years later on. Evil Overlords never learn! And so both times, Harry escaped; with the Tom incarnation, Harry actually managed to destroy LV's play to make a comeback, though it was a close thing!

Now, as Harry hunts down the remaining Horcrux, there is in play a resurrected LV with a real body, alive and active. Thus there is no reason for any of his remaining soul bits to make a seperate play to come to life in a body of their own. Further, the Diary Horcrux was very unique in its form, as well. It was created to be returned to Hogwarts, and to have the property of attracting some person to act to open the Chamber of Secrets, freeing the Basilisk to resume "cleansing" the school of "unfit" students of "impure blood".

[Odd, that Ginny should have been the agent .......... a Pureblood. But I digress.]

In order to serve the purpose Tom Riddle intended, that specific Horcrux item had to have the property of being able to act by possessing others. And so when "activated" by being placed into Ginny's hands, and her talking to it/Tom, that particular Horcrux was able to possess a living witch and act out plans. The initial plan to open the Chamber and resume attacks on "mudbloods" was changed, however, for Ginny told Tom about the fate of his older self {LV} and also all about the Great Harry Potter, who effected his downfall.

And so Diary/Tom changed his plan; he decided to return in the flesh, and also to thwart his newly discovered nemesis, Harry. Of course, we all know he was not ultimately successful, but that was the plan.

Now that there is a new LV Main Person alive and active, there would be no need for any alternate to arise. And I think no other Horcrux would have the same powers as the Diary, which was created with the ability to act, as that was a major part of its purpose. Indeed, the opening of the Chamber and the "cleansing of Hogwarts" was the only purpose LV ever told Malfoy about [ie, LV never explained in detail that the Diary was a Horcrux in so many words; Malfoy didn't fully appreciate what he held for his Master]. Thus, Malfoy gave the Diary over to Ginny, all unknowing of the treasure he thrust into her hands, and the wrath his Lord would turn on him, once its loss was discovered after LV's eventual return.

So no, my guess is, that none of the remaining Horcurx will stage a comeback and reflect the state of LV's life they represent when made. My guess. We've been there and done that.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - GamgeeFest - February 10th, 2007

Only time will tell what will happen when Harry finds the Horcruxes. Encountering a different Voldemort each time could be interesting, and I don't doub that JKR has the ability to handle such a concept well. However, it could also get rather redundant, so I would hope that she takes a different route.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Arcadia - February 10th, 2007

Based on Darq's analysis, I believe that we won't encounter more such soul parts trying to get a life on their own now.

As to why 16 yr old V chose Ginny, a pureblood, maybe he discounted those who weren't pure as being distasteful and not worthy of his exalted self.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - GamgeeFest - February 10th, 2007

16 yr old V didn't choose Ginny. Malfoy did, and he did so as a way to discredit Arthur Weasley.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Darq Ali - February 10th, 2007

GamgeeFest Wrote:16 yr old V didn't choose Ginny. Malfoy did, and he did so as a way to discredit Arthur Weasley.

Exactly my thinking as well.

Malfoy made the choice. Tom Riddle worked with what he had.


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - Arcadia - February 10th, 2007

Did Malfoy choose Ginny out of some animosity toward her family, or was she just handy?


Happy Potter and the (7th book title) - GamgeeFest - February 10th, 2007

Malfoy hates the Weasleys. The Weasley are a pure blood family, one of the last ones actually, but they have a love for Muggles. Malfoy, like many of the purebloods, believe that Muggles and Muggle-born wizards and witches are no better than the scum you scrape off the bottom of your shoes. Malfoy thinks that Weasley's love of Muggles is a disgrace to the wizard name. So by having Weasley's own daughter attacking Muggle-born wizards and witches, Malfoy hoped to disgrace the Weasleys and even to get Arthur fired from his job.