Questions about Horcruxes

You gathered alot of interesting imformation. I get what your saying. But Voldermort separated his soul with a spell, and egyptions believe that when they die their souls are parted. But if I am wrong, I still dont think he had to feed his horuxes, the reson for saying this is because he would have probably known that Dumbeldore took one of seven parts of his soul, he would have felt it.

I don't think so only because in your statement you said
This is why egyptians left food offerings, to help nourish the bits of souls that need to make the journey to unite with other bits of the soul on in the afterlife.

They did it to join up the parts of the soul in the AFTERLIFE, voldy is not concerned with the afterlife he wants to live and continue living in the present.

But that is what Voldemort is trying to do, to get everyone to forget Tom Riddle and call him Voldemort. You think this can be important?
I don't think the fact that he now wants to be know as Voldemort instead of Tom Riddle is a huge clue in figuring out anything we don't already know, we know Tom Riddle's past which is what is important. Tom wishes to be called Voldemort because it's much more menacing than Tom Riddle. I would say he changed it for the same reasons Anikin Skywalker became "Darth Vader." Not to mention it has something to do with his obession of being considered pure blood, he first took on the name Riddle when he went to the orphanage if I am not mistaken...

Where do you learn all about that egyptian stuff? I don' t believe they have to be fed. They just exist unless they are destroyed but Voldemort would have to check on them though.

Where do you learn all about that egyptian stuff? I don' t believe they have to be fed. They just exist unless they are destroyed but Voldemort would have to check on them though.

That is what I believe. Of course if one of those Horcuxes is alive (I doubt there is though) he would have to feed it. The name Voldemort must be just to forget his previous life and have total evil and darkness.

You can't exactly feed a ring... or a cup... or a locket... or a diary...

When Ron said that even Scabbers had a good time he probably didn't even know one thing about what that rat felt like. Probably just said it because he enjoyed himself so much. The whole concept of going to Egypt for an important plot reason is interesting, though I really find it as trivial information.

Voldemort doesn't even check on the horcruxes (he has never found out one was stolen by R.A.B.), not to mention feed them.

Ok, but say a horcrux was released, as when Ginny released one from the diary. It had to eat then, or feed off of her. So I think if another one is released as opposed to destroyed, it would have to feed too. And well, that would be dangerous because it has to feed off of people's life energy.

I am just trying to figure out why RAB thought voldemort would return to his horcrux. I mean, why put a fake on there and leave a little message and all that. There has to be a reason why Voldemort would need to return to his Horcrux.

So he may not have checked on the horcrux in all the fifteen or so years he has been able to physically walk the earth. But RAB must have known sooner or later he'd have a very good reason to go back for it.

Maybe there is a part two to his plans, that he can only complete when he has made seven. So maybe he hasn't made seven or his plan was disrupted when Harry destroyed the diary. I am thinking he had more planned than just to open the chamber, maybe he had planned to release all his horcruxs so that there would be seven voldemort's running around. Maybe once a Horcrux is released and feeds off of someone's life energy it is very hard to destroy. Maybe it can be like a dementor and continue feeding off of other people's lives, so that it would be nearly impossible to kill. If you got close it could just start draining you.

Ok, but say a horcrux was released, as when Ginny released one from the diary. It had to eat then, or feed off of her. So I think if another one is released as opposed to destroyed, it would have to feed too. And well, that would be dangerous because it has to feed off of people's life energy.

The only reason that the horcrux was feeding/taking Ginny's life energy was because he was trying to make himself human, because if he had taken all here life energy then he would have her life and she would be dead.

I am just trying to figure out why RAB thought voldemort would return to his horcrux. I mean, why put a fake on there and leave a little message and all that. There has to be a reason why Voldemort would need to return to his Horcrux.

The reason was probably just to check on the horcrux and make sure its still there. He knew Dumbuldore was realy smart and knew that he would eventualy figure out the whole horcrux deal. Plus he would never know that it was gone unless he checked on it.

Maybe there is a part two to his plans, that he can only complete when he has made seven. So maybe he hasn't made seven or his plan was disrupted when Harry destroyed the diary. I am thinking he had more planned than just to open the chamber, maybe he had planned to release all his horcruxs so that there would be seven voldemort's running around. Maybe once a Horcrux is released and feeds off of someone's life energy it is very hard to destroy. Maybe it can be like a dementor and continue feeding off of other people's lives, so that it would be nearly impossible to kill. If you got close it could just start draining you.

Now that would realy stink, but realy good idea.

would the maurauders map recognise a horcrux?
how does the map recognise people?

1.if it recognises people through their soul would it recognise part of a soul?
eg,
if voldemort hid a horcrux in the slytheirin common room or a secret passage would it show up on the map?

2. if the map does recognise horcruxes what would it label the horcrux as? (lord voldemort/tom riddle/ he who must not be named or the dark lord)

3. did the map recognise riddles diary? perhaps when fred and george had it, it showed ginny spending alot of time with a boy named tom riddle.

what do you think?

would the maurauders map recognise a horcrux?
i think no. why should it? it is magically charmed to recognise people, not magical objects, evn if they do contain part of a soul.

how does the map recognise people?
a charm? complex magic? there is probably a spell to show the people on the map.

1.if it recognises people through their soul would it recognise part of a soul?
eg,
if voldemort hid a horcrux in the slytheirin common room or a secret passage would it show up on the map?
i dnt think the map recognises souls. it can show ghosts, and they dont have souls anymore do they? i dnt think they do, anyway. so i doubt it. and as many people believe harry is a horcrux, and its never shown that...
no i dnt think so.

3. did the map recognise riddles diary? perhaps when fred and george had it, it showed ginny spending alot of time with a boy named tom riddle.

probably not. and if it did, dont you think they would have asked ginny about it?

Or with humans? As in, if somebody kills somebody else with a sword, is their soul split? If somebody steps on an ant / kill a spider with Avada Kedavra, is their soul split?

I don't think it would recognize a horcrux. I think it probably recognized people by something in their physical nature, like a heart or such. I don't think it picked up Voldemort even when he was possessing Quirrel because he didn't have a body of his own.

I think any form of human murder would split your soul. But, I don't know about other animals or insects or even if you killed in self defense.

Or with humans? As in, if somebody kills somebody else with a sword, is their soul split? If somebody steps on an ant / kill a spider with Avada Kedavra, is their soul split?
Of course!, your soul doesn´t ripped by only killing with a spell, just the fact of killing leaves a mark in you soul, in your mind, everything changes You killed someone and that is going to stay with you always.

Creating horrocruxes is just a way of keeping that part intact, "safe" from dying, is just a vessel to put it away until you need it again.

Perhaps an Active Horcrux might...but not a hidden or concealed one. Maybe Tom Riddle did show up on the Map in COS, but the twins didn't not bother to check. Or maybe, he didn't fully assume a form (as Ginny did not die), maybe he didn't!
I really don't think they are any Horcruxes in Hogwarts...not yet, anyway.

Back to the discussion of whether the choice or the success defines whether a murder attempt tears the soul, I have a new proposition.

I think we can all agree that in JKR's world, choices define people. I think we can all agree that in JKR's world, the soul is the self. So then can we all agree that choices define the self, define the soul?

From there, if you're defining a particular soul, and that soul is torn, isn't that a fundamentally important bit of information? So can a soul be torn, without that being part of the definition of that soul? And if whether a soul is torn is part of the definition of that soul, then doesn't that mean that JKR says choices define whether a soul is torn?

I think that's sort of been my underlying reasoning all along. Souls are personal. Choices are what define a person. It must be choices that matter in determining the state of a soul. Is there a hole in my logic somewhere?

Idabomb333

I think that's sort of been my underlying reasoning all along. Souls are personal. Choices are what define a person. It must be choices that matter in determining the state of a soul. Is there a hole in my logic somewhere?
--------
New guy, and my first post too:

We are told the state of Voldemort's soul through his tearing of it, but it was not the nicest of souls to begin with. We are told infant Tom was not born bad, he became it by the choices he made and the evil he'd committed.

Deciding to do evil is not the same as doing evil, just as desiring to do good is not the same as doing good---sort of like faith without works, I guess is what I'm getting at.

I think that in order for damage to occur to your soul from a murder, then the act of murder has to be committed, it must be followed through to completion. If the act of murder (causing another soul to die) did not occur, then there should be no tear to your soul because your soul did not cause death (damage) to another's soul.

I guess an easier way to say it is that you destroy someone else's soul before the damage for what you did occurs to your own soul.

I guess an easier way to say it is that you destroy someone else's soul before the damage for what you did occurs to your own soul.

:welcome:

That is an excellent way to put it! Good post. :clap:

:welcome:

That is an excellent way to put it! Good post. :clap:Gee, thanks. Everyone is very friendly here.

I just found the quote feature, very handy tool.

Deciding to do evil is not the same as doing evil, just as desiring to do good is not the same as doing good---sort of like faith without works, I guess is what I'm getting at.
First of all, can you explain where your point fits in to deny my logic?

Second, I'm not saying that deciding to do evil is the same as doing evil. I'm saying that the effect of the act on ones soul is defined by the choice to take the action. The value of the act is not defined by the results of the action in JKR's world. Choices define people, souls are people's selves, so choices define souls.

I'm not saying that if Voldemort thought "I will kill Harry Potter," and he meant it, his soul tears. I'm saying that when he kills people, the action he takes to do that is to cast Avada Kedavra. I think the reason his soul tears is not that someone dies as a result of his curse, but that he chose to curse someone in order to kill them. The action, casting Avada Kedavra, is equally evil AT LEAST in its effect on the caster's soul whether or not the curse hits the target because the choice is the same. If we agree that choices define souls for JKR, and I don't see why anyone would think otherwise, then making the same choice twice should have the same result on your soul, regardless of whether the effects are different.

Harry was protected by Lily's sacrifice. Does that make Voldemort's choice to kill him any less evil? Isn't it exactly the same choice regardless of whether Harry dies? And if it's the same choice, then isn't the effect on the person, the effect on the soul, the same in JKR's world?

Let's take an analogy. Suppose there are two homeless guys, one where I live and one where you live. Suppose they have the same terminal but possibly curable illness. Each of us takes our respective homeless guy to a hospital and pays for his treatment. In my hospital, the doctor who gets assigned is not very good, and the homeless guy I helped dies. In your hospital, the best doctor in the world for this kind of illness is there and he treats the homeless guy you helped and he lives. Later, the guy you helped goes on to find the cure for cancer. Suppose your doctor could have saved my guy, and my doctor could not have saved your guy.

We made the same choice, right? So for JKR, the effect on our soul is the same, right? We both took the same action, and once things were out of our hands, the circumstances were different. Due to someone else's actions, your action had a better effect than mine. Does that make your action better than mine? I say no.

Similarly, Lily's protection saved Harry once the circumstances were out of Voldemort's hands. He made the choice and took the action to kill Harry, though. It's exactly the same choice as he would have made if Harry had not been protected, but it has a different effect on the external world. The choice is the same, so wouldn't JKR say the effect on the person, on the soul is the same? And in this case, that effect is to tear the soul.

I agree with a lot of what Idabomb333 said about the importance of choices. But I still think the choice, or decision to commit murder, isn't enough to split the soul. You have to actually commit the act of murder. I think the importnance of choice comes into effect if you commit murder for self-defence, or mearly to kill someone.

I don't think the analogy about the homeless guys really applies in this case. In OOtP Harry decided he was going to kill Bellatrix - he didn't do it, obviously, but he made the decision to do it. And we know, from what Dumbledore said in HBP, that Harry's still as pure as he was when he was 11. So the choice alone isn't enough to split or tear the soul.

I don't think the analogy about the homeless guys really applies in this case. In OOtP Harry decided he was going to kill Bellatrix - he didn't do it, obviously, but he made the decision to do it. And we know, from what Dumbledore said in HBP, that Harry's still as pure as he was when he was 11. So the choice alone isn't enough to split or tear the soul.
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. Wanting to kill someone and really meaning it is not enough, at least I don't think so. I would not claim that Harry's soul should tear for wanting to kill Bellatrix. What I'm saying is that when Voldemort cast Avada Kedavra at Harry to kill him, THAT tore his soul because he actually took the action. Beyond that, circumstances are outside of his control, so they cannot define the effect the action has on his soul. The choice defines the action, and acting to kill someone tears the soul even if the curse fails. I don't think you really make a choice until you act on the choice. Thinking you want to kill someone and meaning it does not count as a choice to kill someone the same way that casting Avada Kedavra at someone does.

In the homeless person analogy, if I had walked by the homeless guy and thought "I should get him to the hospital tomorrow," and I really meant it, then of course the effect on my soul is not the same as actually helping the man. But if I do all I can to help him, and someone else screws it up, then I think the effect on my soul is the same as if I do all I can to help him and it works. Voldemort did all he could to kill Harry, but he failed. His soul should still tear because what he did, and why he did it, is exactly the same as it would have been if Lily's protection did not exist and so Harry had died.

First of all, can you explain where your point fits in to deny my logic?I guess it's just a different understanding of the words.

To effect is to produce an outcome by cause [causing an effect]. Action causes something to occur.

The way that we have the books explaining the damage to the soul is "Murder tears the soul" and not "'Almost murder' tears the soul".

I caused someone's death so therefore I have caused my soul to tear. I hit someone with my car causing their death, now my soul is torn. I caused someone's death because I poisoned them, now my soul is torn.

Avada Kedavra is used to kill. But if death does not occur, then no damage to one's own soul should occur. Basically you're saying the effective damage to the soul begins with the initial casting of the Avada Kedavra---based upon the caster's intent---but before the full effects of the curse are complete, and I simply disagree.

Using Avada Kedavra isn't enough to effect your soul, it is only when the killing curse has succeeded in actually killing that one's soul is effected. Otherwise, Voldemort has fresh tears from killing a desk and statuary, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

The way that we have the books explaining the damage to the soul is "Murder tears the soul" and not "'Almost murder' tears the soul".
That's a totally fair point. I've responded to it before, but you must not have seen that, so I'll do it again.

Yes, Slughorn says murder tears the soul. He says that between saying that the way to tear your soul is by the supreme act of evil and saying that killing rips the soul apart. I say the primary answer to the question of how you tear the soul is by committing the supreme act of evil, and that adding in the term murder was just to clarify what he meant by the supreme act of evil. Try asking yourself the question, "Why does murder tear the soul?" You seem to think it's because it's some sort of magical punishment for killing someone, which is perfectly possible, especially if we were just going off of the words "Murder tears the soul. Killing rips the soul apart." I think that based on those words alone, the question of "why?" is hard to answer.

Given the context of the fact that Slughorn's first answer was something like "committing an act of evil -- the supreme act of evil," I think the reason why is that premeditated murder is the supreme act of evil. I think the soul tears not because of some external magical force that says, "you killed someone, now your soul must be torn." I think it's an internal thing, because souls are so personal and internal. I think it's something like your soul cannot stand to make such an evil choice, and it snaps in something like frustration or protest. I think that fits in with JKR's theme of choices defining people and souls.

To me, it is clear that whether or not anyone interferes to affect your success, taking an action to try to kill someone counts as committing the supreme act of evil, because JKR says choices define us and the choice is the same regardless of how other people act.

Imagine we're dueling and I cast Avada Kedavra at you from a distance. In an attempt to block the spell, you create a huge wall between us so that I have no idea what's happening on your side of the wall and vice versa. Suppose you were too late and the spell is on your side of the wall, still travelling towards you, and that much I know because I could see that the spell made it past the wall. How do I know if my soul should tear? Suppose I have no way of ever determining whether or not my curse hit you. Does that tear my soul if it hits you? When? How?

Yes, JK says the books are about choices, but that doesn't change the way the curse and damage to the soul is explained by JK.: Murder, not attempted murder;p the completion of the act of murder. To cause someone to cease to live.

It all boils down to semantics, which came first the chicken or the egg? If the curse doesn't connect, then it doesn't kill; if you haven't murdered, then you haven't damaged your soul. The curse is clearly defined. Someone casts the killing curse, it rushes towards a person with a flash of green light, it connects, and then the person dies. Having now committed murder the damage to the soul occurs.

How? How does the damage occur? And when? How does the persons soul know its killed if you don't see the curse connect?

According to JK all of the portraits at Hogwarts are of dead people. How did Dumbledore's portrait get there? Who knew except a select few that Dumbledore was dead? How did the office know Dumbledore was dead? How and when did the portrait know to appear?

To me, a death/murder must be 'magically' recorded in some manner.

That's a great point, that deaths seem to be recorded. It does make it a lot more believable that an external force could split the soul. But that's not an effect on the soul. If someone can act to prevent you killing someone, and that prevents your soul from tearing, then it's not your choice that defines the state of your soul. In the opposite direction, if you throw a knife at a wall and someone suddenly gets in the way and dies, your soul shouldn't tear because you didn't choose to kill them. If you cast Avada Kedavra at someone to kill them, and something beyond your control prevents them from dying, then that something is partially defining your soul. JKR says choices define people, define souls. Deaths could set off an external force, but I don't believe that an external force can change your soul like that. Even a dementor doesn't make your soul more evil or anything, it just removes your soul. Whether your soul is torn is a property of yourself, and thus it must be defined by your choices.

I still think the main answer to how you split your soul is that you commit the supreme act of evil, and I think JKR would say that the choice makes the act supremely evil. It's exactly the same choice whether or not the curse connects. Voldemort's decision is equally evil regardless of Lily's protection, so the effect on himself, on his soul should be the same. Otherwise other people can define the state of your soul by determining the results of your actions. That would be totally contrary to JKR's stated position that choices define us.

I think JKR would say that the choice makes the act supremely evil.Then she should have put it in the books. That's all we have to go on is what she puts into the canon.
It's exactly the same choice whether or not the curse connects.
Exactly the same choice, yes; exactly the same results---No, and there's the difference.

Then she should have put it in the books. That's all we have to go on is what she puts into the canon.
Should she have also put in the books that accidental killing doesn't tear the soul? I think she did put it in the books by having the primary answer be that the supreme act of evil tears the soul. Further, I don't think she needs to repeat that choices are key in every relevant context. It's a theme over the whole story. That means you can apply it everywhere. I assume, because of the theme, that she means the choice to murder tears the soul. Slughorn need not be aware of that or say it, but we can infer it from the theme.

Exactly the same choice, yes; exactly the same results---No, and there's the difference.
So you really think that in protecting Harry from death, Lily protected Voldemort's soul from splitting? It seems so wrong to me to think that one person's actions can define the state of another person's soul. You're essentially saying that choices don't define us, the results of our choices define us.

I assume, because of the theme, that she means the choice to murder tears the soul.But that is not how she phrases it. It is phrased as 'act of murder' and not 'choice of murder'. So you really think that in protecting Harry from death, Lily protected Voldemort's soul from splitting? For trying to use the curse on Harry, no he did not succeed in tearing his soul. For successfully killing himself with it rebounding curse, yeah he succeeded in killing, so therefore he damaged his soul.
You're essentially saying that choices don't define us, the results of our choices define us.The results of our actions, yes.

The results of our actions, yes.
You don't think that's a contradiction with Dumbledore saying that it is our choices that define us? And hasn't JKR said the books are about choice? Don't you think that if in the Potterverse, results of actions define the state of the soul, then the results of actions define us rather than choices? And wouldn't that mean the books are more about consequences? I really don't get it.

Choice alone is not what defines Harry, though. It is how he acts upon them. His actions are determined by his choices. He chooses, he makes a decision, acts upon that decision, and then sees the act through to completion.

That is what Voldemort does when he chooses to murder. He chooses, makes a decision, commits himself to that choice through his actions, and sees the action through to completion.

If making a choice to kill was the way to kill, then people would drop dead everytime someone said "I wish you were dead." No need for poisons or the Avada Kedavra at all.

Cause and effect. Without the completing the act, there is no effect.

If making a choice to kill was the way to kill, then people would drop dead everytime someone said "I wish you were dead." No need for poisons or the Avada Kedavra at all.

Cause and effect. Without the completing the act, there is no effect.
1) Obviously deciding to kill someone does not mean they're dead. You don't really think that's what I was saying, do you?
2) I've said several times that it's not wanting to kill someone that tears the soul, it's taking an action that you think will kill them, doing what you can to kill them. Without completing the act, I don't think you've really made the choice. If you complete the act as far as you can and someone else interferes, the external effect does not happen. I think the internal effect still does, though, because you made exactly the same choice. The cause for someone dying is often Avada Kedavra actually hitting them. The cause for a soul splitting is the murderer taking the action they think will kill someone because internally it's the same as actually killing them, and that action is often casting Avada Kedavra. If external power is allowed to come into play, then Dumbledore is incorrect to say that choices define us. When Voldemort tried to hit Dumbledore with Avada Kedavra in the Ministry, I think his soul tore even though things got in the way. Otherwise, Voldemort's choices are not defining him, Dumbledore's choices are defining him because Dumbledore is determining the state of Voldemort's soul, the state of his "self."

Murder, the act of causing someone to cease to live. We are told what the act is that marks the soul. Murder.

If murder is attempted, but not completed, then it is not murder, the act has not been committed...you said it yourself "Without completing the act, I don't think you've really made the choice."

Whether you attempt it or not, the murder has to occur for the choice to have been made, and seen through to completion.

If murder is attempted, but not completed, then it is not murder, the act has not been committed...you said it yourself "Without completing the act, I don't think you've really made the choice."
Voldemort's act is completed when he casts the spell. Beyond that, it's someone else's act that determines whether the target actually dies. In almost every case, casting the curse is sufficient to result in the target's death. Whether Dumbledore dies or gets something in the way of the curse, that has NOTHING to do with Voldemort's choice, so it can have nothing to do with Voldemort's soul.

Premeditated murder is the supreme act of evil. Casting Avada Kedavra is all Voldemort usually has to do to kill someone. Casting Avada Kedavra marks exactly the same choice to kill regardless of whether the target dies, so it's still the supreme act of evil. That's the primary answer to how to tear the soul. I think the line about murder is just to clarify that the supreme act of evil refers to premeditated murder. What do you think is the point of having the first response be that the supreme act of evil tears the soul? Why include that if all she meant was murder?

Otherwise, Voldemort has fresh tears from killing a desk and statuary, which makes absolutely no sense to me.That is the heart of the issue. Let's extrapolate to the night the Potters died. There was a pitched fight of some kind. I'm of the opinion that is what turned the house into ruins. We've seen two pitched fights lately, and both of them exploded and destroyed things all over the place, and left a shambles behind. When an Avada Kedavra misses and hits something solid it explodes the object. We saw it happen in the DoM and during the invasion at Hogwarts. So it isn't true that there is nothing to block and Avada Kedavra. You can put something substantial and solid between you and the Avada Kedavra and survive. It will blow up the object, however.

So the night the Potters died, James fought valiantly against Voldemort, no doubt putting furniture between himself and the Avada Kedavras. Some Avada Kedavras might have hit the walls too. If only intending murder would tear the soul, then all those missed shots would have turned his soul into confetti.

Murder, the act of causing someone to cease to live. We are told what the act is that marks the soul. Murder.

If murder is attempted, but not completed, then it is not murder, the act has not been committed...you said it yourself "Without completing the act, I don't think you've really made the choice."

Whether you attempt it or not, the murder has to occur for the choice to have been made, and seen through to completion.That's very clear. The statement isn't that attempted murder tears the soul. You need a murder, which means your victim is dead. We don't have to worry about the mechanism for the tear (cosmic retribution, personal choices) since, regardless, it happens.

So the night the Potters died, James fought valiantly against Voldemort, no doubt putting furniture between himself and the Avada Kedavras. Some Avada Kedavras might have hit the walls too. If only intending murder would tear the soul, then all those missed shots would have turned his soul into confetti.
I don't understand why it bothers people to think that Voldemort has turned his soul to confetti. HE doesn't seem to care about his soul. We know he's successfully killed an awful lot of times. I think his soul's confetti even if attempted murder doesn't tear the soul. There's no way the number of his failed Avada Kedavras compares to the number of his successful ones.

I'm not concerned about whether his soul is confetti. I happen to think it is from all the murders he's done. I just don't think that attempted murder tears the soul.

Voldemort's act is completed when he casts the spell.
The act is complete when the body is dead and hits the floor. Murder.Casting Avada Kedavra is all Voldemort usually has to do to kill someone.But Avada Kedavra is simply one weapon in his arsenal. A means to an end. It is not the only thing he uses to murder; we know he has used poison at least once before.

The book is very clear. Murder---the death of someone---tears the soul. Can you show me anything where the Avada Kedavra causes instant death? Because the curse isn't instantaneous, it must go through the air & connect with the target. Until then, no death occurs, so no tear to the soul occurs.

Idabomb333, why is this such an issue? The book says murder tears the soul, not attempted murder, and not casting Avada Kedavra.

Are you saying that you believe that Draco Malfoy's soul is torn simply because he tried to kill Dumbledore? He nearly killed Katie Bell with the cursed opal necklace, and nearly killed Ron Weasley with poisoned mead, is his soul torn for those attempts? :no:

To me the attempts themselves do not matter unless they are successful, and a death occurred. If a death occurs then you have committed murder and your soul will be torn, no matter whether Avada Kedavra was used, or poison, or forcible drowning, or a cursed necklace. Is the person who attempts murder a good person? No, of course not. But they aren't murderers either, not until they have literally caused the death of another person.

Idabomb333, why is this such an issue? The book says murder tears the soul, not attempted murder, and not casting Avada Kedavra.

Are you saying that you believe that Draco Malfoy's soul is torn simply because he tried to kill Dumbledore? He nearly killed Katie Bell with the cursed opal necklace, and nearly killed Ron Weasley with poisoned mead, is his soul torn for those attempts? :no:

To me the attempts themselves do not matter unless they are successful, and a death occurred. If a death occurs then you have committed murder and your soul will be torn, no matter whether Avada Kedavra was used, or poison, or forcible drowning, or a cursed necklace. Is the person who attempts murder a good person? No, of course not. But they aren't murderers either, not until they have literally caused the death of another person.

Exactly. :agree:

If the victim does not die, then there has been no murder and the soul is not torn. Voldemort did not tear his soul when he cast Avada Kedavra at Dumbledore and hit a statue instead. Dumbledore did not die - there was no murder.

Avada Kedavra is just a tool used to commit murder - the same as a gun, or knife, or poison. There is nothing unique about the spell itself. Other spells could be used to commit murder. Petrificus Totalus could be used to commit murder - just roll the person over face down in some mud or drop them in water.

It does not matter what method is used. If the victim dies - murder has been committed and the soul is torn.

Idabomb333, why is this such an issue? The book says murder tears the soul, not attempted murder, and not casting Avada Kedavra.
Well, first of all, it's sort of a personal moral thing for me. To me, an attempted murderer is morally equivalent to a murderer. I think in the real world, what matters is why/how we decide to do what we do, and not the results. In case you don't recognize it, that's a very Catholic perspective.

Second, some of the others know this, but you don't. I speculate that a soul piece would travel with the Avada Kedavra so that Harry could be an accidental Horcrux. In order for that to be true, it requires that just casting Avada Kedavra splits the soul at the time of casting.

Third, I really think JKR agrees with me and I really want to try to understand why you guys don't and make sure that I'm not crazy to think that.

So far I haven't seen a good response to the point that while Slughorn does say murder tears the soul, that looks like a secondary clarification of a point rather than the real answer to the question of how does one split the soul. Slughorn also says that killing rips the soul apart. Isn't THAT clarification? I mean, I think most people here agree that accidentally killing someone does not tear the soul, but if we take Slughorn's words in a vacuum, his words literally mean that accidentally killing someone does tear the soul. I don't get why people won't let their knowledge of the single major theme of the books influence how they read those lines. I don't get why everyone puts the stress on the sentence about murder when Slughorn's first response is that committing the supreme act of evil is what tears the soul. I don't get why someone would say that Voldemort's action is less evil because Harry doesn't die, and so I don't know why someone would say that Voldemort's attempt to kill Harry is not the supreme act of evil. Sometimes the truth is different from what a character literally says, and I think this is one of those times. You can't just take the line that murder tears the soul out of the context of coming after the line that committing the supreme act of evil is how you split your soul. You can't take a line from Slughorn out of the context of the entire series, which argues that choices define us and our souls are ourselves, so essentially our souls are our choices.

Oh, and as for Draco, no I don't think his soul is torn. Dumbledore explains that he couldn't really have thought what he did would kill Dumbledore, he knew that they were sloppy attempts that would fail. Dumbledore can tell that Draco's not a killer and he's right.

And regarding other ways to kill people, I do not think that Avada Kedavra is the only way to split your soul. An analogy I used before is that in the legal system, poison is almost always first degree murder because it has to be premeditated. Similarly, I think that in the Potterverse it's quite possible that there are other ways to kill someone that do not tear your soul until the person's dead. I can't immediately think of one. I think any time you take an action that you expect to kill someone, your soul tears. With Avada Kedavra, you take that action when you cast the spell. With poison, when you take the action is less clear. Maybe it's when you add the poison to something you're convinced the victim will drink. Maybe it's when you feed them the poison, I'm not sure. But what's relevant is that if you use Avada Kedavra to kill someone, you're done doing everything you're going to do to kill them by the time you cast the spell. In other words, when Avada Kedavra works, you're done when you cast it, so your choice is done when you cast it, and the effect on the soul is done when you cast it. Everything beyond that is external to you and since it's not your choice, it can't be allowed to define your soul.

Well, first of all, it's sort of a personal moral thing for me. To me, an attempted murderer is morally equivalent to a murderer. I think in the real world, what matters is why/how we decide to do what we do, and not the results. In case you don't recognize it, that's a very Catholic perspective.I think that how you interpret the Catholic religion should be kept out of this discussion.

Well, first of all, it's sort of a personal moral thing for me. To me, an attempted murderer is morally equivalent to a murderer. I think in the real world, what matters is why/how we decide to do what we do, and not the results. In case you don't recognize it, that's a very Catholic perspective.Is JK Catholic?

I'm a Christian fellow myself, though not Catholic. I agree that morally, in the real world, we are responsible for the choices we make, and that we must make atonement for the consequences of our actions.

But we're talking about Harry Potter, a fictional world, where no denomination of faith is espoused.Second, some of the others know this, but you don't. I speculate that a soul piece would travel with the Avada Kedavra so that Harry could be an accidental Horcrux. In order for that to be true, it requires that just casting Avada Kedavra splits the soul at the time of casting.Okay, I can understand this to a point, not agree, but understand.

However, if murder tears the soul, then this means any murder, not just one performed by a successfully cast Avada Kedavra. It means poisoning, drowning, cursed necklace, blowing people up---a whole plethora of ways to murder without the Avada Kedavra. How does the soul get marked through this...does it travel out of the body too? And why think it is the soul that travels with the curse in the first place? It could be an invisible volt of electricity, for pity's sake.
Third, I really think JKR agrees with me and I really want to try to understand why you guys don't and make sure that I'm not crazy to think that.
Wow!?! Are you serious? I mean, really, are you serious?!?!? Man, you are so totally baking my noodle here.

Have you talked to JK? Do you know her personally? Her faith, her theology? Why assume that she agrees with you or any of us for that matter?You can't just take the line that murder tears the soul out of the context of coming after the line that committing the supreme act of evil is how you split your soul.One, I believe there to be a difference between tearing your soul with a murder and splitting your soul to create Horcruxes, and being new here I wonder if this has been discussed before.

Two, as for taking something out of context, this appears to be what you are doing by taking something written in the novel---because nowhere does it say AVADA KEDAVRA tears the soul, or that the soul travels with the Avada Kedavra when it is cast---and interjecting your morals to give new meaning to the text.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. Any further debate with you on the issue would appear to be an exercise in futility.

But what's relevant is that if you use Avada Kedavra to kill someone, you're done doing everything you're going to do to kill them by the time you cast the spell. In other words, when Avada Kedavra works, you're done when you cast it, so your choice is done when you cast it, and the effect on the soul is done when you cast it. Everything beyond that is external to you and since it's not your choice, it can't be allowed to define your soul.
You're only done if the curse connects Idabomb, otherwise you gotta keep trying until you succeed in killing.

In Potterverse, the soul can be torn, it can be split into different pieces, it can be hidden inside ordinary objects. In short, its a fantasy novel. I don't think we can use anyone's faith to devine what JK means when she writes the canon.

Well, first of all, it's sort of a personal moral thing for me. To me, an attempted murderer is morally equivalent to a murderer. I think in the real world, what matters is why/how we decide to do what we do, and not the results. In case you don't recognize it, that's a very Catholic perspective.

Second, some of the others know this, but you don't. I speculate that a soul piece would travel with the Avada Kedavra so that Harry could be an accidental Horcrux. In order for that to be true, it requires that just casting Avada Kedavra splits the soul at the time of casting.

Third, I really think JKR agrees with me and I really want to try to understand why you guys don't and make sure that I'm not crazy to think that.

So far I haven't seen a good response to the point that while Slughorn does say murder tears the soul, that looks like a secondary clarification of a point rather than the real answer to the question of how does one split the soul. Slughorn also says that killing rips the soul apart. Isn't THAT clarification? I mean, I think most people here agree that accidentally killing someone does not tear the soul, but if we take Slughorn's words in a vacuum, his words literally mean that accidentally killing someone does tear the soul. I don't get why people won't let their knowledge of the single major theme of the books influence how they read those lines. I don't get why everyone puts the stress on the sentence about murder when Slughorn's first response is that committing the supreme act of evil is what tears the soul. I don't get why someone would say that Voldemort's action is less evil because Harry doesn't die, and so I don't know why someone would say that Voldemort's attempt to kill Harry is not the supreme act of evil. Sometimes the truth is different from what a character literally says, and I think this is one of those times. You can't just take the line that murder tears the soul out of the context of coming after the line that committing the supreme act of evil is how you split your soul. You can't take a line from Slughorn out of the context of the entire series, which argues that choices define us and our souls are ourselves, so essentially our souls are our choices.

Oh, and as for Draco, no I don't think his soul is torn. Dumbledore explains that he couldn't really have thought what he did would kill Dumbledore, he knew that they were sloppy attempts that would fail. Dumbledore can tell that Draco's not a killer and he's right.

And regarding other ways to kill people, I do not think that Avada Kedavra is the only way to split your soul. An analogy I used before is that in the legal system, poison is almost always first degree murder because it has to be premeditated. Similarly, I think that in the Potterverse it's quite possible that there are other ways to kill someone that do not tear your soul until the person's dead. I can't immediately think of one. I think any time you take an action that you expect to kill someone, your soul tears. With Avada Kedavra, you take that action when you cast the spell. With poison, when you take the action is less clear. Maybe it's when you add the poison to something you're convinced the victim will drink. Maybe it's when you feed them the poison, I'm not sure. But what's relevant is that if you use Avada Kedavra to kill someone, you're done doing everything you're going to do to kill them by the time you cast the spell. In other words, when Avada Kedavra works, you're done when you cast it, so your choice is done when you cast it, and the effect on the soul is done when you cast it. Everything beyond that is external to you and since it's not your choice, it can't be allowed to define your soul.

Our own personal beliefs are irrelevant. The fact remains that murder tears the soul - not attempted murder - not planning murder. Murder tears the soul.

If the victim does not die, there has been no murder and the soul is not torn. It's as simple as that.

You could plan 500 murders and fail in every attempt - your soul would not be torn until you actually succeeded in killing someone. If the victim does not die, then you have not committed murder.

Also, saying that a piece of soul would be "attached" to the Avada Kedavra curse flies in the face of logic. The purpose is to encase a piece of soul into an object not the person you kill. Attaching the piece of soul to the murder weapon would be beyond pointless and defeat the entire purpose of trying to create a Horcrux in the first place.

I think that how you interpret the Catholic religion should be kept out of this discussion.
I didn't mean it as an argument to support my point, I meant it as part of the explanation as to why I'm interested in the discussion. I hope it didn't bother anyone, and I wasn't planning to bring it up again. I just thought it might help people understand where I'm coming from.

Is JK Catholic?

I'm a Christian fellow myself, though not Catholic. I agree that morally, in the real world, we are responsible for the choices we make, and that we must make atonement for the consequences of our actions.
She's said that she's Christian, I forget which denomination. I believe she's also said that at the end of the series, no one will doubt that she's Christian. But I didn't mean to imply that I think her position is the same as mine because our religious views are the same. I don't think her views and my views ARE the same. There are plenty of people with similar religious views who would disagree with each other about things like this, and just because she's Christian doesn't mean she thinks at all like I do.

How does the soul get marked through this...does it travel out of the body too? And why think it is the soul that travels with the curse in the first place? It could be an invisible volt of electricity, for pity's sake.
You're absolutely right that it is not clear a piece of soul is shot with Avada Kedavra. It's speculation on my part that I think has a reasoned, but fairly weak set of supports. I like the overall theory that Harry's connection to Voldemort is soul-based, and so far this bit of speculation is the best theory I've come up with for how such a connection would be forged. I don't think anyone ever has seen or will see me say that it is logically extremely likely that soul pieces are carried on Avada Kedavra.

Wow!?! Are you serious? I mean, really, are you serious?!?!? Man, you are so totally baking my noodle here.
I don't think that she agrees with me on everything or that she has to agree with me. I just think that my position comes from things that she has said. Does that make more sense? I'm taking what I think is a reasoned guess as to what she thinks, and I imagine my guess is biased by what I think. If I honestly thought she disagreed with me, it wouldn't be very sensible to argue the point, don't you think? I mean, JKR has said that choices are important. If someone argues that in Harry Potter, they think choices are unimportant and they recognize that JKR disagrees with them, that'd be silly. I assume you don't hold to any theories with which you think JKR disagrees. I don't think that she's directly affirmed my position, but I'm guessing.

To simplify, I should have said "I think I'm right" rather than "I think JKR agrees with me." I just think the two sentences come to the same thing in this discussion. To be right in this discussion is to agree with JKR. I already laid out what I think is a logical argument that leads from things we can agree she thinks (choices are important and souls are selves) to my position. Until I see someone point out what I think is a whole in my logic, I'm going to believe that in a world where choices define us and souls are selves, choices alone can define the state of the soul. If you think that's not reasonable, that's your prerogative and I'm sorry the discussion between us will end.

Two, as for taking something out of context, this appears to be what you are doing by taking something written in the novel---because nowhere does it say AVADA KEDAVRA tears the soul, or that the soul travels with the Avada Kedavra when it is cast---and interjecting your morals to give new meaning to the text.
I'm sorry I came off as stubborn, I didn't mean to. I don't think that any of the novels directly say that Avada Kedavra tears the soul or that the soul travels with the Avada Kedavra when it is cast. Those pieces are my speculation, which I feel are reasoned bits of speculation. Others are perfectly fair to disagree with me. My speculation is certainly not worth nearly as much as things directly stated in the books.

When I made the comment about context, I was saying that whereas I feel my position takes the whole theme of the series into account, I think that the primary argument against my position is "the book says murder tears the soul." Well, absolutely, the book says that. Or at least, Slughorn says that. I'm saying I think when I read those words while thinking about the context of the theme of the series, and thinking about the preceding sentence that the way to split the soul is to commit the supreme act of evil, it CHANGES what the sentence means to me.

This is a weak analogy, but Slughorn implies other places that muggleborns should be less talented than pure bloods. Now, in the context of the whole story, it's obvious that he says that because he's biased. I'm not saying that he's biased in this relevant quote. This quote is different because he's speaking as more of an authority and he's the only one who talks about the topic. Hagrid talks about the topic of purebloods and so on, as do others. I can't think of a time when Dumbledore addresses that, but it's clear what he thinks, and they contradict Slughorn and that's part of why we know he's biased. No one else speaks to how to split a soul, so there's no reason to think Slughorn's biased here. But to a lesser extent, it's possible that the exact words he uses are not the words JKR would choose to describe it herself. We can guess at what JKR thinks based on applying the theme of the story to the passage. That's all I meant. I think when you apply the theme of choices to the passage, it changes the meaning so that having Slughorn say what he says is JKR's way of telling us that attempted murder could split the soul without actually saying attempted murder splits the soul. I think that to argue that murder must succeed in order for a soul to tear, you all should explain how you think that sentence fits in with the previous sentence and with the theme of choices. So far, the argument has mostly been that the word used is "murder" and if no one dies, it's not murder. I say that applying the theme and the previous sentence, "murder" means the choice to murder. I say that Voldemort made the choice to murder Harry in Godric's Hollow, so his soul should tear.

You're only done if the curse connects Idabomb, otherwise you gotta keep trying until you succeed in killing.
I think what matters is what the caster expects to happen. We know Voldemort expected the curse to hit and kill Harry, he says so and Dumbledore says so. The point of saying Avada Kedavra usually works is to say that the caster expects it to work, and their intention in casting it is for that to be sufficient to kill the target. They made the choice to do what they think will kill the target, so they made the supremely evil choice, I think, and that means the choice should have the supremely evil effect on the soul, I think.

I didn't mean it as an argument to support my point, I meant it as part of the explanation as to why I'm interested in the discussion. I hope it didn't bother anyone, and I wasn't planning to bring it up again. I just thought it might help people understand where I'm coming from.
I learned something very valuable from our earlier discussion, and I am really glad we approached it the way we did. Basically, a person arrives at something from a core belief, and then developes their theories from that belief. For instance, you believed a soul piece in Harry would be harmless and I believed it would be harmful. We each based our reasoning on those two core principles, and therefore both of our theories became reasonable to us. And unless a person changes that basic core principle, they aren't going to be persuaded by an argument. The value is our discussion was to bring our analysis down to finding what the core was. And then we understood why we had a different view. And at that point I ended our discussion, even though I enjoyed it, because I knew we would never be able to overcome those two basic beliefs which governed our views.

In this discussion, whether intent is enough to tear the soul, you have found the core principle. A person either believes that the intent to commit murder is enough, or they believe that murder must happen before a horcrux can be made. Religions, morals, etc don't enter into it. This is basically about what you believe tears the soul. And our theories will be based on which core principle we believe.

I think what matters is what the caster expects to happen.
Canon: murder tears the soul.

Some tools which can be chosen to perform murder:
poison
drowning
crushing
fire
blowing people up
Using beasts
Avada Kedavra
For murder---literal death of another human being---to occur, a choice must be made and then acted upon:

One must want to commit murder
One must use a weapon of choice to perform murder
Death must occur as a result of that action
If death has not occurred, then murder has not been achieved, despite an individual being committed to the 'choice' of murder.

The only problem we're having in the discussion Idabomb333, is your insistance that one of many tools, Avada Kedavra, is different from all other tools of murder. Why is it different? And the answer is---you make it so, at least from your point of view---with this statement: "using Avada Kedavra does the same damage to the soul, whether it kills or not." Nevermind that canon says its 'murder' that causes the damage and not the method of murder; Nevermind there is no canon to support this view, it is a 'moral' ideal which you have.

In all other cases of murder with a different tool, you say the act---murder---must cause death for the effect to one's soul to occur, to show the choice had been clearly made. To me this is simply splitting a moral hair on your part, so as to justify 'the soul travels with the Avada Kedavra' theory.

I'm happy to debate differing points of view on canon with you, but this idea you propose isn't canon provided by JK. By inserting your faith you're fundamentally changing canon, using a narrowly interpreted ideology---"murder is murder" except with Avada Kedavra, then it's "attempted murder is just as bad as murder so the effects to the soul are the same even if no murder is committed"---to show a theoretical point of view---"soul travels with the Avada Kedavra"---has merit.

I can't make canon slant my way based upon my faith, and even if I could---I wouldn't, and no one else should either, unless they're JK. So I see no further reason to continue the debate.

Canon: murder tears the soul.
If by "Canon:" you mean "We know the following is true:" then I disagree. Or at least I don't think we know that that's all that tears the soul. I would say "Slughorn as some level of authority: [The way to split your soul is] by committing... the supreme act of evil. Murder tears the soul. Killing rips the soul apart." That's different from JKR saying it, especially because the line IMMEDIATELY before what you quoted says that the supreme act of evil is how you split your soul. Please address that. The first response is probably the most important, in my estimation. Imagine what I think is a similar scenario:
Tom: How does one get to be a Parselmouth?
Slughorn: By inheriting the ability. Slytherin's descendants are Parselmouths. The heir of Slytherin could speak Parseltongue.

Now, I don't think that's exactly the same, but do you see my point? If you just take the second or third sentence, you could say that only Slytherin's descendants are Parselmouths, but that's not the whole answer. If you said based on that conversation that only Slytherin's descendants are Parselmouths, you'd be wrong.

The only problem we're having in the discussion Idabomb333, is your insistance that one of many tools, Avada Kedavra, is different from all other tools of murder. Why is it different? And the answer is---you make it so, at least from your point of view---with this statement: "using Avada Kedavra does the same damage to the soul, whether it kills or not."
I don't think that's quite accurate, but it's probably a miscommunication that was my fault. I admit, I believe I did think of the possibility that Avada Kedavra is different because I was exploring the hypothesis that Voldemort split his soul in attempting to kill Harry. Really, what I think makes it different is that it's the only method of killing someone that you have to MEAN for it to work. Other kinds of killing can be done accidentally. Avada Kedavra won't give someone so much as a nosebleed unless you really want them to die. Sectumsempra can be cast without meaning to kill, and we know that because Harry does it without meaning to kill. It's possible to me that casting Sectumsempra at Harry instead would have split Voldemort's soul at the time of casting. It's possible to me that poisoning Hepzibah Smith tore his soul when he put poison in her tea (or however that worked). It also, alternatively, seems possible to me that Avada Kedavra is unique among methods of murder because the murderer HAS to mean it, the murderer HAS to have made the choice for it to work. That's the reason why I think it makes sense to think it's different, and I came up with that reason in exploring the hypothesis that Avada Kedavra damages the soul at the time of casting. I don't actually think it's different, in that I think every method tears the soul when you make the choice. I just think with that spell in particular, when you make the choice is clear cut. It has to be when you cast the spell for the spell to work. Bellatrix says for Unforgivables to work, you have to mean it. I don't care too much about when other methods tear the soul because Voldemort didn't try to use other methods to kill Harry, but I think every method tears the soul when you take an action that you chose in order to kill someone, i.e. when you willingly do something that you expect to kill someone.

By inserting your faith you're fundamentally changing canon, using a narrowly interpreted ideology---"murder is murder" except with Avada Kedavra, then it's "attempted murder is just as bad as murder so the effects to the soul are the same even if no murder is committed"---to show a theoretical point of view---"soul travels with the Avada Kedavra"---has merit.
Look, you asked why this discussion is a big deal to me and I answered honestly. The part about my faith was not intended to be support for my view. I'm not projecting/assuming that the books use my Catholic moral philosophy. I just find the discussion that much more interesting because I think the real world version of the question is interesting. I don't think anyone else has to use my moral philosophy, but the fact that this discussion has an analogy to a real world question of moral philosophy makes it more interesting to me. That's all I meant.

What I'm inserting into the text is not my faith, but my interpretation of JKR's theme that choices are what define souls. Now, my interpretation may well be biased by my faith, but it's not as though I'm saying that this is how it works in the real world according to my faith, so this must be how it works in the books. You're not going to convince me that in the REAL world, attempted murder is morally different than actual murder and I'm not asking you to try. The Potterverse doesn't have to work the way I think the real world does. The fact that I think one thing about the REAL world doesn't mean I can't be convinced I'm wrong about how things work in the Potterverse.

I can't make canon slant my way based upon my faith, and even if I could---I wouldn't, and no one else should either, unless they're JK. So I see no further reason to continue the debate.
All I want is someone to explain a point of view that opposes mine in terms of the theme of choices defining people, and in terms of souls being selves. Don't just say Slughorn says murder tears the soul, at least explain why you don't think the theme of choices changes the meaning of what he said and what you think is the interaction in meaning between the first sentence, that the supreme act of evil is how you split your soul, and the second sentence, that murder tears the soul.

Let me try this again, from scratch. I probably did think of the idea because I was looking for how Voldemort could have torn his soul by only attempting murder, and I was probably particularly open to the idea because of my real world moral philosophy. But here's my canon basis for my view of how things work in the Potterverse:

JKR and Dumbledore say that choices define who we are. A wizard's soul is the wizard's self, so the soul is who the wizard is. That should mean that choices define the state of the soul. If something other than my choice defines the state of my soul, then that other something defines who I am. Voldemort made his choice to try to kill Harry. Whether it succeeded was not then up to him anymore, it was up to Lily. If Lily's protection had not been there, we all agree that Voldemort's soul would tear from killing Harry. So when Lily's protection WAS there, if that affects the state of Voldemort's soul, then Lily's choice is affecting the state of Voldemort's soul. If Lily does not affect the state of Voldemort's soul because only Voldemort's choices can determine the state of Voldemort's soul, then Voldemort's soul must have torn even though he didn't kill Harry.

Tom asks Slughorn how to split the soul. Slughorn's first response is that committing the supreme act of evil is how you split your soul. If he had stopped there, I would have assumed he meant premeditated murder. He goes on, though, to say that murder tears the soul. Well fine, that doesn't conflict with my original reading. I think he's clarifying what he meant by the supreme act of evil, emphasizing that the soul tears when you murder even if you don't mean for the murder to tear your soul for use in a Horcrux. Should he have said premeditated if he meant it? Maybe he didn't say "premeditated" because he didn't mean it, or maybe it's implied by the fact that the supreme act of evil is his first answer. It's hard to say, but I think the latter.

Slughorn is not the type of character to get moral judgments right all the time. He's not a killer, but he's prejudiced against muggleborns and he doesn't really want to fight Voldemort's evil because he's afraid. Is it safe to say that Slughorn is aware that choices are what define people in his world? I'm not sure it is. But we know choices define people, because JKR and Dumbledore told us. So we can apply that knowledge to possibly transform what Slughorn thinks into what JKR thinks. In a similar way, when Slughorn says that Lily was very gifted for a muggleborn, we can transform that into understanding that JKR is telling us that Slughorn is prejudiced and Lily was very gifted.

I take the first response to be primary. The way to split the soul is by committing the supreme act of evil, which by the way means murder. I think Voldemort's action in casting Avada Kedavra at Harry, or at least his choice, is supremely evil regardless of the fact that Lily's love protected Harry. I think he committed the supreme act of evil, so I think his soul should tear.

Ok, how quickly do we want to get this thread shut down like the Harry horcrux thread? There are several good threads about how Avada Kedavra works or is used. Maybe this specific analysis could move there since we have no canon that the soul moves around with an Avada Kedavra .

We do have canon that other forms of murder can be used to make Horcruxes, so we know that the soul tears under those circumstances. Obviously some other mechanism is used to remove the torn portion. Corbin Dallas suggested something interesting before the Harrycrux thread evaporated. He proposed that a technique similar to the removal of strands of memory like in a pensieve. I would have to guess that removing a piece of soul would be painful. The soul isn't supposed to be cut up.

Here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=77804) is a wonderful thread about Avada Kedavra.

Here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=77804) is a wonderful thread about Avada Kedavra.Thank you for the link, and I apologize if our discussion was off topic.

Idabomb333, if you will follow the link as well, I have posted a response to your last post.

ok i'm kinda confused, isnt the soul only ripped when you make a horcrux? killing itself doesnt rip your sould does it? i thought thats how it was but everyone else seems to think differatnly and i would just like it cleared up if anyone can. thanks
qoutes to back anything up would be great so i can look it up myself

ok i'm kinda confused, isnt the soul only ripped when you make a horcrux? killing itself doesnt rip your sould does it? i thought thats how it was but everyone else seems to think differatnly and i would just like it cleared up if anyone can. thanks
qoutes to back anything up would be great so i can look it up myself
Slughorn says the following. (bold is mine, HBP, page 498, US edition)
"By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion -"
So killing does rip your soul apart, but creating a Horcrux seems to be a way a "preserving" a piece of that ripped soul.

So killing does rip your soul apart, but creating a Horcrux seems to be a way a "preserving" a piece of that ripped soul.

I agree with this, but I do think Slughorn was saying it more like 'murdering someone in cold blood takes a little of your soul from you.' I think after committing a murder there is some type of a spell that will take this piece of soul and implant the soul into an object or even a living thing (like a snake....) making a Horcrux.

I also think that in this wizarding world there is still a difference between killing someone and murdering someone. Could someone with the knowledge of making a Horcrux still be able to make one after killing someone in self defence? If Moody was attacked by a death eater and ended up killing the death eater in self defence, would he still be able to create a Horcrux from this, even if he had the knowledge to do so? I think not, personally. I think it has has to be cold blooded murder to make a Horcrux which makes it an act of evil.

I think it has has to be cold blooded murder to make a Horcrux which makes it an act of evil.
I agree with this. Killing in self defense or accidentally (like a car accident) is not the same as killing in cold blood.

I was just thinking about the egyptian concept of the seven part soul and well, some parts of the soul move on and others sometimes they get stuck on the earth so they have to eat something. This is why egyptians left food offerings, to help nourish the bits of souls that need to make the journey to unite with other bits of the soul on in the afterlife. When a person dies, part of the souls are immortal and move on to the after life and some parts have to be make a journey and be judged. And if the body decays or the name is forgotten, a person isn't going to be complete in the afterlife. Or if parts of their souls are unworthy to move on, they will not be complete. So I guess that some parts of souls can be stuck on the earth, others can go on to a good place, and other parts can go to a bad place. I am still a little confused.

But I am thinking, does Voldemort have to feed his horcrux souls anything from time to time to sustain them?

The weasley family went to egypt and I think Ron or Ginny might have learned something about the seven part soul while there but maybe they forgot it over time and will remember it later. I don't think their trip to egypt was for nothing. I think something important happened there or was learned there.

Ron said even scabbers had a good time, but I don't know what Pettigrew as scabbers could have been doing to have a good time.



I think it is interesting that the Ren part of the soul is the name. It is the name you are given at birth and shouldn't be forgotten because it is, you won't be immortal. But that is what Voldemort is trying to do, to get everyone to forget Tom Riddle and call him Voldemort. You think this can be important?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_soul

That's a very interesting reference. I think that Jo might have gotten the idea of the seven-part soul, and how Voldemort thought this would be a good idea, from there. :cool:

(There's also the reference to that famous Arithmancer - witch of the month soon after HBP publication - who discovered the magical properties of the number seven. I dunno if there's something in the history of Arithmancy along that line; I couldn't find anything, but I admit I didn't go much farther than Wikipedia)

Voldemort becomes less human with the creation of Horcruxes, so it seems that he gives up vital parts of his self to put into those objects. So far the analogy makes sense. Such a concept could also explain how he can't make more than 7 parts (if indeed he can't).

But there are also distinctive differences imo. The Egyptians thought that the soul is that way naturally, while Horcruxes are super-duper evil. It's unnatural to split one's soul in HP. And Voldemort doesn't seem to lose any of his intellectual or magical abilities through Horcrux-making. At least it's not become apparent so far. I like the idea that he has to give up something, though.

The nature of the soul in HP has been discussed in another thread (the 1. version of Identifying and Tracking Down the Remaining Horcruxes in Divination Studies), but the link to it is faulty at the moment. :grumble: But I guess the topic belongs here anyway.

Are horcruxes immortal? If they are part of a mortal human's soul, then will they live forever? Or, will they just die like a mortal man. If so, Harry could possibly just wait for them all to die of natural causes, but then the book would be boring...

Just wondering what everybody thought

Harry isn't killing Horcruxes just for the fun of it, though, he's doing it so he can kill the main piece of Voldemort's soul as soon as possible. The longer Voldemort is left alive, the more damage he can do to the world - so, naturally, Harry will want to exterminate his Horcruxes as quickly as he can find them.

Also, Voldemort has told his followers that he has taken steps to as good as ensure immortality. That seems like a lofty claim to make if his Horcruxes could disintegrate when they got too old. A human body dies of 'natural causes' when it is just no longer able to function properly (its cells can't regenerate themselves quickly or numerously enough to support vital organs, etc), but a fragment of a soul, unattached to a body, would presumably be free of that problem.

You might be interested in the following open thread:

Questions about Horcruxes v.2 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=81085)

Please do a "Search" before opening a new thread. Thank you.

I have a thought about horcruxes...
In book 6, It was mentioned that Tom made a horcrux of his father, and his grandarents out of Marvolo's old ring... but, he murdered his parents BEFORE he asked Slughorn about the horcruxes... (Remember, he was wearing the ring when he asked about the horcruxes) .. So, how could he have made a horcrux with his fathers death? ... Unless there is is no set time in which you have to do it..

From my closed thread:


The only time we saw a Horcrux doing it's job (regenerating the person who's soul it is made from) is in CoS.

The diary slowly took away Ginny's soul and fed Tom's own back into her:


Quote:
Page 310, Chapter 17 - The Heir of Slytherin (American Hardback)
"...So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be exactly what I wanted.... I grew stonger and stronger on a diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets. I grew powerful, far more powerful than little Miss Weasley. Powerful enough to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of my secrets, to start pouring a little of my soul back into her..."


But, the diary seems to have a different kind of....interface than what the other Horcruxes are.

So, how would the others go about creating a person? A ring isn't going to be able to talk you into trusting it. Maybe it takes your body directly if you wear it. Maybe that's why Dumbledore had his hand blackened.... He wore the ring and it tried to possess him, but he instead did some kind of counter-charm against it causing his hand to 'die'.
(I can't remember if we get an actual explanation about Dumbledore's hand...but if we did, disregard this...)

The locket might go about it the same way as the ring (wear it and it tries to take you) but what about the others?

If a witch/wizard kills someone, doesnt that mean their soul is split? so if an auror kills a eath eater or someone else, does their soul split and they have horcruxes? What do you think?

wait...you don't get a horcrux every time you kill someone, do you? i thought you had to be trying to make a horcrux when you killed them to get one. If every time you killed someone you had a horcrux, there would be loads of them; i mean, think of all the death eaters...and even snape for that matter.

No, i dont think if you kill someone you automaticly make a horcrux. I think there is another spell involved in the horcrux making process but im not sure.

Everytime someone murders a person, their soul is split because of the act of pure intentional evil. (I believe this only happens with Avada Kedavra, and that spells which result in the death of a person, is another story)

However, there is a whole, complete, and separate magical process for the creation of a Horcrux, just one of the steps happens to be splitting your soul.

So: Horcrux = Split soul...Split soul does not necessarily equal a Horcrux.

Make sense?

Killing someone tears the soul, but does not automaticly split the soul. In order to make a horcrux, special dark magic needs to be used. Simply murdering would not suffice. Therefore no Auror who is truely on the good side would have made a horcrux.

What about if you commit suicide?Would you get a horcrux right before you die?



How do you put banners/avatars on your profile?

yeah that makes sense, i was getting a little confused. But then what if an Auror did make a horcrux after he/she killed sombody? They would become immortal (sort of) would you consider them evil and if so to what extent?

what if you commit suicide?Would you get a horcrux right before you die?


Also how do you put banners/avatars on your posts?

What about if you commit suicide?Would you get a horcrux right before you die?



How do you put banners/avatars on your profile?

you probably wouldnt, but if you did you would sort of become immortal and woldnt die.

you have to be a third year to put up an avatar.

what if you commit suicide?Would you get a horcrux right before you die?

No, because you would have to transfer the split portion of the soul to another object...a diary for example...but you are already dead. So you can't.


For a banner, go to "Magical Me" and then "Edit Signature" put it in there. Only Hogsmeade students can have avatars from my understanding....oh, and :welcome: !

yeah that makes sense, i was getting a little confused. But then what if an Auror did make a horcrux after he/she killed sombody? They would become immortal (sort of) would you consider them evil and if so to what extent?

No one would do it unless they were evil already. It would be difficult to learn how to do it, and not many people seem to know about them at all.

Like Slughorn said to Tom, in his "modified memory" Horcruxes are very evil magic.

To do something like that is to intentionally murder someone, for your own gain. Sounds pretty evil to me.

No one would do it unless they were evil already. It would be difficult to learn how to do it, and not many people seem to know about them at all.


That is true. but after they kill someone and create a horcrux they cold be overwhelmed with power and become evil cant they?

That is true. but after they kill someone and create a horcrux they cold be overwhelmed with power and become evil cant they?

Yes, I suppose that could happen, but I always supposed it only took an evil person to begin with to even want to do something like this, like I said before. In doing this you are murdering someone innocent for your own gain (a horcrux)

yeah but what if it's in defense and well after you kill them you just get this mad urge for killing to gain power?That's what I think happened to Tom.He used to be good when he was a boy(well that's just what Dumbledore said)and then when he found out about being a wizard he just went evil.

yeah but what if it's in defense and well after you kill them you just get this mad urge for killing to gain power?That's what I think happened to Tom.He used to be good when he was a boy(well that's just what Dumbledore said)and then when he found out about being a wizard he just went evil.


That could be possible and it can happen to just about anyone right? although it would depend on what kind of person he/she is. also didnt tom hurt som little kids at the lake when he was a boy and kept their belongings as trophies? im not sure . i need to reread the sixth book again.

Dobby calls it dark magic when he is hinting at it to Harry in Book 2:

Page 17, Chapter 2 - Dobby's Warning (American Hardback):
"Dobby has heard Dumbledore's powers rival those of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named at the height of his strength. But, sir" --Dobby's voice dropped to an urgent whisper -- "there are powers Dumbledore doesn't...powers no decent wizard..."

We don't know it at the time, but he is talking about the Diary Horcrux.

Murder tears the soul, and then the murderer must use some dark magic to split his soul, one part staying in his body and the other staying in the magical object.

!!!!!!

I've just thought about something! What if the process to making a horcrux is involved with drinking unicorn blood!? The unicorn blood leaves the drinker with a "half-life" so maybe that's how they split their torn soul!

I've just thought about something! What if the process to making a horcrux is involved with drinking unicorn blood!? The unicorn blood leaves the drinker with a "half-life" so maybe that's how they split their torn soul!

Interesting. Though I don't think so. Because all it does is sustain life, when you are about to die. And in drinking unicorn blood, one is doing something so impure, that it curses them...leaving them with only half of a life, as good as if you were almost not-living at all. Though I have not idea what this means...

A "bad luck" kind of thing? Or...hm...I'll definitly have to ponder this.

I have a theory about the horcruxes, when Voldemort made horcrux no.1 (ring presumably) he put HALF a soul into it, not a seventh. Then horcrux no.2 he put a quarter. Horcux number. 3 an eigth and so on, halving his soul each time. That means since the ring has half a soul it would be pretty hard to destroy. So it made Dumbledore´s hand go freaky and it weakened him greatly. But there was only say, a sixteenth of a horcux, in the diary so Harry just stuck a Basilisk tooth through it. Whatcha think?

Very interesting theory and one that I dont think will be able to be proved or disproved until book 7. It would make sense though because he was spliting his soul but it didnt say in how big of pieces.

Yeah, everybody says there´s a seventh of his soul in a horcrux but I don´t think you can just take out a certain amount.

:welcome: to the forum!
everybody says there´s a seventh of his soul in a horcruxAlbus Dumbledore was one of them. It's canon that he felt his blackened hand was worth the destruction of "one-seventh" of Voldemort's soul. So Rowling must think all 7 pieces are roughly equal in "size". ;)

FYI: Nothing about HBP (the book) is considered spoiler material anymore. :)

:welcome: to the forum!
Albus Dumbledore was one of them. It's canon that he felt his blackened hand was worth the destruction of "one-seventh" of Voldemort's soul. So Rowling must think all 7 pieces are roughly equal in "size". ;)


Dumbledore could have been wrong though.

I have a theory about the horcruxes, when Voldemort made horcrux no.1 (ring presumably) he put HALF a soul into it, not a seventh. Then horcrux no.2 he put a quarter. Horcux number. 3 an eigth and so on, halving his soul each time. That means since the ring has half a soul it would be pretty hard to destroy. So it made Dumbledore´s hand go freaky and it weakened him greatly. But there was only say, a sixteenth of a horcux, in the diary so Harry just stuck a Basilisk tooth through it. Whatcha think?


I also have a theory that perhaps it's easier for Harry to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes because of the connection Harry has with him. Notice that despite Dumbledore being an incredibly more powerful wizard than Harry is, he was still gravely injured when destroying the ring. His hand "dies" whilst Harry was completely uninjured after destroying the diary. Even if the diary only contained a sixteenth of soul, he would still be affected right?

Dumbledore could have been wrong though.Because JKR is one of the great mathematical minds of our time? :lol:

She said there are about 1000 students at Hogwarts (later revised to around 600). In a later interview, she says there are about 3000 magical people in the UK. That's not enough adults (far less than 2000, way fewer than 1000 couples) to produce even 600 students at Hogwarts at any given time, despite the 7 year spread (and certainly not enough for the original estimate of 1000!), nor to provide the 0-10 year olds for future classes! [Have to consider that some of the adults are past child-rearing stage as we see many witches/wizards who are past that; done-with-school, unmarried witches/wizards exist, too.]

Montague was captain of the Slytherin quidditch team the year after he should have "graduated"--another math oops. (Discrepancies with Charlie Weasley and his Quidditch days, too.)

JKR admits that her math skills aren't the greatest. So to avoid such a headache as figuring out which piece would have the "most" soul (one-half) and which would have the least ( 1/64 ), she made them all roughly equal ( 1/7 ).

JKR has also said that when she wants to deliver information, she has Hermione or Dumbledore give it. There is no reason to doubt the words of Albus in this case.

The idea has been discussed before on cos, and no doubt on other forums, too. It does make sense that a soul would be torn in half each time a horcrux is made. But that idea doesn't fit the canon. JKR isn't going to worry about the "size" of each piece, or she wouldn't have written Albus making such a statement. She could have written "a fair exchange for a part [or "piece"] of Voldemort's soul", but she has him clearly say "one-seventh".

JKR has also said that when she wants to deliver information, she has Hermione or Dumbledore give it. There is no reason to doubt the words of Albus in this case.

I had thought of the mathematics of Voldemort splitting his sole and was very hopeful, on that basis, that Dumbledore had dealt with the worst bit (the 50% that would have been in the ring) and that Harry would have an easier time with the remaining pieces. I rationalized the diary's destruction (assuming it to be the 2nd horcrux, with a quarter of Voldemort's soul) as being not so harmful to Harry because the soul was actually out of the diary (in the semi-visible form of Tom Riddle) when Harry first began stabbing it with the basilisk's fang.

But I have to concede that Nicole is undoubtedly right. If Dumbledore said a seventh was worth a withered hand, each horcrux is a seventh. (Which upon further thought makes sense, because when Tom was asking Slughorn about horcruxes, he was already planning for a total of seven. If he could figure out how to split it and make a horcrux, I'm sure he could figure out how to make equal pieces rather than halving what was left each time).

I had thought of the mathematics of Voldemort splitting his sole and was very hopeful, on that basis, that Dumbledore had dealt with the worst bit (the 50% that would have been in the ring) and that Harry would have an easier time with the remaining pieces. I rationalized the diary's destruction (assuming it to be the 2nd horcrux, with a quarter of Voldemort's soul) as being not so harmful to Harry because the soul was actually out of the diary (in the semi-visible form of Tom Riddle) when Harry first began stabbing it with the basilisk's fang.I wondered if the smaller pieces was a factor in wanting the one-half-split each time. :)

The diary had "protections" similar to the locket (at the point just prior to its destruction, perhaps not the intended protections for it, though): Parseltongue opened the Chamber 'doors' (the sink tap and another with two entwined snakes), rather than blood sacrifice; Fawkes took care of the petrification factor (comparing this to the potion in the basin); Harry destroyed the guardian with a magical weapon (sword & basilisk compared to the fire spell & inferi); can't really find a parallel to the boat, though. So it could also be that the protection spell(s) on the ring is(are) what caused the damage to Albus's hand rather than the 'de-horcruxification' of the ring.

Destruction of a Horcrux (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=60348) discusses the potential difficulties (or non-difficulty! :lol: ) for destroying the horcruxes.

I don't think the difference between 1/7th and 1/64 really matters in the grand scheme of things. My view is that if one portion of Voldemort's soul (no matter how small or large) was able to create a fully-formed Voldemort (both from the Diary and the portion that was still him (less than the meanest ghost) - then no mater how large the portion of soul, there's still enough power in it to be completely harmful.

It's quite possible that the soul fragments are always equal to each other. As soon as he split his soul the first time, there were 2 half-souls. Then when he split it a second time, all three portions magically became thirds, etc.

I would also point out that I think the Diary may have been the first portion of soul. We know Tom had the ring in his posession while still at Hogwarts, we don't know for sure that he created a horcrux out of it right away. It's likely he killed some member of his family, created the horcrux from that murder and then hid the ring back int he rubble of a shack that was the Gaunt house, but we can't be certain on the exact timeline.

The reason I think the diary was the first horcrux, was because it was actually a muggle artifact, not something from one of the founders. I think that this was Voldemort's first attempt at storing a piece fo himself into an object. He would have wanted to make sure he knew how to do it, before trying it on an irreplaceable object like one of the founders' personal items.

This theory makes sense, and in many ways I believe it is true. However, we will find out the truth as we read and discuss the next book in the series.

I imagine it's like mitosis. The cells move out until they are have equal amounts everywhere. Pieces of soul could move through magical connections in order to equalize the amount in each Horcrux. Also, Voldemort is the first person to make multiple Horcruxes, so we cannot trust Dumbledore's judgement entirely.

I imagine it's like mitosis. The cells move out until they are have equal amounts everywhere. Pieces of soul could move through magical connections in order to equalize the amount in each Horcrux. Also, Voldemort is the first person to make multiple Horcruxes, so we cannot trust Dumbledore's judgement entirely.

Wow, Great summary. Having just learned about mitosis this last year in school, this makes great sense. And yes, I think you are right about dumbledore "Not knowing it all", so to speak. It has to be hard for any wizard to know about something that has been recently pioneered (or hasn't it?) in the wizarding world.

I'm inclined to believe that each part of soul was indeed one seventh, as this would further increase the magical power of seven that Voldemort was aiming for. And though I don't think it'll make that much difference in the end, it is a very interesting question to consider. :tu:

1/7th :D

Wow, I had always assumed that there was one-seventh of soul in each Horcrux, but this halving of the remaining soul idea makes sense. Creating a Horcrux was described as splitting your soul, so the spell would probably split whatever soul you had into two equal pieces.

Unless the caster could somehow determine how much soul goes into the Horcrux - maybe Voldemort, having already decided to make six Horcruxes, split one-seventh of his soul into each Horcrux. However, Voldemort was only sixteen or seventeen when he killed his father and grandparents. Voldemort is a mightily powerful, evil wizard, but I don't know if he would have had that much control over a soul-splitting spell - especially if that was first time he did it.

OR maybe the Horcrux spell automatically takes only a certain portion - although that would limit the amount of times you could split your soul. However, I think Dumbledore said that Voldemort was the only wizard that split his soul more than once (as far as he knew). So maybe nobody had ever worried about how many times you could split it.

Hmmmm...

I do like the very weird fraction idea. 1/2 soul in first. Then he had 1/2 his soul in his body, so next horcrux only got 1/4 soul, etc.

This would explain how his appearance seemed changed, wouldn't it? And finally he has so little of a soul left in his body that he has red eyes, no nose, etc. The rest of his soul occupies obejcts...

So 1/8th? I am seriously confused here!

[FONT="Arial Narrow"]I have a theory about the horcruxes, when Voldemort made horcrux no.1 (ring presumably) he put HALF a soul into it, not a seventh. Then horcrux no.2 he put a quarter. Horcux number. 3 an eigth and so on, halving his soul each time.FONT]

That's how I always thought it worked. The half of his soul he had left cut halved again.

The reason I think the diary was the first horcrux, was because it was actually a muggle artifact, not something from one of the founders. I think that this was Voldemort's first attempt at storing a piece fo himself into an object. He would have wanted to make sure he knew how to do it, before trying it on an irreplaceable object like one of the founders' personal items.

Good theory. However, I disagree. I think Voldemort would have been so overly confident that he wouldn't have worried about messing up. Plus If the whole into half into half of half thing is how it worked, he would want to put his biggest piece, his first piece, into the most important thing, which would have been the black-stoned ring.

I'm inclined to think that his soul is equally distributed, because who really cares if you've got 1/124th of your soul in a snake? Also, then how much soul would he have in his body?

I wonder whether the amount of how much depends on how much Voldemort prizes the object itself. However, I also believe that Dumbledore is correct when he said that each Horcrux contains the same amount.

I would have to say that I agree with the theory that with each new horocrux the pieces in the others gave way a part so that each horocrux would be equal. It just makes more sense. He wanted his soul in 7 parts. Not in halfs, and quarters, and eighths, and sixteenths, etc etc. It just makes sense for them to all be equal, other wise, what is the point?

Since a soul isn't a solid object it's possible that dividing it doesn't produce specific amounts if you see what I mean? Incidentally Slughorn only talks of splitting or ripping the soul, not of halving it.

Also it shouldn't matter how much soul is in each horcrux - the soul piece doesn't fight back - the problem is getting past the curse protections Voldy has put on it. In this the diary was different.

Also regarding the order in which Voldy made the horcruxes: he ought to have made the diary first as he put a memory of his 16 year old self in it so he created it quite early. As an experiment he might have found it more expendable than the founder objects he later acquired. And we know he did experiment as in GoF he comments that his continued existence as Vapourmort proves that some of his experiments had been successful.

well i can't be 1/7th because voldy's likked more then seven people. but there might be more soal in the diary the in the snake because he hadn't killed so many people when he was sixteen. what does everyone else think?

If Voldemort's soul was split into Halves everytime he made a Horcrux and if he did in fact make 6 of them he would have only 1/64 of his soul left. The question is what happened to his "soul" when he fell from Power the first time? Did he lose that part of the soul because it could no longer be held by anything, and his "vapor" went to something else? To me if his body was destroyed, it was acting like any horcrux would, something containing part of someone's soul. If that was destroyed then that part of the soul should also be gone. And to bring him back to life another part of his soul would have to be used.

So that makes me think 3 of the original 6 (Harry's murder was going to be used for the 7th) are gone...those are "original" Voldemort, the diary, and the ring. And if you need to use some of the soul from another Horcrux to bring him back that would mean that one of those remaining three he had is now also gone (either...the locket, the cup, or something of Ravenclaws). I don't believe he knows about the locket yet so I dont think that was used, so that leaves either the cup or ravenclaws also being spent.

That leaves us with only two of all the original Horcruxes he created, the locket, and the item of Ravenclaws(or Griffindor). And we know that the locket is missing. If this is how everything works and how the powers of the Horcruxes are used then Harry only needs to find the Locket(probably Grimmauld Place) and Ravenclaws item. If VD did use Amelia Bones to make another Horcrux, then it is probably Nagini but Harry will find away to destroy her when he gets to VD.

well i can't be 1/7th because voldy's likked more then seven people. but there might be more soal in the diary the in the snake because he hadn't killed so many people when he was sixteen. what does everyone else think?

You don't make a Horcrux each time you kill someone.

So 1/8th? I am seriously confused here!

Well, the first theory is 1/7 in every part of Horcrux.

Let me explain the other better.
Voldemort set out with a whole (1) soul. Then he made his first horcrux. We now have a horcrux with 1/2 a soul and a Voldemort with 1/2 soul

1. 1/2 Horcrux, 1/2 Voldemort

The second Horcrux making, Voldemort only had half his soul to split, as the other half was already in the first horcrux.

2. 1/2 Horcrux (1st), 1/4 Horcrux, 1/4 Voldemort.

3. 1/2 Horcrux (1st), 1/4 Horcrux (2nd), 1/8 Horcrux (3rd). Voldemort has 1/8 his original soul left by the time he's made his third Horcrux

4. 1/2 Horcrux (1st), 1/4 Horcrux (2nd), 1/8 Horcrux (3rd), 1/16 Horcrux (4th. Voldemort- 1/16 original soul.

5. 1/2 Horcrux (1st) 1/4 Horcrux (2nd), 1/8 Horcrux (3rd), 1/16 Horcrux (4th, 1/32 Horcrux (5th). Voldemort has 1/32 his original soul.

6. 1/2 Horcrux (1st), 1/4 Horcrux (2nd), 1/8 Horcrux (3rd), 1/16 Horcrux (4th) 1/32 Horcrux (5th), 1/64 Horcrux (6th), Voldemort with 1/64 his original soul left (7th)

This might explain why some were easier to destroy than others (i.e. Dumbledore almost died from the ring, yet all Harry had to do was pierce Riddle's Diary with a basilisk fang and it was destroyed.)

I think the 1/7th all around crowd thinks that the soul bits would just kind of, every time a new Horcrux was made, spread themselves out so the soul was spread out equally.

As to "well Dumbledore said it..." Dumbledore himself admitted that he can be wrong sometimes, it's just that he makes bigger mistakes. It seems totally in character for Dumbledore to try to take out those Horcruxes with the biggest pieces of Voldemort soul in them before Harry has to do this on his own, and it also makes sense for Voldemort to put more of his soul into things that apply to his family history: the Marvolo ring and the Slytherin locket...

Thanks a lot NoDayBut2Day I really appreciate it!!! ^-^

Anyways so if Diary was so much easier to kill then that means that it couldn't have a lot of soul would it? Besides the only purpose the diary was made in the first place was because Tom wanted to return to hogwarts and well....finish the work of Salazar Slytherin. And the diary was made when he was a prefect so I am guessing maybe 6th year or 7th years since it took 5 years for riddle to figure out family history and chamber of secrets...so what I believe that the diary couldn't have much soul in it!

Hmm...i like this theory. the more soul put into the horcruxes the more powerful they are. it makes sense but see why not even them out equally in the first place. it might make them stronger yes if he puts more soul into the horcruxes but maybe it is the power and the murder or somme sort of meaning behind the horcruxes that makes them more powerful. sure splitting his soul makes him less whole but destroying them makes it worse and say a horcrux is destroyed and it has a lot of voldemort's soul in it then he would be weaker inside. still we see voldemort strong and whatnot as the books progress. it would make it a lot easier if he did it that way but then again i do also like the thought of this theory as well.

I have a theory about the horcruxes, when Voldemort made horcrux no.1 (ring presumably) he put HALF a soul into it, not a seventh. Then horcrux no.2 he put a quarter. Horcux number. 3 an eigth and so on, halving his soul each time. That means since the ring has half a soul it would be pretty hard to destroy. So it made Dumbledore´s hand go freaky and it weakened him greatly. But there was only say, a sixteenth of a horcux, in the diary so Harry just stuck a Basilisk tooth through it. Whatcha think?
I don't think that the amunt of soul really affects the destroyer I think the ring was just better protected than the diary because LV indended the diary to be used as a weapon

Anyways so if Diary was so much easier to kill then that means that it couldn't have a lot of soul would it? Besides the only purpose the diary was made in the first place was because Tom wanted to return to hogwarts and well....finish the work of Salazar Slytherin. And the diary was made when he was a prefect so I am guessing maybe 6th year or 7th years since it took 5 years for riddle to figure out family history and chamber of secrets...so what I believe that the diary couldn't have much soul in it!If the diary was made a horcrux while Tommy was still at school (age 16) it would be one of the "stronger" horcruxes and would have either 1/2 or 1/4 soul (depending on whether the ring preceeded or followed the diary in horcrux making, the events of creating the diary and acquiring the ring are quite close in time). However, if one believes the diary had only the memories added at age 16 and it wasn't made a horcrux until after Voldemort's failed interview (which will need an explanation of why diary-soul and Memorymort were manifested by a 16 year old shape instead of the later Voldemort [already physically much changed] or a blend of the two), the diary could have had a soul piece as small as 1/32.

Really, I think the destruction of a horcrux isn't the part that does the harm. I think it's the many protective spells/curses Voldemort placed on and around them when he hid them.

If there is a difference in the size of the pieces, I imagine that the biggest would be the core piece that remained inside his body. With the Horcruxes each getting just a small fragment of the core. Otherwise, when you destroy a horcrux and release the soul fragment inside of it, that fragment could become another Vapormort, which could, potentially, find a way to generate a new body of its own.
This is why I think that each horcrux has just a small, weaker, fragment. Unable to exist outside of the host object. If this is the case, Voldemort is limited in the number of horcruxes that he could make, because eventually the core soul would be too weak, to survive death.

Slughorn didn't say anything about halving the soul to make a horcrux, he just spoke of ripping or tearing it. That's not the same as dividing it in half. Anyway, a soul isn't a physical thing so I doubt that it can be measured the way a pound of butter can!

As I understand the theory of horcruxes, they are there to prevent the main portion of the soul, which retains the memories and intelligence of Voldemort, from leaving the earth when his body is killed. Therefore when he was vapourised his soul remained on earth because the horcruxes were preventing it from going to heaven or wherever. It wasn't destroyed and he didn't need to replace it with a piece of soul encased in a horcrux.

I agree with Nicole that the problem with a horcrux is getting past the curses Voldy put on it, not in de-horcruxing it. The basilisk nearly did for Harry and would have killed him if Fawkes hadn't healed him with Phoenix tears. The curses on the ring ruined Dumbledore's hand and the potion and Inferi nearly finished off Dumbledore and Harry in the cave.

If he knew ahead of time he wanted to create 7 horcruxes, for the purpose of securing whatever mystical strength or symbolism he found in the number 7, perhaps Voldemort could have predetermined how much of himself, of his soul, would be invested in each horcrux, and create them as he went.

I was just thinking, Dumbledore said that it is unwise to have something that can "think and act" on it's own be a horcrux. It was also discussed that it was a bad idea incase they die. But I was thinking about it and I think it would be a good idea.

Assume that this is the future in the "wizarding world". And you have two dark wizards working together that decide that they want to create horcruxes so that they can follow Voldemort's path on the road to immortiality. So they decide to make five horcruxes (not six, like Voldemort, I will explain that later). They create four objects and hide them the way that Voldemort does, and then for the fifth one they each turn each other into a horcrux. So Dark Wizard A has a bit of Dark Wizard B's soul in it and visa versa. That would be the opposite of the prophecy, "Neither could die while the other lives."

That means, that if someone would want to kill Dark Wizard A, they would have to go and find, then destroy, four horcruxes. Then they would have to kill Dark Wizard B since he/she has the fifth horcrux in him/her. But wait, you cannot kill Dark Wizard B without finding and destroying his/her horcruxes. So that means, that you would have to go and find, and destroy, a total of eight horcruxes, which would be more work which means your harder to destroy.

So now, all of the horcruxes are destroyed. So you want to kill Dark Wizard A, so you have to go and destroy Dark Wizard B. But how can you destroy Dark Wizard B when part of his/her soul is in Dark Wizard A? So you go to destroy Dark Wizard A so that you can in turn destroy Dark Wizard B but you can't because part of Dark Wizard A's sould is in Dark Wizard B. It is a circle that you cannot get around.

The reason that you would only want to make five out of the six horcruxes is that if you were ever put in to the state in which your "less than the meaningless ghost" you can always bide your time. Your still alive, allthough barely. So if you and your Dark Wizard friend are put into that state, you can bide your time for a hundred years or so until all your enemies have died and everyone thinks you dead or has forgotten about you. Then you can find a way to come back, and you can still create one more horcrux so you still have some protection. Then you can slip back into society, change your identity, and then your invincible.

So I would put my soul into someone else. Has anyone thought of this or has anyone thought of a way that this would not work, or a better idea?

Dumbledore talking about Horcruxes inside living things, could be foreshadowing Harry being a Horcrux (yes i know, sorry to bring it up again, but it could). I personally, never saw the "Nagini a Horcrux" thing to be true, i just can't see it.

Dumbledore could well be wrong, as he has been so many times. People get confused with "It all depends if you trust Dumbledore", where it should be "It all depends if you trust Dumbledore's Judgement". His judgement is good in some ways, but in most ways it flatout sucks.

I think JK prevented that sort of thing from happening when she had Dumbledore say that it's not wise to put a bit of your soul in a living thing, because that living thing has a mind of its own. There might be a way to push the bit of soul into a part of them that doesn't see the light of day or expell that bit of soul to betray Wizard A (or B), seeing as they're Dark Wizards I can't see either of them wanting to share the power.

As for Voldemort and Nagini, Dumbledore did remark that this seemed as if it might be possible. Personally, I think it would work, as a snake's mind is less complicated than a person's.

Dumbledore talking about Horcruxes inside living things, could be foreshadowing Harry being a Horcrux (yes i know, sorry to bring it up again, but it could). I personally, never saw the "Nagini a Horcrux" thing to be true, i just can't see it.

Dumbledore could well be wrong, as he has been so many times. People get confused with "It all depends if you trust Dumbledore", where it should be "It all depends if you trust Dumbledore's Judgement". His judgement is good in some ways, but in most ways it flatout sucks.

I always thought it was dumb that people think Harry is a horcrux. There's just about no evidence supporting it. Dumbledore said that Voldemort was intending to make a horcrux with Harry's death making him invicible while getting rid of a potential threat. But, he never succeeded in killing Harry.
http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/theburrow/beth01.shtml
http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/theburrow/jen01.shtml

Just look at these, just by these I know that Harry isn't a Horcrux. The one saying he isn't actually has support while the one that says he is a horcrux has no support. The author starts talking about religion in it. When has J.K. Rowling ever included religion in the book?

From what I've read, most people believe Voldemort has 7 souls.
Or does he? He killed 6 people to create 6 Horcruxes. However, he killed Lily and James Potter(he just needed to kill one for the Horcrux... maybe he had 6 already and wanted to kill Harry just to fulfill the prophecy) and Frank Bryce. So he has more than 7 souls, just 7 fragments of his soul in Horcruxes.

From what I've read, most people believe Voldemort has 7 souls.
Or does he? He killed 6 people to create 6 Horcruxes. However, he killed Lily and James Potter(he just needed to kill one for the Horcrux... maybe he had 6 already and wanted to kill Harry just to fulfill the prophecy) and Frank Bryce. So he has more than 7 souls, just 7 fragments of his soul in Horcruxes.

JK has indirectly indicated that Dumbledore's suspicions regarding this are correct. Lord Voldemort has broken his soul into seven parts. Two of which have definitely been destroyed and one which we assume has or at least is in a position to be destroyed.

The number of soul fragments is independent of the number of people he has killed. He no doubt has killed hundreds over the years but only ever wished to create seven soul fragments :)

I always thought it was dumb that people think Harry is a horcrux. There's just about no evidence supporting it. Dumbledore said that Voldemort was intending to make a horcrux with Harry's death making him invicible while getting rid of a potential threat. But, he never succeeded in killing Harry.
http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/theburrow/beth01.shtml
http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/theburrow/jen01.shtml

Just look at these, just by these I know that Harry isn't a Horcrux. The one saying he isn't actually has support while the one that says he is a horcrux has no support. The author starts talking about religion in it. When has J.K. Rowling ever included religion in the book?

No evidence that Harry is a Horcrux? Okay then, how about the very centre of the plot. The thing that EVERYTHING stems out from, the fact that their is a connection between Harry and Voldemort. You think the fact that Harry can Feel what Voldermort is feeling, See what Voldermort is seeing and Speak the same snake language Voldemort speaks, is not evidence that Harry possibly has a piece of Voldemorts soul in him? People feel with their souls, and i suppose their might be other ways that Harry could see what voldemort sees (thought i doubt it), but there is no WAY he could feel what someone else feels without a part of their soul in him. No way.


What about the fact that when Voldemort went to Godrics Hollow, he was planning to make his final Horcrux, seems a bit of a clue. Agreed, he didn't make Harry into a Horcrux on purpose. But we don't know everything about that night, let alone Horcruxes themselfs. We don't kno all the things that could happen under certain circumstances.

What about the fact that Harry could open The Chamber Of Secrets, even though he wasn't the Heir of Slytherin? because he had a part of the Heir inside him, there's nothing else that would fool the entrance.

What about the fact that Voldemort could suddenly possess Harry at the Ministry?

What about the Prophecy, "He will mark him as his equal". What other way is there to mark him as his equal, than transfer some of his soul into him? (and in doing so, some of his powers). This transfer of soul and power is what makes Harry Voldemorts "Equal". Infact, it makes him Voldemort 2 in a sense. But add the fact of Lily's protection, and Harry's ability to love. And he becomes not Voldemorts Equal, But Voldemort's enemy, Voldemorts threat, and eventually (hopefully) Voldemort's downfall.

What about the fact that Harry could see through Nagini's eyes when it bit Mr.Weasley. I Don't have the exact quote, but DD said something like "You could see through nagini because that was where Voldemort was at at that time". It makes sense, Nagini's supposedly a Horcrux aswell, so these pieces of soul are connected.

All through the series we have been told of a connection between Harry and Voldemort, but never told what it actually was. Then all of a sudden, right near the end of the series we are introduced to Horcruxes? What other (and what better) connection could their be other than voldemort accidently transfering a segment of his soul into Harry. None.

There was no indication that Voldemort used Lily and James's death to make Horcruxes--only that he wanted to make Harry's death into Horcrux Number 6.

Incidentally, could he even have had the time to make Horcruxes out of the Potters?

when you kill someone you dont have to make a horcrux. you can if you want. voldemort said 7 was a magical number so he was planning on doing 7. he saved making horcruxes for important deaths and to him, james and lily's deaths werent that important.

Yes, but your soul splits every time you kill someone in Potter's world, and I'm saying that Voldemort had already killed more than 6 people, so he has more than 7 souls.

Yes, but your soul splits every time you kill someone in Potter's world, and I'm saying that Voldemort had already killed more than 6 people, so he has more than 7 souls.

Perhaps the soul pieces that do not get placed in Horcruxes "knit" back together somehow

(Ooh, I'm a fifth year! :birthday:)

Yes, but your soul splits every time you kill someone in Potter's world, and I'm saying that Voldemort had already killed more than 6 people, so he has more than 7 souls.

I thought that the ONLY way to split your soul was to make a horcrux to save part of it in. I never thought it split everytime you killed. LV's Death Eaters have killed many individuals, even Peter Pettigrew killed a dozen muggles. His death Eaters haven't split their souls, they won't continue to live after death. LV says in the graveyard scene that his Death Eaters "know the steps HE has taken" signifying to me that no one else has split their soul to make any horcruxes. I got the impression from Dumbledore that he himself believed that Tom only made horcruxes when killing significant people(to him). And since Tom believed the number 7 to be the most powerful magically DD assumed Tom had made 7 horcruxes. DD is usually right in his assumptions and someone has already posted that JKR has confirmed as much.

I thought that the ONLY way to split your soul was to make a horcrux to save part of it in. I never thought it split everytime you killed. LV's Death Eaters have killed many individuals, even Peter Pettigrew killed a dozen muggles. His death Eaters haven't split their souls, they won't continue to live after death. LV says in the graveyard scene that his Death Eaters "know the steps HE has taken" signifying to me that no one else has split their soul to make any horcruxes. I got the impression from Dumbledore that he himself believed that Tom only made horcruxes when killing significant people(to him). And since Tom believed the number 7 to be the most powerful magically DD assumed Tom had made 7 horcruxes. DD is usually right in his assumptions and someone has already posted that JKR has confirmed as much.

The soul does split when one murders another. This was said by Slughorn in HBP. Horcrux-making involves going a step further and removing that ripped bit of soul from one's body to be placed in another vessel.

The canon on 'rips the soul' and 'splitting the soul' appears contradictory, and has been discussed at length on this thread and others.

To Recap:

Murder 'rips' the soul, which, I believe, means the soul is marked, scored, perforated, scarred, but is still attached to the main portion of soul inside the body. It's all inter-connected until the Dark Wizard 'tears along the dotted lines' and detaches it from the whole by means of a dark spell, with the intent to encase that specific portion of soul within a Horcrux.

According to Dumbledore, Voldemort has made many "rips" to his soul, enough to create an army of Inferi.
"He killed enough people to make an army of them, of course.But he's only "split" his soul enough to create six Horcruxes and leave a seventh of his soul residing inside his body, the natural vessel of the soul. We're told that Voldemort wanted a seven-part soul...his soul literally in seven separate pieces.

{*My personal opinion based on canon} I'm inclined to believe that they are literal 1/7ths.
I believe Hocrux creation to be limited in the extreme. No other wizard had ever split their soul more than in two---to create a Horcrux--as once was more than enough.

However, we're told that Voldemort experimented dangerously with the unknown, splitting his soul six times, thereby creating his seven-part soul.

Once these six Horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort can't make more to replace them. He has sliced and apportioned his soul until there is barely anything left of it...you can't split what you don't have. Which means that Horcrux creation in general is a limited process, so despite being a mass-murderer {which Voldemort is} once the six are gone, then he has lost his immortality, and cannot obtain it again through the creation of more Horcruxes.
If it didn't, Voldemort's soul would have been in a thousand pieces when he killed Harry.We're told that Voldemort killed enough to have created an army of Inferi...yet he only parceled his soul into seven pieces. We know of at least eight specific murders that he has intentionally committed. Ripping the soul apart through murder seems different from splitting the soul to create a Horcrux. There is ambiguity in the canon.

These are a few posts on another thread---{Accidental Horcrux/Horcrux Murders}, discussing this contradiction:
Voldemort split his soul more than once to create a Horcrux. Dumbledore certainly knew of Voldemort's propensity for ripping his soul with murders he'd personally committed. It does not appear that Dumbledore is referring to the same thing at all. The one's that we know he's specifically committed:

1. Tom Riddle Sr. {father of Tom Marvolo Riddle}
2. Mr. Riddle {grandfather}
3. Mrs. Riddle {grandmother}
4. Hepzibah Smith
5. James Potter
6. Lily Potter
7. Dorcas Meadowes
8. Frank Bryce

So how to reconcile 'No wizard had ever done more than tear their soul in two' --- splitting the soul with the creation of a single Horcrux --- with the other statement of --- 'He killed enough people to make an army of them, of course' --- thereby ripping his soul countless times via multiple murders performed in his lifetime?

Lets take a moment to refer back to canon before we drift away from the exact words used by Slughorn, Voldemort and Dumbledore when discussing Horcruxes or only consider what one of them says and forget words spoken by the others. I’ve highlighted the key words and phrases relating to the recent discussion.

‘A Horcrux is the word used 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.’

‘How do you split your soul?’
‘Well,’ said Slughorn uncomfortably, ‘you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature.’
‘But how do you do it?’
‘By an act of evil – the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion –’

‘Can you split your soul only once? Wouldn’t it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces? I mean, for instance, isn’t seven the most powerfully magical number, wouldn’t seven –?’
‘Merlin’s beard, Tom!’ yelped Slughorn. ‘Seven! Isn’t it bad enough to think of killing one person? And in any case … bad enough to divide the soul … but to rip it into seven pieces …’

‘As far as I know – as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew – no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two.’
‘Four years ago, I received what I considered certain proof that Voldemort had split his soul.’

There is ambiguity as to what Slughorn and Dumbledore specifically mean when they use words such as ‘split’, ‘rip’ and ‘tear’. All three are synonyms of each other but also have separate distinct meanings too. For example, ‘split’ can simply mean ‘divide’, another word that is also used. The passages above could be read to mean that there is a distinct difference between a murderer’s soul being ‘ripped apart’ or ‘torn’ and being ‘split’ or ‘divided’. This seems the most likely explanation to me. A murderer’s soul is always ‘ripped apart’ but is only said to be ‘split’ when it is separated from the rest of itself, i.e. removed from the murderer’s body, and encased in an object to create a Horcrux.

However there still appear to be contradictions in the information provided. Slughorn specifically says that killing ‘rips the soul apart’, which implies that the soul is torn into two separate pieces every time a murder is committed. Dumbledore on the other hand specifically states that ‘no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two’, which implies the opposite, that the soul is not torn into two pieces every time a murder is committed (unless, as Wimsey points out, no wizard had ever committed more than one murder at that time, which is highly unlikely). Which interpretation is correct can be debated, but as far as I can see there is no clear way of reconciling the two.We do have in canon 12 murders by a single curse {Pettigrew and the muggles he killed when he blew up the street}; this occurred nearly sixteen years before Dumbledore made this statement ‘no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two’ to Harry in HBP. If Dumbledore had intended his statement to mean 'a single murder at a time' as previously stated, then 12 murders at one time---by a single curse--- highly contradicts that idea.

Murder actually damages the soul: as in mark, score, perforate, scar. Then a Dark wizard intent on making a Horcrux uses an incantation to split a soul fragment & remove it from the rest of the soul using the damage---the perforation---by tearing along the dotted lines. This is how I interpret the canon, yet as JJC said, we can debate the interpretation, but until JK tells us the specifics there really is no way to reconcile the two.

Once these six Horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort can't make more to replace them. He has sliced and apportioned his soul until there is barely anything left of it...you can't split what you don't have. Which means that Horcrux creation in general is a limited process, so despite being a mass-murderer {which Voldemort is} once the six are gone, then he has lost his immortality, and cannot obtain it again through the creation of more Horcruxes.

Well mathematically, once you split something in half you can continue tearing each half in two an infinite number of times, and Voldemort still has a piece, albiet a very small mutilated one, of his soul residing in his body. Unless I missed something (which is very possible, since I've been out of the Harry Potter info loop for a long time), Rowling has not said how much of a soul one needs to survive. Voldemort only chose to divide his soul into seven pieces because seven happens to be a magically powerful number, but there isn't any evidence to my knowledge that indicates that seven is the limit.

We do have in canon 12 murders by a single curse {Pettigrew and the muggles he killed when he blew up the street}; this occurred nearly sixteen years before Dumbledore made this statement ‘no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two’ to Harry in HBP. If Dumbledore had intended his statement to mean 'a single murder at a time' as previously stated, then 12 murders at one time---by a single curse--- highly contradicts that idea.

Murder actually damages the soul: as in mark, score, perforate, scar. Then a Dark wizard intent on making a Horcrux uses an incantation to split a soul fragment & remove it from the rest of the soul using the damage---the perforation---by tearing along the dotted lines. This is how I interpret the canon, yet as JJC said, we can debate the interpretation, but until JK tells us the specifics there really is no way to reconcile the two.

That interpretation makes a lot of sense. And to go along with that, somehow I don't think that even if Peter had wanted to create 11 Horcruxes when he murdered those people that it would have been possible. When Slughorn was talking about how killing "rips the soul in two," I took it to mean that the act of murder, and not the number of people that one manages to kill at one time, was what causes the soul to divide. So, to use your dotted line theory, Peter's soul would not have had 11 perforations for each of the people he murdered, but one, representing the single spell he used to kill.

While writing this, another question popped into my head that may have already been discussed, but I'll ask it anyway. If a person tries to kill as many people as possible in a single blow, does that even qualify as a murder that one could use to produce a Horcrux? Or does he have to intentionally murder a single person in order to do so?

Well mathematically, once you split something in half you can continue tearing each half in two an infinite number of times, and Voldemort still has a piece, albiet a very small mutilated one, of his soul residing in his body. Unless I missed something (which is very possible, since I've been out of the Harry Potter info loop for a long time), Rowling has not said how much of a soul one needs to survive. Voldemort only chose to divide his soul into seven pieces because seven happens to be a magically powerful number, but there isn't any evidence to my knowledge that indicates that seven is the limit.

The thing is - Jo is horrible at math by her own admission. She is going to keep this as simple as possible. She had Dumbledore tell Harry that he destroyed 1/7 of Voldemort's soul when he destroyed the ring. Basically, she is not using any elaborate or complicated math formulas for this. Each Horcrux is 1/7 of Voldemort's soul. It's just easier that way.

However you look at it, he has to stop sometime because he has a finite amount to work with. At this point, he has 1/7 of his original soul in his body. That is very small. We can't say just how much would be needed to retain his identity, but it just is not feasible for him to go on another spree of making Horcruxes because he has such a small amount of soul left.

If you look at it from the complicated math formula, he has even less than 1/7 left because each "half" would be smaller and smaller so it becomes even less feasible for him to make more Horcruxes at this point in the story.

Rowling has not said how much of a soul one needs to survive. Voldemort only chose to divide his soul into seven pieces because seven happens to be a magically powerful number, but there isn't any evidence to my knowledge that indicates that seven is the limit.
This is true, she has not.

She has provided canon that no other wizard had ever split their soul more than once in the creation of a Horcrux. She also gives us strong indication that the multiple Horcruxes were 'dangerous experiments'. Dumbledore tells us that Voldemort has become less human, both in look and emotion, with each successive Horcrux creation, which indicates that there is, in fact, limitation to Horcrux creation.

Also, Dumbledore never mentions the possibility for there to be more than the six, that once the six are all destroyed, Voldemort has a 'maimed and diminished soul', and does not even bring up the possibility of Voldemort making others. Lastly, JK {via Dumbledore} has told us Voldemort created only six Horcruxes, that two are destroyed---ring, diary---and in an interview post-HBP release, she quoted Dumbledore "There are four out there, you've got to get rid of four, and then you go for Voldemort", and followed that quote with "So that's where he {Harry} is, and that's what he's got to do."I took it to mean that the act of murder, and not the number of people that one manages to kill at one time, was what causes the soul to divide.I also took it as the act of murder which marks the soul. Despite using a single curse, Pettigrew murdered 12 seperate people. That means he has at least those 12, plus that of Cedric Diggory, and I believe he also murdered Bertha Jorkins...that's fourteen marks to his soul.

Voldemort has killed enough people to create an army of Inferi. He's marked his soul hundreds of times, yet he's only split his soul six times---to create his seven-part soul---six Horcruxes, each holding a seventh of his soul, and the final seventh residing inside his body.

She has provided canon that no other wizard had ever split their soul more than once in the creation of a Horcrux. She also gives us strong indication that the multiple Horcruxes were 'dangerous experiments'. Dumbledore tells us that Voldemort has become less human, both in look and emotion, with each successive Horcrux creation, which indicates that there is, in fact, limitation to Horcrux creation.
I'm not sure whether, in our earlier discussion of this point it ever occurred to me to make this point:

Dumbledore wanted Slughorn's memory to know how many Horcruxes Voldemort wanted to make. Dumbledore already supposed, though, that Voldemort had 5 Horcruxes before Godric's Hollow and intended to make his 6th by killing Harry. This implies that Dumbledore does not believe the largest possible number of Horcruxes is 6, since then there's no reason to worry about Slughorn's memory. He is convinced Voldemort made 5 Horcruxes before Godric's Hollow, and he says he thinks Nagini is #6, so who cares if Voldemort wanted to make 3 or 12, since Dumbledore has already reasoned out that Voldemort made the maximum of 6?

One possible answer to this, which I think maybe you gave before, is that 6 Horcruxes is not the theoretical maximum for anyone, it is the maximum given that Voldemort set out to make 6 Horcruxes and as a result, he put 1/7th of his soul in each and is left with an unsplittable 1/7th in his body. I see 2 problems with this response.
1) If it's just his choice, then he could have hypothetically decided to split his soul into 14ths, in which case he should still be able to split what he has left.
2) If one can control how much of the soul is put into a given Horcrux, then what is the significance of a murder perforating the soul piece (damaging/tearing but not splitting the soul)? Isn't the point of that theory that you perforate around the piece that gets split off? So are you saying that the murderer can control the amount of soul that gets perforated due to a given murder? If that's the case, what's the theoretical minimum amount you can perforate? Could you perforate none? Why couldn't Voldemort perforate off 1/14 of his soul from the remaining 1/7 he has now?

As you probably know, I don't actually agree with either of the two theories I was just saying contradict each other. I think there is no theoretical limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make, regardless of how many they have made or decided to make. I don't think there's literally 1/7 of the "soul material" Voldemort started off with in each Horcrux, and I think it's even possible that one cannot "measure" the amount of soul in order to say that a piece is 1/7. I think Dumbledore was using 1/7 the way people would say any split of an original whole results in 2 halves, regardless of whether they parts are equal. A large part of the reason I think this is the repeated use of vague terms like "bit" for referring to how much of the soul is in a Horcrux.

In any case, I very much doubt that, plot-wise, Voldemort would decide to make more. He already believes his soul is split into the most powerfully magical number of sections. I think he would decide that even with some of his pieces gone, splitting his soul into more pieces would be less powerful. The destroyed parts of his soul are parts of his soul, they just don't help him in his goal of immortality anymore. The only real relevance is whether it's possible that he accidentally made a 7th Horcrux (Harry) accidentally.

As for the perforation, I think that Slughorn's statement that the wizard intent upon making a Horcrux uses the damage from murder implies that all the damage is done by the murder. If the murder only perforates the soul and encasement then splits the soul, then encasement does further damage and it's not really correct to just say that the Horcrux maker takes advantage of the damage from the murder -- Slughorn should have said that the wizard takes the damage a step further and splits it out of the body or something like that. Additionally, Slughorn says that murder rips the soul apart, which to me means there are two pieces of this vaporous "substance" that makes up the soul. The only way for there to be two distinct pieces of vapor, ripped APART, is for there to be something separating the two portions.

To me, then, the way to resolve the terminology problem between "rip"/"tear" and "split" is that there is some property of a soul that makes it one soul even if it is ripped apart that does not exist for Horcrux soul pieces that have been split off. This may be related to the idea of possession being a relocation of all or part of the soul, with Diary Riddle saying Ginny poured SOME of her soul into the diary and he poured SOME of his soul back into Ginny in order to possess her. Apparently, there can be physical separation between pieces of soul while the soul retains its full identity and so on. Ginny was losing her soul to the diary, but as soon as the diary was destroyed, she got her soul back without having to do anything because it was still her soul, not split.

Is it possible that Horcrux soul splitting works in a related manor? Murder pulls the soul into two physically separated pieces, but they are still connected in an important, magical, non-physical way. Destruction of the physical container, if one exists, for a piece merely pushes the piece back to the whole, and if the whole dies, the piece will go with it as it "passes on." For a Horcrux, where the piece is split off, this binding does not exist. The physical container for the Horcrux holds it on Earth and so there is an important sense in which that piece does not belong with the original piece anymore.

This is a rather rough first attempt at a theory for explaining the difference between "tearing" and "splitting," so everyone please be critical of it.

Also, Dumbledore never mentions the possibility for there to be more than the six, that once the six are all destroyed, Voldemort has a 'maimed and diminished soul', and does not even bring up the possibility of Voldemort making others. Lastly, JK {via Dumbledore} has told us Voldemort created only six Horcruxes, that two are destroyed---ring, diary---and in an interview post-HBP release, she quoted Dumbledore "There are four out there, you've got to get rid of four, and then you go for Voldemort", and followed that quote with "So that's where he {Harry} is, and that's what he's got to do."

Yes, I agree that in Voldemort's case only six Horcruxes were created and that he probably won't make any more as they are destroyed. I was just pointing out the fact that we don't really know how many Horcruxes it is possible for one person to make.

I also took it as the act of murder which marks the soul. Despite using a single curse, Pettigrew murdered 12 seperate people. That means he has at least those 12, plus that of Cedric Diggory, and I believe he also murdered Bertha Jorkins...that's fourteen marks to his soul.

That makes sense. I think what I originally meant to say was that even though it is possible to kill more than one person at a time, I don't really think that someone could create multiple Horcruxes at once (but of course the thoughts in my head didn't quite make it to my keyboard!) When Tom asked Slughorn about the details of making a Horcrux, he mentioned how murder damages the soul, and that there was some kind of spell involved. I took this to mean that the spell must be performed while the murder is being committed (or immediately after if the spell is used to commit the murder) in order to take full advantage of the damage while it is still "fresh." Also, I'd think any spell performed for something as dangerous as splitting the soul would be pretty complex and require quite a bit of power behind it. When combining these ideas, I am led to believe that it would probably be fairly difficult to split the soul multiple times with a single spell, and that performing the spell multiple times would leave too much time in between when the murder was committed and when the incantation is spoken. Of course, I'm just theorizing here.

Another random question that I thought of while writing: Does anyone else think there is a certain amount of time that it takes for the damage to "heal" in a sense that the soul can no longer be split (even though a scar is left over), or can a person split his soul at any time after the murder is committed?


The thing is - Jo is horrible at math by her own admission. She is going to keep this as simple as possible. She had Dumbledore tell Harry that he destroyed 1/7 of Voldemort's soul when he destroyed the ring. Basically, she is not using any elaborate or complicated math formulas for this. Each Horcrux is 1/7 of Voldemort's soul. It's just easier that way.

However you look at it, he has to stop sometime because he has a finite amount to work with. At this point, he has 1/7 of his original soul in his body. That is very small. We can't say just how much would be needed to retain his identity, but it just is not feasible for him to go on another spree of making Horcruxes because he has such a small amount of soul left.

If you look at it from the complicated math formula, he has even less than 1/7 left because each "half" would be smaller and smaller so it becomes even less feasible for him to make more Horcruxes at this point in the story.

When I wrote my post above, I originally said "1/7" instead of "piece" in the sentence, "Voldemort still has a piece, albiet a very small mutilated one, of his soul residing in his body" because that very thought occurred to me about each Horcrux having a different amount of Voldemort's soul inside of it. But I agree that it makes sense for Jo to have Dumbledore use 1/7 instead of trying to calculate exactly how much of a soul is in each Horcrux (if, as Idabomb333 suggested, it is even possible for one to measure pieces of a soul).

I also agree that there is probably some limit on how many times one can split his soul to make a Horcrux. However, I still think it would be possible for Voldemort to make more than six Horcruxes if he wanted to do so. Of course, as you said, that would leave him with very little soul left in his body. And in addition, Idabomb333 brought up a good point about how it would not make sense plot-wise for Voldemort to try and create more Horcruxes because he intentionally set out to divide his soul into seven pieces, with seven being a powerful magical number. Yet because we have not been told how much soul is needed for one to live, we cannot assume that six is the limit for the number of Horcruxes a person can make.

Come to think of it, it is actually possible for one to live without a soul. We know this because victims of the Dementor's Kiss have their souls sucked out of them completely, but still remain alive. I wonder if by making so many Horcruxes, Voldemort is inadvertently making himself into something like a Dementor, "soul-less and evil" to use Lupin's words. Sounds like a fate worse than death to me.

It's a soul, something with no mass or form, it would be like taking energy from something. You are just taking some of the energy away any hiding it in another vessel. That energy would have no form, mass or volume.

It makes sense what you're saying, unless he had murdered seven people and then made his horcruxes at the same time when the peices of soul were in sevenths, but I think that he made his Horcruxes after each person he murdered. But, does it matter how much soul is in a horcrux anyway? Would you be less alive with a seventh peice of soul and would you be more alive with half a peice of soul? I don't know. Maybe it could play a role in destroying the horcruxes. Maybe it would make it more difficult to destroy half a peice of soul than if you were to destroy a smaller peice of soul if that is what happened. Though I do like your theory.

It's a soul, something with no mass or form, it would be like taking energy from something. You are just taking some of the energy away any hiding it in another vessel. That energy would have no form, mass or volume.

That's exactly what I think! :clap:

Anyway, do you destroy the soul when you destroy a horcrux or do you just release it to pass on to wherever it's supposed to be going? In which case its size or potency wouldn't matter. it's getting past the curses hiding the horcrux and destroying the horcrux that's the problem. I don't think the soul piece fights back!!:lol:

I was reading this thread and I thought, what if instead of just splitting his whole soul, what if he split off certain characteristics of his soul. The diary was the Tom Riddle self for example. It is something I would have to think more on before I could explain really well.

It's a soul, something with no mass or form, it would be like taking energy from something. You are just taking some of the energy away any hiding it in another vessel. That energy would have no form, mass or volume.

That's right..so right.

I like this discussion! :)

Few comments:

First of all, I don't think Dumbledore specifically SAID that each Horcrux has an equal amount of soul. He mentioned that "a seventh of a soul would be worth...", but I don't think he necessarily was meaning one seventh in the mathematical sense, as in 1 divided by 7 into equal parts. He may have meant it more colloquially, as in one piece out of seven pieces.

Also, it's interesting what you are saying about the soul not being something physical so therefore not "dividing" into smaller pieces, but I'm not sure that I agree. Energy may not take up "space," but it is an amount of force that can be divided. It takes a certain number of Newtons or calories or joules to do certain types of work, and if you multiply the number by two you can do twice as much work. Thus, I think tht applying fractions to souls still stands.

(Besides, if it didn't divide exponentially, then each piece of soul is just as powerful on its own right as the original soul. That's not dividing the soul into seven, that's essentially multiplying it by seven. That would make the horcrux process a lot less painful.)

However, I don't think that Voldemort's body would be easier to destroy, even if there is only 1/64 of his soul left. Dumbledore said that Voldemort's soul may have been divided, but his mind and power has not. I guess that means that the horcruxes don't have "minds" of their own, or any power, really, since Voldemort did not divide his mind or stregnth.

I'd always asumed it was only a small part. I don't think you'd want to put half your soul into anything, really. All you need is a little shred to anchor you to life. My interpretation of the Horcruxes:
They don't nessecarily contain any specific fraction of a soul, and if they didI don't think it would be either a half or a seventh.
A half seems too big too me, as I said above. And I think once the Horcruxes are made they're essentially seperate entities until you want to use them, so the rearanging the soul to be equally distributed doesn't sound like a good idea. Besides which: my original point, that I'd have expected the largest part of the soul to remain in the body, because that is, after all, the part that is functioning as the person, and so would seem to have most of the soul. This would mean that it wouldn't be a seventh, it would be less anyway beacuse he'd be keeping a different-sized peice.
I think it's just a small peice, and not of any specific size.
Another thing to consider might be whether different sorts of murder split the soul to different degrees. A simple Avada Kedavra might cause less damage to the soul than torturing someone slowly to death beacause I think that even if killing is the supreme act of evil, some sorts of killing are worse than others, so wouldn't they cause greater damage ( i.e. let you split off a bigger bit of soul)

Great point!

We still have a problem, though, since we don't know what JKR means by "soul." Does the soul include the mind? Because if it does, then the body would have to have the biggest piece because it is operating. But then - Harry would just want to kill Voldemort first, and worry about the horcruxes later.
Also, Dumbledore told Harry that destroying pieces of Voldemort's soul does not destroy any of his mind or power, so that sounds like the horcruxes don't have mind or power in them.


Oh, and one more thing: A bunch of people have mentioned here that Dumbledore's horcrux seems to have been stronger than Harry's, since he was seriously hurt when he destroyed it. But Harry was seriously hurt when he destroyed the diary - he was about to die. It's possible that similarly, Dumbledore was hurt in his attempt to acquire the horcrux, not necessarily that the destruction process killed his arm.

(Unless, of course, we assume that Fawkes tried to heal Dumbledore but couldn't - but was able to heal Harry - implying a difference in the stregnth of the horcrux? On that note, why didn't they bring Fawkes to the cave with them?)

We still have a problem, though, since we don't know what JKR means by "soul." Does the soul include the mind?Based on the state people are left in after they have been 'kissed' by a Dementor, I think we can assume that it does include the mind. I think that it probably is a small shred of soul in each Horcrux. There are numerous variables - could it depend on how much you want to put into it? The amount of evil behind the murder? Perhaps it is an equal division, and therefore Voldemort's soul is actually in sevenths, the one manifesting the body being the most dangerous purely because it still resides there. However, he doesn't seem to lose personality or ability, so I think it's safe to assume that he has more than a seventh still inside him. The closest I can get to guessing the actual amount is "small shred".

But then - Harry would just want to kill Voldemort first, and worry about the horcruxes later.


And that worked so well last time... he could come back again, like he did in the graveyard. That's what Horcruxes are for. The only way I can see that you could destroy that part of soul without first disposing of the Horcruxes is to set a Dementor on him. If the Dementors weren't all n his side, that would be a really good fix, but Harry and co. don't have Dementors.

I agree that ripping apart the soul does not mean halving it. I used to always assume that it ripped the soul in half, but on further reading, I found that Slughorn usues the words "killing rips the soul apart" and "torn portion" and "pieces." He doesn't say anything about the size of the portions. Of course, what it really comes down to is that horcruxes are unnatural and inhuman. I think we also need to remember that Voldemort did not create a horcrux for every single murder that he had ever done.
As far as what JKR means by "soul" I think it's your life force. It keeps you living and breathing and interacting. A kissed person would be one who is alive in the sense that their heart is beating, but they are dead to everything else around them.

That's exactly what I think! :clap:

Anyway, do you destroy the soul when you destroy a horcrux or do you just release it to pass on to wherever it's supposed to be going? In which case its size or potency wouldn't matter. it's getting past the curses hiding the horcrux and destroying the horcrux that's the problem. I don't think the soul piece fights back!!:lol:

You would probably destroy that part of the soul, its energy would be gone and it would not longer exist.

And that worked so well last time... he could come back again, like he did in the graveyard.

You're right. But if most of Voldemort's soul is in his body (which I personally doubt) destroying his body might buy Harry some time. If most of Voldemort's soul really was in his body, killing the body would weaken him to such an extent that perhaps his followers would either not be able to find him or not be too afraid of him. After all, it did take nearly fourteen years for someone to re-generate Voldemort the first time around. And even if Harry only buys a little bit of time before Voldemort gets re-generated, it might be enough time to spare at least a few people's lives.


Based on the state people are left in after they have been 'kissed' by a Dementor, I think we can assume that it does include the mind.

That's what I always thought too. But didn't Dumbledore tell Harry that destroying Voldemort's soul won't affect his mind or powers - that those remain intact? And if the soul contains the mind, does that mean that the horcruxes are conscious and can think for themselves?

i'm sorry if this thread already exists, but i had trouble defining search terms in my attempt to find one like this.

i'm curious about whether destroying the 7 pieces of voldemort's soul will end with his death.

the dementor's kiss is my basis for this question. the kiss sucks the kissee's soul out, but does not kill the kissee. he is put into a vegetative state, and a condition they term as worse than death, but the important point is that it is NOT death.

voldemort has avoided death his entire life. it seems possible, if not entirely probable, that he, being the most powerful dark wizard of the times, might be able to survive the removal of his soul.

without a soul a wizard may not have the ability to be conscious or the ability to act. but if voldemort can create a different soul, a false soul, or if souls are not directly linked to a person's consciousness, could he possibly survive his souls' destruction and continue to fight harry?

i know this is a major stretch, but i'm just curious whether or not jkr might extend harry and volde's final showdown by making him fight without a soul.





p.s. without his soul, we could possibly see an even more evil and callous voldemort. i have to admit, i would like to see some more voldemort rage before this story ends.

there are only 6 horcruxes; the seventh piece resides in voldemort's body. so yes, if the seven pieces of voldemort's soul are destroyed, he will die. however, the piece housed in his "body" must be destroyed last; his ability to survive death previously was because although his body was destroyed, the last piece of his soul, the seventh and the only one in which he is sentient, survived because there were other pieces (horcruxes) floating around elsewhere.

i'm sorry if this thread already exists, but i had trouble defining search terms in my attempt to find one like this.

i'm curious about whether destroying the 7 pieces of voldemort's soul will end with his death.

the dementor's kiss is my basis for this question. the kiss sucks the kissee's soul out, but does not kill the kissee. he is put into a vegetative state, and a condition they term as worse than death, but the important point is that it is NOT death.

voldemort has avoided death his entire life. it seems possible, if not entirely probable, that he, being the most powerful dark wizard of the times, might be able to survive the removal of his soul.

without a soul a wizard may not have the ability to be conscious or the ability to act. but if voldemort can create a different soul, a false soul, or if souls are not directly linked to a person's consciousness, could he possibly survive his souls' destruction and continue to fight harry?

i know this is a major stretch, but i'm just curious whether or not jkr might extend harry and volde's final showdown by making him fight without a soul.





p.s. without his soul, we could possibly see an even more evil and callous voldemort. i have to admit, i would like to see some more voldemort rage before this story ends.

You are right that if Harry were to take the soul right out of Voldemort's body - without destroying the body first, that he would not die, but act as the victim of a dementor's kiss would. (which means no 'more evil and callous than before' Voldemort, but an empty shell that wanders the earth...which we can assume from the canon definition of the victim of a dementor's kiss).

However, once Harry has destroyed the last of the horcruxes then he has cut off the anchors that bind Voldemort's soul to the earth. Once Harry kills Voldemort (all the way - not just destroying the last bit of soul right from under him...) then his soul will be forced to "cross-over" into the "next life" and that would be the end of Voldemort.

You are right that if Harry were to take the soul right out of Voldemort's body - without destroying the body first, that he would not die, but act as the victim of a dementor's kiss would. (which means no 'more evil and callous than before' Voldemort, but an empty shell that wanders the earth...which we can assume from the canon definition of the victim of a dementor's kiss).

However, once Harry has destroyed the last of the horcruxes then he has cut off the anchors that bind Voldemort's soul to the earth. Once Harry kills Voldemort (all the way - not just destroying the last bit of soul right from under him...) then his soul will be forced to "cross-over" into the "next life" and that would be the end of Voldemort.

my only problem with this logic is that from reading the first 6 books, i can safely say NO canon or magic is infallible. with every book, we see one more undoing of a principal we thought infallible in previous books. we know that a soul binds a person to an earthly life, but can there not be another way of clinging to life? ghosts stay around as a mere image of themselves on earth, but they did manage to avoid creossing over to death's side. could voldemort combine the concsious state that the ghosts recieve when they avoid death, with his shell his soulless body, in order to maintain a living existense on earth? i know this is a major stretch, but i can't help thinking this "destroy the horcruxes and you destroy voldy" is all too simple. and as we've found out, nothing in this series is simple

sericana, I understand where you are coming from, because I was just as confused not to long ago, and it took alot of help to understand.

i know this is a major stretch, but i can't help thinking this "destroy the horcruxes and you destroy voldy" is all too simple. and as we've found out, nothing in this series is simple

Just by destroying the horcruxes, you do NOT destroy Voldemort.

The horcruxes are what keeps his soul from leaving the earth when the body dies (like everyone elses soul does) they are like anchors. And by destroying them, you are slicing the hold they have on the core bit of soul in Voldemort's body.

After destroying the horcruxes, then you must kill Voldemort - which will undoubtedly be significantly more difficult than any of the horcruxes. Because then his soul is forced to either "cross-over" or he may choose to remain as a ghost. We don't know. :shrug:

ghosts stay around as a mere image of themselves on earth, but they did manage to avoid creossing over to death's side. could voldemort combine the concsious state that the ghosts recieve when they avoid death, with his shell his soulless body, in order to maintain a living existense on earth?

Should Voldemort choose to become a ghost because he is so afraid of death...then he could not "resurrect" himself. Because all that is left is a mere imprint of the departed soul, which once the body has died, is gone from the world forever.

I really hope that helps :)

sericana:
we know that a soul binds a person to an earthly life, but can there not be another way of clinging to life? ghosts stay around as a mere image of themselves on earth, but they did manage to avoid crossing over to death's side. could voldemort combine the concsious state that the ghosts recieve when they avoid death, with his shell his soulless body, in order to maintain a living existense on earth?

I think there are three elements constitutinng a person in Potterverse. Body, Mind and Soul. I see ghosts as imprints of Mind, They need neither soul nor body, but what is 'seen' as the ghost is the ghosts own Mind map of it's body. Something needs be manifest as 'corporeal' to exist in the matter world we inhabit.

Ghosts are imprints of Mind. They need no soul to exist. They need no body.

The whole model has to very very simplified as Soul and Mind would seem pretty much inseperable.

But this three part state can also explain the echos we see in Priori Incantatum. These are the mind imprints of the victims ... essentially ghosts.

So it is Body which anchors Soul to the matter world. Soul seeks to pass on, as it were, which is why parts are placed in a material object as a Horcrux.... so it cannot pass on.

Minds, as Minds will, will wander.

Based on the state people are left in after they have been 'kissed' by a Dementor, I think we can assume that it does include the mindCan we be sure that Dementors take the mind? Could it just be that without the soul they still have whatever intelligence they had before, but nothing to make it work? So the soul would be more the driving force than the actual mind. Like if your mind was a computer, the soul would be the person working it. If I get taken away from my computer now, it still has all its files and everything, and it's still turned on ("alive"), but there's no-one making it do anything.
So if someone possessed Barty Crouch after he'd been kissed, could they take over and use his body and his mind?

After destroying the 6 Horcruxes, wouldn't Voldemort have a full soul again?

I think it is rather interesting that Voldemort, if he made a total of 6 Horcruxes, he would only have 1.5625% of his soul in his actual body. Also, because each time a half of your soul is put into a horcrux, each Horcrux will have a different percentage of how much of Voldemort's soul it has in it. In case you aren't following me with this here is a table:

100% of Voldemort's soul divided by 2 =
Horcrux 1---50%with 50% still in body---divide by 2 again=
Horcrux 2---25%with25% still in body---divide by 2 again=
Horcrux 3---12.5%with12.5% still in body---divide by 2 again=
Horcrux 4----6.25%with6.25% still in body---divide by 2 again=
Horcrux 5----3.125%with 3.125% still in body---divide by 2 again=
Horcrux 6----1.5625%with1.5625% still in body---divide by 2 again=
Possible Horcrux 7---.78125%with only .78125% of his soul left in his body

So I am wondering about what this might mean. Firstly Dumbledore said that Voldemort however diminished his soul is he still has his same power of magic so long as he is in his body. If Horcrux 1 has 50%, will it be harder to destroy than say Horcrux 5 which has only 3.125% of his soul in it? Thinking of it just now, this could make a good peice of evidence for all the "Harry is a Horcrux" theory supporters because Harry would be Horcrux 7 and only .78125% of Voldemort's soul would have entered him which I think is hardly enough up against the 100% of Harry's own soul to make Harry have an evil disposition (and we know he is not evil). SO...all these Horcruxes have different amounts of soul in them. Any ideas? Does this mean that since Voldemort only has less than 2% of a soul in him it matters what type of soul it is? I think it does matter that he has a shriveled ripped to pieces no more than 2% of his own soul in him. Come to think of it, when you murder your soul is ripped in half whether you make a Horcrux at the moment or not, so with all VOldemort's murders he must have bits and pieces of that l1.5625% of his soul in him! I think it definitly makes him not a human. What are your thoughts about all this?

Dumbledore refers to the soul portions as 'a part'...'fragments'...'sevenths'...'pieces'."...a fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it. The diary had been a Horcrux."
======
"...the fragment of soul contcealed inside it was kept safe..."
======
"...he was remarkably blase about that precious fragment of his soul..."
======
"...the seventh part of his soul..."
======
"...that seventh piece of soul..."
======
"...an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul..."
======
"...sealing a piece of his soul inside it..."
======
"...confide part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself..."
======
"...Had Lucius known he held a portion of his master's soul in his hands..."We're told that Voldemort wanted a seven-part soul, his soul literally in seven separate pieces. I'm inclined to believe that they are literal 1/7ths, others not so much. The thing to remember is that JK herself admits her maths is terrible.

However, as quoted above, there are many ways in which the soul portions are referenced.

You'd probably be interested in this thread:

Questions about Horcruxes -- How exactly are they made? What murders "count"? etc v2 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=81085&highlight=Horcruxes)

Slughorn said something about encasing the torn portion in a horcrux which suggests to me that it's only a piece of soul torn off, not 1/2 of it. :)

Cheri, im inclined to go with you on this one, because, being a math freak myself i have also done the math and came up with the same answer. I always thought it said that murder splits your soul in half, and so that you would have two equal pieces of ones soul. However, as was my impression, Voldemort mudered more than once, so after the first he only had one half left. Thus, at the next murder he would split that half left in him in half again. Cos unless when he muders again it takes parts from all the pieces of his soul, not just the part in his body, i cant see how the horcruxes would have equal pieces of soul.

How does a Horcrux get activated?

Horcrux C is 50 miles away.
Horcrux L is 10000 miles way
Horcrux N is 3 rooms way
Horcrux HS is right beside you.

You die.

Which one is activated?

I say the closest one to you.

So say Harry or his scar is a horcrux. Nagini is three rooms away when Voldemort parishes. Harry is RIGHT THERE.
Would a random horcrux be activated, such as the one 10000 miles away, or would it be more likely the soul would come out of Harry? Or can Vapermort say "I want the Nagini one?" or what?

How does a Horcrux get activated?

Horcrux C is 50 miles away.
Horcrux L is 10000 miles way
Horcrux N is 3 rooms way
Horcrux HS is right beside you.

You die.

Which one is activated?

I say the closest one to you.

So say Harry or his scar is a horcrux. Nagini is three rooms away when Voldemort parishes. Harry is RIGHT THERE.
Would a random horcrux be activated, such as the one 10000 miles away, or would it be more likely the soul would come out of Harry? Or can Vapermort say "I want the Nagini one?" or what?

I may be wrong, but I don't think that a horcrux gets "activated" at all. The way I understand it, a horcrux acts as an anchor to the soul; keeping it from moving on to the afterlife. The piece of soul in a horcrux doesn't get activated, or used up when the person dies. It remains in the horcrux, keeping the soul grounded on earth.

If the fragment of soul was used up, then Voldemort isn't truly immortal. If you killed him each time he regenerated, eventually he'd be gone for good.

My question is: Why did no one but Voldy think of making multiple horcruxes?!? I mean, yeah, Tom Riddle talked to Sluggy when he was at Hogwarts, but as far as I know, no one else has made more than one horcrux.

My question is: Why did no one but Voldy think of making multiple horcruxes?!? I mean, yeah, Tom Riddle talked to Sluggy when he was at Hogwarts, but as far as I know, no one else has made more than one horcrux.
My guess would be that you only need one to be immortal, so why even bother thinking about it. I could see why it never crossed their minds. Then again, it may have crossed their minds but they were too scared to try it.

i think that it takes particularly horrible deaths to create horcrux's, so even if people have been interested in doing them, they probably wouldn't be so colde hearted to perform such terrible acts!

My question is: Why did no one but Voldy think of making multiple horcruxes?!? I mean, yeah, Tom Riddle talked to Sluggy when he was at Hogwarts, but as far as I know, no one else has made more than one horcrux.

Slughorn told Riddle that it would be a terrible existence, and most people wouldn't want it; And Voldemort's own description of his condition made it clear that surviving death with a horcrux isn't a desirable thing for most people. Other wizards may have made more than one horcrux before, but not as many as Voldemort.

I was under the impression that no-one had ever managed to regenerate their body before Voldemort. If he was the only one to return, then for most people making a horcrux would be a last ditch effort to hang on to life. A miserable life at that.

Sorry if this has already been asked, but I have a question. Riddle said that 7 horcruxes would be more powerful. Why wouldn't 8, after all, it's more. Is there some added protection or something if it is 7?

What if in the seventh book Harry has to piece together voldemorts soul instead of destroying it. any1 agree with me???

Kind of a problem when 2 pieces, at least, are already gone. Otherwise it might be an interesting twist.

I'm sure there is another thread this idea should be merged with.

This is my theory

I think to split a soul into two takes a murder with two components: Intent and Directly killing the person.

I don't think you could split the soul if you kill someone inadvertantly. Then there was no intent behind it. I think the power of the feelings that spurred the murders, whether it be hate or revenge, create the splitting of the soul. That is most likely why killing people who didn't really matter split Voldemort's soul.

When you kill someone, your soul splits into two parts. Then, whether by some sort of ritual, or maybe just an incantation, the soul is redirected into the object wanted to use as a horcrux.

I also think that the horccrux has to be something powerful enough to harness the power of a soul, not just some inanimate object that could be used as a portkey [i.e. a boot]

i think ordering people to kill dont count as the person killing the victim himself. Loke when the Priori Incantum happened out came the ghostly images of the people that Voldy had killed personally not those that he ordered to be killed

i reckon when you murder someone the soul gets ripped apart but its still in your body untill you do the spell to place in in an object, making a horcrux. so if you soul pieces are all in your body when your body is killed, all the pieces will be destroyed. a horcrux is like just giving the piece of soul another 'body' to live in. thats what i think anyway.

i reckon when you murder someone the soul gets ripped apart but its still in your body untill you do the spell to place in in an object, making a horcrux. so if you soul pieces are all in your body when your body is killed, all the pieces will be destroyed. a horcrux is like just giving the piece of soul another 'body' to live in. thats what i think anyway.
I mostly agree. I think that the reason Voldemort transformed is that making a Horcrux involves somehow harming your body in order to make the Horcrux object more like a body. Bodies seem to be natural "soul holders." It doesn't seem to be damage to the soul which harmed Voldemort's body directly, since there's no mention of a Dementor's kiss transforming the body. In fact, Lupin says the body is just an empty shell, implying that the body is unaffected.

i think ordering people to kill dont count as the person killing the victim himself. Loke when the Priori Incantum happened out came the ghostly images of the people that Voldy had killed personally not those that he ordered to be killed
I agree with the conclusion, but not with the reasoning. PI causes the wand to show the last spells it performed, and has nothing to do with the wizard. In GoF, it was actually Wormtail who killed Cedric with Voldemort's wand, and the Cedric "echo" comes out later.

This is my theory

I think to split a soul into two takes a murder with two components: Intent and Directly killing the person.

I don't think you could split the soul if you kill someone inadvertantly. Then there was no intent behind it. I think the power of the feelings that spurred the murders, whether it be hate or revenge, create the splitting of the soul. That is most likely why killing people who didn't really matter split Voldemort's soul.

When you kill someone, your soul splits into two parts. Then, whether by some sort of ritual, or maybe just an incantation, the soul is redirected into the object wanted to use as a horcrux.
I mostly agree. I think intent and action both have to be there, and that casting the killing curse splits the soul at the time of the curse, because that's when you're acting on those feelings, which splits the soul. I don't think the actual death has to occur, which is basically only relevant in the case of Voldemort failing to kill Harry -- I think Voldemort's soul tore even though Harry survived.

I also think that the horccrux has to be something powerful enough to harness the power of a soul, not just some inanimate object that could be used as a portkey [i.e. a boot]
Why? Dumbledore addresses that point in HBP, when Harry asks whether Voldemort's Horcruxes could be any old thing, and Dumbledore says that Harry's thinking of portkeys. The reason he gives why they're not looking for portkey-type objects, though, has nothing to do with the power of the object. It's that Voldemort would not put a piece of his soul into something he didn't think was precious. That implies that someone else might do so. Also, the diary was just a plain old muggle diary until Riddle bewitched it, so I don't think it had any intrinsic power.

Sorry if this has already been asked, but I have a question. Riddle said that 7 horcruxes would be more powerful. Why wouldn't 8, after all, it's more. Is there some added protection or something if it is 7?
7 is a powerfully magical number. Riddle asserts that it is the most powerful number, and that's why he wants a 7-part soul (which incidentally means 6 Horcruxes, plus the piece that stays in his body). There may or may not be some added value to having a 7-part soul, but regardless, Voldemort thinks there's added value.

If Harry's scar is really a horocrux, could he use the spell to make horocruxes to move the soul out of himself and into some other object?

Voldemort might already know that Harry's scar is a horocrux. So, if Harry got the Horocrux into another object, Voldemort wouldn't know because as Dumbledore had said, he cannot sense the loss of a horocrux. And Voldemort would not dare to destroy Harry completely.:D

Voldemort has already tried to kill Harry in GoF by himself and Crouch Jr.
Ontopic: I think no, the magic is to powerfull for that.

do you think that a horcrux is affected at all by who the person who was killed is?

We are told that Vol wanted founders objects because of their magical traces. I don't think the soul can be affected by the object because it is just a case, but as an object with magical traces or history, it would be less likeley to be destroyed, and perhaps harder to find.

foxywitch:
could [Harry] use the spell to make horocruxes to move the soul out of himself and into some other object?

IF:...

Just as there are spells to remove and transfer memories, assuming this is the kind of model of horcrux building, ie, seperate, transfer, encase, there should be a way to transfer.

This may or may not be the way it's done, and may or may not apply in this singular circumstance of Harry's situation.


gyllyweed:
We are told that Vol wanted founders objects because of their magical traces.

Voldemort wanted founders objects because of the consequent self-aggrandizing ego associations of having his soul inhabit these legendary and important objects. any magical powers they may have already possesed isn't that important to his motive.

I don't think that the soul is split just from killing someone. If so, then everyone who kills by accident, in self-defence etc. would have split souls. I think it's the killing someone with deliberate intent to make a Horcrux that is so evil: taking someone else's life to ensure your own immortality is an evil act, whereas running someone over by accident isn't. Also, when Slughorn talks about Horcruxes, he says there is "a spell", not two- one to kill and the other to make the Horcrux. I think for a Horcrux killing you use a specific spell. Unless if the killing isn't used to make a Horcrux the soul heals?

Well technically, if you kill someone, anyone, your soul splits. But I think that if you kill in self-defense or something, is not the same as if you kill just because you feel like it.

'But how do you do it?'
'By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder. Killing rips the soul apart...'

It doesn't say there that it has to by a particularly nasty murder, just a murder. What Dumbledore did say is that he thought Voldemort wanted to create Horcruxes from particular victims.

The spell is just to encase the ripped soul into the chosen object.

didnb't dumbledore explain most of that in book six?? he went on and on about it i remember...

can a person be a horcrux?

which leads to another question... could harry be the last horcrux?

ive been asking around,,, but no one really knows

can a person be a horcrux?

which leads to another question... could harry be the last horcrux?

ive been asking around,,, but no one really knows

It's presumably possible to make a human Horcrux, since Dumbledore says that living things can be Horcruxes (Nagini).

Here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=94457) is a thread about what happens if Harry is a Horcrux.

Well technically, if you kill someone, anyone, your soul splits. But I think that if you kill in self-defense or something, is not the same as if you kill just because you feel like it.

'But how do you do it?'
'By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder. Killing rips the soul apart...'

You bring up a good point, but I believe that there is a distinct difference between murder and killing in self-defense, by accident, etc. While homicide can include killing a person for any reason, murder implies premeditation, or at least the intent to kill another human being. When Slughorn refers to killing as "the supreme act of evil" that causes the soul to split, I think it is more likely that he meant killing in the sense of murder rather than in the more general sense. Killing someone in self-defense or by accident, at least in my opinion, doesn't qualify as evil, and so I don't think that simply killing a person can split one's soul.

I did a search, But if this has been mentioned already, My apologies and please close or merge the thread.

I was curious as to what happens to soul fragments that are removed from a Horcrux. And if these soul fragments will play a part in the final battle with LV.

Since we know that the purpose of a Horcrux is to keep a piece of someones soul safe and hidden,. So that if their body's are destroyed, their soul remains in the material plane because a piece(s) of soul is hidden and bound to an object on the material plane.

If thats the case. Then would not the opposite be true? Wouldn't the fragments of the soul removed from a Horcrux be unable to pass over to the other side? Since not only are there other Horcux's, but another piece inside LV as well. Would this not keep those pieces bound to the material plane? Assuming of course that the soul fragment isn't destroyed by it's removal.

Now if that is the indeed what happens. What happens to these soul fragments? Are there multiple vapourmorts floating around? Would these soul fragments be drawn to each other and re-merge into a larger piece? And if they are drawn to each other and merge together. Then is it not possible that after all the Horcrux's are destroyed and the soul fragments drawn together and merged. That during the final battle this floating soul might re-merge with the original inside LV?

Once LV's soul is fully merged and he has a complete soul. Then feelings such as regret and remorse over killing others might overpower someone like LV who is so use to having no feelings, that the sudden influx of these strong emotions could play an important role in his defeat.

Not to mention that LV regaining feelings like regret, remorse, and love would seem to play right into the theme or the books, and the ideas JKR is trying to impart to us..

Assuming of course that the soul fragment isn't destroyed by it's removal.Probably not a valid assumption in light of what JKR said about the bit in the diary.
MA: Someone put it to me last night, that if Ginny, with the diary -
JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul. You saw it take shape, you saw it destroyed, it's gone. And Ginny is definitely in no way possessed by Voldemort.

Once you create a horcrux, that bit of your soul is forever separated and mutilated. It doesn't rejoin a larger whole if the horcrux is destroyed.

Probably not a valid assumption in light of what JKR said about the bit in the diary.
MA: Someone put it to me last night, that if Ginny, with the diary -
JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul. You saw it take shape, you saw it destroyed, it's gone. And Ginny is definitely in no way possessed by Voldemort.

Yes but I've always gone under the assumption that the Diary was a special case. Since it was obviously given special magical abilities to communicate and posses others. LV made it with the intention of having it take someone over and re-open the CoS at a latter time. So because the soul fragment in the diary was able to "take shape", it was destroyed.

And going by JKR's wording of her statement;

JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul. You saw it take shape, you saw it destroyed, it's gone.

It seems she is explicitly saying that only that fragment of soul was destroyed. Not a general statement that removed soul fragments are always destroyed.

Once you create a horcrux, that bit of your soul is forever separated and mutilated. It doesn't rejoin a larger whole if the horcrux is destroyed.

Where is that ever mentioned or stated?

Where is that ever mentioned or stated?

Page 508 of HBP Deluxe Edition: "Without his horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with a maimed and diminished soul."

Yes but I've always gone under the assumption that the Diary was a special case. Since it was obviously given special magical abilities to communicate and posses others. LV made it with the intention of having it take someone over and re-open the CoS at a latter time.

I've been wondering about this.....when else has a character interacted with a horcrux? As far as I can tell, there has been no other interaction. The locket in the cave was a fake, and the ring was already destroyed by DD when we first saw it.

In fact, the ring actually did something powerful and dangerous to DD when he tried to destroy it, no? Or did that happen in his effort to obtain it? If the ring hurt him, who's to say that it was Voldy's soul that did the hurting, and not just some enchantment.

Something to classify as "requries more information" I'm afraid ....

-MattyI

i am confused does that mean that once the part of the soul is extracted then it like withers away or something.

Page 508 of HBP Deluxe Edition: "Without his horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with a maimed and diminished soul."

I still don't see how you take that statement about what LV will be without his Horcrux's, and equate it to this statement:


Once you create a horcrux, that bit of your soul is forever separated and mutilated. It doesn't rejoin a larger whole if the horcrux is destroyed.

In fact, the ring actually did something powerful and dangerous to DD when he tried to destroy it, no? Or did that happen in his effort to obtain it? If the ring hurt him, who's to say that it was Voldy's soul that did the hurting, and not just some enchantment.

I seem to remember DD saying that the ring itself had a very powerful curse placed on it. Part of the magical deffense's that LV placed on the ring and its hiding place.

Well, if all Voldemort's Horcruxes are destroyed and he still has a 'diminished' soul then doesn't it follow that the pieces from the Horcruxes did not return to him when the Horcruxes were destroyed? If they did then his soul would be whole again, not 'diminished'.

Oh, and you're right about the curse on the Ring being what nearly did for Dumbledore, leaving him with a damaged hand. ;)

This article is an attempt to clear up some common misconceptions posted by several readers here on cos forumsabout what Horcruxes are and how they work. I'm not claiming to have some great insight into what J.K. believes about Horcruxes. I merely offer up my own humble opinion, from information gleaned from the books, and years of unabashed geekdom, for the sake of discussion/argument on the topic of Horcruxes.

In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Professor Slughorn tells Tom Riddle:

You split your soul, you see, and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one's body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged. (HBP pg. 497/464)

In other words, a Horcrux is a container in which the witch or wizard who makes one puts a piece of their soul to keep safe in the event that the person's body is destroyed. A Horcrux prevents the soul from "passing on" and thereby holds the witch or wizard's consciousness earth bound. That's it.

From that point on, steps would have to be taken to re-establish ones self in a body capable of functioning normally. It seems someone that creates a Horcrux would require assistance to perform the spells or rituals necessary to regain human form.

For example, an evil wizard creates a Horcrux. He has left instructions with his minions of what they are to do should he die (how to make him a body and how to put him in it).

The wizard is killed. His lackeys follow his instructions and he is restored. Then, he is killed again. His flunkies again follow his instructions, and again he is restored. One Horcrux, since it remained intact, brings the wizard back twice. It is not "used up"; it merely preformed its function.

Voldemort says he was ripped from his body but did not die. He existed as "less than the meanest ghost". He forced himself second by second, minute by minute to live. He had no body to hold a wand and perform the spells that would return him to his body. He gets that help first from Quirrell, whom he possesses in hopes of getting the Sorcerer's Stone. But it does not seem to be a normal possession. Quirrell is still in control of his own body, he just follows Voldemort's orders. It is as if Voldemort is simply living off of Quirrell like a parasite. (Voldemort actually uses that word in the Sorcerer's Stone movie.) Quirrell is killed when Harry stops him from getting the stone and Voldemort is forced from his body by physical contact with Harry.

Next, Pettigrew actively looks for Voldemort and finds him. Voldemort instructs him in "ancient dark magic" that returns Voldemort to a rudimentary, weak form that he can inhabit until he regains his full strength. Voldemort then instructs Pettigrew in how to make a potion from unicorn blood and snake venom to make him strong enough to travel. It is only through the ritual in the cemetery that Voldemort finally regains his full strength and body.

And through this all, there are still six horcruxes. Dumbledore tells us so.

If you're putting a piece of your soul into something to keep it safe in order to "keep you alive" in the event your body is destroyed, you're going to want to make sure that that object is also kept safe, preferably secret. I do not believe, nor is it stated in any of the books, that a Horcrux has the power to possess or harm any one on its own. It was the enchantments protecting the ring that damage Dumbledore's hand. (A similar enchanment on the necklace, not a horcrux at all, injured Katie Bell.) The remoteness of the cave, the "blood tribute" arch, the lake of infirius and the potion are all employed to protect the locket.

I believe that many people are so distracted by the act of killing another human, and the subsequent damage to one's soul, that they miss the truly evil act of REMOVING a piece of ones soul. I, like Dumbledore, am a firm believer in the power of, for lack of a better word, redemption. The idea that any one can turn their life around and try to atone for one's prior misdeeds. Perhaps even if some one has torn their soul it can, over time, heal, I don't know. But to remove one's soul is an act of desecration from which there can be no recovery. I believe that it is due to the removing of the soul itself that Horcruxes are deemed to be such an evil thing. Acts of self-mutilation are often viewed as beyond normal vileness. To rip pieces of one's soul from one's own body would have to be viewed in the same vein.

About this, Slughorn says:

Existance in such a form ... few would want it, Tom, very few. Death would be preferrable. You must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, an act against nature. (HBP pg.497/465)

If murder is evil, then the removal of pieces of the soul may be considered "beyond normal" evil. ONLY the most sinister, twisted and depraved individual would consider the act, much less actually do it. There is a reason all the foul and loathsome wizards flock to Voldemort's banner, he alone is the one who appears to have made a Horcrux.

In the wizarding world there is a spell specifically designed to kill, another that forces one to act against their will, and a third exists only to cause "pain beyond pain". Use of any of these spells has been determined to be so horrific a crime that the spell caster is imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Yet, the children of the wizarding world know of their existence. Information on them, although limited I'm sure, could most likely be found in a well-stocked library. Yet nothing on Horcruxes appears in the library of the "greatest wizarding school in the world" except for just over a dozen words.

All I could find was this, in the introduction to Magick Moste Evile -- listen -- 'Of the Horcrux, wickedest of magical inventions, we shall not speak nor give direction...' I mean, why mention it then?" she said impatiently, slamming the old book shut. (HBP pg 381/357)

We share Hermione's frustration. But this is another indication of just how ultimately evil Horcruxes are, and how only the most evil of Wizards would even consider making one.

But what about Tom Riddle's Diary? It's the first Horcux that appears in the series, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, the first we are made aware of, and it is worthy of closer examination.

Many people seem to believe the diary is a "typical" Horcrux. As Dumbledore and Harry explore the nature of Horcruxes in their private lessons, it seemed odd to Dumbledore (and for that matter me) that the diary was treated in a completely different fashion than, say, the ring, which Voldemort hid so that no one would find it and protected it with a "terrible curse", or the locket, which he also went to extraordinary measures to protect. If you're putting a piece of your soul into something to keep it safe in order to "keep you alive" in the event your body is destroyed, you're going to want to make sure that that object is also kept safe, preferably secret.

About the diary, Dumbledore says:

Although I did not see the Riddle who came out of the diary, what you described was a phenomenon I had never witnessed. A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere memory, sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had fallen? No, something much more sinister had lived inside that book...a fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it. The diary had been a Horcrux. (HBP pg. 500/467)

The original enchantment on the diary was intended to posses a student at Hogwarts, and thereby force them to open the Chamber of Secretes, and release the Basilisk. It was INTENDED to wind up in the hands of another. And consider that being an extremely rare ability, there was almost no chance the person possessed or controlled by the diary would be a Parselmouth, although this skill would be needed to command the basilisk and set it on the students with muggle parents. So, somehow, I believe, the diary initially contained a bit of Tom Riddle's sixteen-year-old consciousness, so that it (he) could actively control the person doing its (his) bidding.

As Ginny Weasley poured her thoughts and emotions into the diary, she activated the enchantments on it and provided the power needed for it to function as it was originally intended to, and in doing so, she became more and more susceptible to it's influence. Perhaps even forcing Ginny to perform magic increased its (his) power over her and made it possible to become something more than just the memory left in the diary. I think this would explain why the Tom Riddle that came out of the diary was the sixteen-year-old Riddle and had no memory of Harry, or that night in Godrick's Hollow. When he was placed there, the diary was not yet a Horcrux, and when it was made a Horcrux, Voldemort was still at the height of his power. Unlike the other Horcruxes, that would be hidden and protected to keep the soul fragment within them safe, the diary must be considered something other than a "typical" Horcrux.

The existance of the diary is one of the darkest indications of Voldemort's evil insanity. Since he was so cavalier about the protection of this Horcrux, we can only assume this means he didn't particularly care, because he intended to have other Horcruxes to protect him, something he, himself, boasts that no other wizard had ever done.

I'm really hoping that since Horcruxes have become so important to the whole Harry Potter story, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows will give us much more information on Horcruxes. It may come in the form of Viktor Crum, Dumbledore may have left notes, even Fleur may have some useful information. Until that time, this is the best information we have to go on.

I agree with you completely; the misunderstandings on this issue have frustrated me too. As long as you have a Horcrux, the soul piece in your body will not be destroyed even if the body is. No one has to do anything to make that happen (once the Horcrux is created) and the Horcrux itself remains intact. The only way to destroy the Horcrux is to destroy it, as we saw with the Diary and as we assume with the Ring.

Very very well written. Great job, Arul! Yes, I completely agree with your views. I didn't know people had been talking about how after your original body is terminated, one of your horcrux dies. Horcruxes aren't 'lives' in a video game sense. The soul will remain forever intact until they are actively destroyed. Nothing done to the body will harm them.

The diary's actions seem most obscure because Riddle had already created this interactive diary that could "lead another to open the Chamber" even before he knew of Horcruxes. Dumbledore says that this diary was proof of Voldemort's connections with Salazar Slytherin, a relic and link to the founders in every sense, and therefore Voldemort decided later on to make the diary a Horcrux. If the diary had not been made into a Horcrux, I imagine it would act almost similar as that it could possess the writer, make them open the chamber and control the basilisk. But I don't think the Diary-that's-not-yet-a-horcrux would have been able to release the soul of Tom Riddle as a 16 year old boy. Only after the diary is converted to contain a part of Voldemort's mutilated soul, does the diary get power enough to release a soul. The Horcrux-Diary is more powerful than just the Simple-Diary. Because the Horcrux soul probably merged with the enchantments to make it stronger, and if there was no piece of Voldemort's soul inside, I don't think Tom Riddle's soul could have come out.

You bring up a good point, but I believe that there is a distinct difference between murder and killing in self-defense, by accident, etc. While homicide can include killing a person for any reason, murder implies premeditation, or at least the intent to kill another human being. When Slughorn refers to killing as "the supreme act of evil" that causes the soul to split, I think it is more likely that he meant killing in the sense of murder rather than in the more general sense. Killing someone in self-defense or by accident, at least in my opinion, doesn't qualify as evil, and so I don't think that simply killing a person can split one's soul.
I think that killing in even defence would rip the soul in two. Yet if it was pure defence, that person is much less likely to be the type to make a horcrux, seeing as it is extreme dark magic.

this article was on beyond hogwarts. all you did was copy and paste it and change some stuff.

this article was on beyond hogwarts. all you did was copy and paste it and change some stuff.

Hey!!! Be nice….

this article was on beyond hogwarts. all you did was copy and paste it and change some stuff.

Whether or not this article was an original thought by this person, i think it was very helpful. At least for me.

Posted this thought on a couple of other threads and was told that this thread is best for it...

Anyways, what fraction of LV's soul remains? Here's the discussion from "Little Questions Answered":
Originally Posted by Runes
Quote:
Originally Posted by chparadise
Three "little questions":
1. What fraction of LV's soul remains? We all say 1/7, but I say 1/64 (1/2 --> 1/4 --> 1/8; etc - halving his soul each time)


I guess whether a soul is 1/7 or 1/64, its still a piece of soul, and probably the 'strength' of it wouldn't really matter. Harry still needs to destroy the pieces all the same.


I think it matters if it is 1/7 or 1/64, because the remaining part of human will be smaller for the last. For the second it makes Voldemort less human. And it seems in the books (from the memories of him we have seen over the years) that his human part decreases exponentielly. Maybe thats the reason why Slughorn was so terrified of the thought, because it left over not 1/7 of his soul, but a appreciable smaller part. It could give a third way how big the parts of the soul after the ripping. Maybe the parts not equal each time he did it. Nobody says the ripped parts are exactly two halfs, the remaing part could depend on what kind of murder it was (a child, a fight).
Personally, I think that it's probably 1/64; unless the wizard has complete control over what fraction of his soul he puts into the horcrux. If (s)he does, then it's probably 1/7, unless he put more in the diary, since that was meant as a weapon.