Argh! Harry's scar is not a Horcrux, people!

May 05, 2006 21:30

Okay, I've just seen this theory pop up one too many times not to say something. There are lots of magical/thematic reasons why Harry's scar is not a Horcrux. There's also a big practical reason: THE SCAR DID NOT EXIST WHILE VOLDEMORT WAS STILL IN A PHYSICAL FORM CAPABLE OF CREATING A HORCRUX, ACCIDENTAL OR OTHERWISE!

Let's review events:
  • Voldemort attacked the Potters. Lily died for Harry.
  • The Avada Kedavra bounced off Harry, and rebounded at Voldemort. Voldemort's soul was knocked loose, leaving him with no body, no wand, and no way of creating a Horcrux.
  • Sometime later, Hagrid rescued baby Harry from the ruins of the Potters' house. Harry had a nasty cut on his forehead.

The thing started out as a cut, not a scar. Are you telling me that a cut-- a break in the skin-- can be made into a Horcrux?

If Voldemort can make a cut into a Horcrux, why not go with that theme for all his Horcuxes? Let's see...
Horcrux #1: Harry's cut
Horcrux #2: The eye of a needle
Horcrux #3: The hole in the middle of a donut
Horcrux #4: The crack in the Liberty Bell
Horcrux #5: The empty space inside a single atom
Horcrux #6: The sound of one hand clapping

After all, it's much harder to destroy nothing than it is to destroy something. He'd live forever!

I get the impression that this theory is mostly being pushed by people who want Harry to get rid of his scar by the time the books are over. That line of thinking is an additional pet peeve of mine. I could probably go into a full-scale rant about it, but I'll limit myself to one of my 7-point lists instead.

1. Dumbledore wanted the scar to stay there. Dumbledore generally knows what he is doing. Respecting Dumbledore's opinion will take you far.

2. The first time we are properly introduced to the scar, we are told that Harry likes the way it looks. So, bad emotional stuff aside, he doesn't have a problem with it.

3. As for the bad emotional stuff, you don't remove that pain by removing the scar. And there's no reason to remove the pain anyway-- it will never really be okay that Voldemort tried to kill him. There's no need to remove the scar and pretend it didn't happen. (We're not aiming to give Harry amnesia, too, are we? Wait, what am I saying? I'm sure someone is.)

4. Harry's biggest practical problems with the scar are the painful connection with Voldemort and the way it makes him recognizable as The Famous Harry Potter. Assuming (as I always do) that Voldemort dies at the end, the mental connection won't be a problem anymore. And removing the scar wouldn't do much to make him less recognizable. He's gone to school with 12 years worth of wizarding children. He's had his picture in the papers. I don't think people are walking over to him and pulling up his bangs to check who he is at this point. His face is out there. (If someone you knew had a scar removed, would you stop recognizing them?)

5. The scar doesn't even have to be a negative thing-- it's all in how you choose to see it. The Avada Kedavra doesn't normally leave marks, so that scar is as much Lily's doing as Voldemort's. It's a mark of survival, a mark of love.

6. He has 2 notable scars now: the lightning bolt on his forehead, and the "I will not tell lies" on his hand. The messages that might be sent by removing the lightning bolt are muddled up by leaving the hand scars. (And there's really no good excuse that I can think of to get rid of both.)

7. The Mirror of Erised is due for a reappearance. 'Nuff said.

erised, scar, horcruxes, theories

Previous post Next post
Up