The Harrycrux

Nov 17, 2009 15:15

So here's the question related to my last that I can't answer: why do we never see the piece of soul in Harry's scar ever try to "flit in and out of someone" who got "too close to" Harry? Why didn't Voldemort try to possess Ron, or Hermione, or Mrs. Weasley, or Hagrid, if becoming "fond" of a Horcrux leaves one vulnerable to possession ( Read more... )

harry potter meta, dark arts, horcrux

Leave a comment

Comments 11

condwiramurs November 17 2009, 23:21:46 UTC
Also, since we know virtually nothing about how Horcruxes are made (other than that it is apparently possible to make one accidentally), and DD's explanation of the creation of the Harrycrux is not necessarily right (Jodel has a great explanation of how it could have happened), we do not know if there is usually some sort of binding or other dependency tying the soul-fragment to the vessel in some way that would not change the logistics of possession. We only see true possession by a Horcrux-fragment in Ginny's case, when we are already dealing with something other than your standard Horcrux, given that it contains Tommy's memories and apparently can project an entire (tho incorporeal) 'personality' of Tommy. So we don't know if it was just the soul fragment alone, or this simulacrum, that was possessing Ginny. Which could complicate things.

Reply


lilithisbitter November 18 2009, 22:22:33 UTC
Maybe because it's an imperfect Horcrux versus the deliberate Horcruces (Rowling fails at latin, Horcruces is the proper way to render the plural versus Horcruxes that she wrote it as) that Voldemort put in other objects. It's badly put together and probably borderline falling apart with accidently leaks versus the seeming deliberate evil of the others.

Reply

A different Horcrux terri_testing November 18 2009, 23:08:53 UTC
Canon shows us one way for sure the Harry-Horcrux is different from all the others--Tom reacted to its destruction. He collapsed. The others, he couldn't even tell THAT they'd been destroyed--he had to look physically.

According to Albus (who may or may not have been telling the truth, and/or may or may not have been right), Tom was trying to create a Horcrux with Harry's death.

Instead, he created a Horcrux of (or in) Harry--with his own death. Which wasn't, however, a final death, because he'd created Horcruces.

All other Horcruces ever created have been created by the murder of others; this one was created by inadvertant self-murder.

How does that affect its attributes?

Reply

Re: A different Horcrux lilithisbitter November 19 2009, 00:52:40 UTC
Perhaps, he probably created the others in a non-panicked state of mind. But in this case, his soul splintered to save itself. Meaning the blocks he might have had in place on the others to prevent his collapse weren't there in his case.

Reply

Re: A different Horcrux aasaylva November 19 2009, 22:44:46 UTC
All other Horcruces ever created have been created by the murder of others; this one was created by inadvertant self-murder.
Oh, I never thought of it like that, but always assumed it was Lily's murder that was "Horcruxifiable". Until now, I entertained the impression that you had to commit the murder first to sort of gain the energy or whatever and split your soul BEFORE turning part of it into a Horcrux. I'm not sure it was ever stated explicitly, but it seems logical to me? *ponders*

Reply


oryx_leucoryx November 20 2009, 18:19:58 UTC
Before Tom had a new body made for himself we saw him possess Quirrell - it seems what remained of Tom's soul lived in the back of Quirrell's head, even causing the formation of a face there - Tom could look out of his own eyes, not Quirrell's.

After he got his new body we see him possessing Nagini - and from Harry's vision it appears Tom was seeing through Nagini's eyes.

Tom also attempted to possess Harry at the Ministry. He was able to make Harry talk for him. One thing that was never explained - Tom's body disappeared from the scene just before possessing Harry. Did he Apparate his body to safety or did he not have one during the possession?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up