Questions about Horcruxes

[Valinduvel]

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on horcruxes. And I agree, my mentioning of a piece of Voldemort's soul blasting off from the whole when he tried to kill Harry as a baby was very different from the topic of soul fragments leaving horcruxes and inhabiting another body. It's not really that comparable, but I thought it was interesting how Voldemort's soul could survive when it broke off from the rest of his soul and left his body; and it was able to latch onto someone else.

Originally Posted by Kat_Suki

Harry did die. His soul went to Limbo and then, because of Lily's blood protection, Harry was given the opportunity to make a choice. The choice wasn't whether to go on or return as a ghost, either. It was the chance to choose whether to return his intact soul to his mortal body {where his mum's protection resided} and live once more in hopes of finally destroying Voldemort OR he could choose to allow his intact soul to travel onwards to "the next great adventure", i.e. death.

Harry's soul survived his body's physical death intact. But a Horcrux is a "container", that's all it is. Once that container is destroyed, the soul fragment within dies, so the bit of piggybacking soul belonging to Voldemort died when Harry did.

I agree that if you interpret the scene in King's Cross as Harry having died and then given the opportunity to return to the world of the living, it makes a lot more sense that the fragment of Voldemort's soul within Harry was destroyed. It is interesting that Harry didn't have a scar in King's Cross, and the fragment of Voldemort's soul was in the form of this child with flayed skin, stuffed out of sight under a bench. It's as though Harry left the part of him that was Voldemort's soul behind. In the beginning of the chapter he wants to comfort the child, but as the chapter progresses Harry notes that he hardly even notices the child's wailing anymore; it was like Harry was slowly letting go.

I think I still need to sort out how I feel about and how I interpret the chapter of King's Cross--whether King's Cross was a location in a sort of Limbo or whether it was a vision Harry had while briefly unconscious. I never got the impression that Harry died, but this might depend on how one interprets the text, because the issue became fuzzy when at first Dumbledore tells Harry that he is not dead ("On the whole, dear boy, I think not"), and then later on tells him that he has a choice to either live or die (with the metaphor of boarding a train).

Plus, I think Jo has always emphasized that no one, not even wizards, can return from death. Perhaps, though, since Harry accepted death, united the Hallows, and thus became master of death, he was given the choice to live or die--I'm not sure if it is because he was the master of death or because of Lily's protection in Voldemort's veins that he was given a choice. Like I said, I still need to sort my thoughts on this, but maybe Lily's protection is what anchored Harry to life, but he was also given the choice to die because he was the master of death.

[Kat_Suki]

Originally Posted by Valinduvel

I think I still need to sort out how I feel about and how I interpret the chapter of King's Cross--whether King's Cross was a location in a sort of Limbo or whether it was a vision Harry had while briefly unconscious. I never got the impression that Harry died, but this might depend on how one interprets the text, because the issue became fuzzy when at first Dumbledore tells Harry that he is not dead ("On the whole, dear boy, I think not"), and then later on tells him that he has a choice to either live or die (with the metaphor of boarding a train).

Plus, I think Jo has always emphasized that no one, not even wizards, can return from death. Perhaps, though, since Harry accepted death, united the Hallows, and thus became master of death, he was given the choice to live or die--I'm not sure if it is because he was the master of death or because of Lily's protection in Voldemort's veins that he was given a choice. Like I said, I still need to sort my thoughts on this, but maybe Lily's protection is what anchored Harry to life, but he was also given the choice to die because he was the master of death.

Oh, yeah, totally. I understand, and there are many others who have differing opinions. Mine are mainly based on how I interpret the book itself and answers by Rowling in all of the post-Deathly Hallows interviews, but it's hardly the only interpretation/explanation.

Like for instance, the little deformed thing there with Harry - that wasn't the soul fragment that had been attached to Harry at all, it was the last bit of soul that resided in Voldemort. The whole limbo thing, I totally grasped from the novel and then Rowling herself calls it that yet deliberately wrote it in an ambiguous manner, so that it's down to the individual reader to make up their own minds about what that chapter says to them.

Below are a few of the quotes from JKR, answers she gave post-Deathly Hallows.

Bloomsbury LiveChat Elisabeth: In the chapter of kings cross, are they behind the veil or in some world between the real world and the veil? J.K. Rowling: You can make up your own mind on this, but I think that Harry entered a kind of limbo between life and death. _____ Katie B: Why was kings cross the place harry went to when he died J.K. Rowling: For many reasons. The name works rather well, and it has been established in the books as the gateway between two worlds, and Harry would associate it with moving on between two worlds (don’t forget that it is Harry’s image we see, not necessarily what is really there.

Time Interview of JKR 2. Did Harry die? Rowling wrote this very carefully, so it could be read two ways. "Did he just go into a state of unconsciousness in which his subconscious tells him everything he needs to know? Dumbledore doesn't tell him anything he couldn't have figured out with some educated guesses." But in her mind, Harry entered a limbo between life and death, and faced a choice about which way to go. She explains on her website that this encounter involves some very deep laws of magic, which Voldemort himself did not understand: "Having taken Harry's blood into himself, Voldemort is keeping alive Lily's protective power over Harry — except that the power of Lily's sacrifice is a positive force that not only continues to tether Harry to life, but gives Voldemort himself one last chance ... Voldemort has unwittingly put a few drops of goodness back inside himself; if he had repented, he could have been healed more deeply than anyone would have supposed. But of course, he refused to feel remorse." Also, since Voldemort is using the Elder wand, which actually belongs to Harry, neither the Cruciatus or the killing curse work properly. "The Avada Kedavra curse, however, is so powerful that it does hurt Harry, and also succeeds in killing the part of him that is not truly him, in other words, the fragment of Voldemort's own soul that is still clinging to his. The curse also disables Harry severely enough that he could have succumbed to death if he had chosen that path." 3. The question that surprises her: What was that creature in the corner at King's Cross? "Harry's impulse, to the point of utter wrongheadedness, is to save. His deepest nature is to try and save, even when he's wrong to do so, when he's led into traps — 'I've got to save, I've got to try to protect' — because he's been left with this very demanding legacy of his mother's that she sacrificed herself for him and now he goes off and tries to save as many people as he can." But this encounter with Voldemort is different. "For the first time ever he approaches this vulnerable, naked, mutilated creature and he wants to help, but he feels repulsed for the first time ever by suffering. And he's right to feel that. This is something that has deliberately self mutilated as it were, that's the last maimed fragment of Voldemort's soul. I have to explain because so many have asked.")

JKR Rowling fansite FAQ What exactly was the mutilated baby-like creature Harry saw at King's Cross in chapter 35 of 'Hallows'? I’ve been asked this a LOT. It is the last piece of soul Voldemort possesses. When Voldemort attacks Harry, they both fall temporarily unconscious, and both their souls - Harry's undamaged and healthy, Voldemort’s stunted and maimed - appear in the limbo where Harry meets Dumbledore. _____ What exactly happened when Voldemort used the Avada Kedavra curse on Harry in the forest? Again, Voldemort violated deep laws of magic he did not understand, but there is more to it than that. Having taken Harry’s blood into himself, Voldemort is keeping alive Lily’s protective power over Harry. So Voldemort himself acts almost like a Horcrux for Harry – except that the power of Lily’s sacrifice is a positive force that not only continues to tether Harry to life, but gives Voldemort himself one last chance (Dumbledore refers to this last hope in chapter 35). Voldemort has unwittingly put a few drops of goodness back inside himself; if he had repented, he could have been healed more deeply than anyone would have supposed. But, of course, he refused to feel remorse. Voldemort is also using the Elder Wand - the wand that is really Harry’s. It does not work properly against its true owner; no curse Voldemort casts on Harry functions properly; neither the Cruciatus curse nor the Killing Curse. The Avada Kedavra curse, however, is so powerful that it does hurt Harry, and also succeeds in killing the part of him that is not truly him, in other words, the fragment of Voldemort’s own soul still clinging to his. The curse also disables Harry severely enough that he could have succumbed to death if he had chosen that path (again, Dumbledore says he has a choice whether or not to wake up). But Harry does decide to struggle back to consciousness, capitalises on Lily’s ‘escape route’, and pulls himself back to the realm of the living. It is important to state that I always saw these kinds of magic (the very deepest life and death issues) as essentially un-scientific; in other words, there is no “Elder Wand + Lily’s Blood = Assured Survival” formula. What count, ultimately, are Harry and Voldemort’s own choices. They have each been given certain weapons and safeguards, but the power of these objects and past happenings lie in how they are understood, and how they are used or enacted upon. Harry has a deeper and truer understanding of the meaning of the objects and past events, but his greatest powers, those that save him, are free will, courage and moral certainty.

Accio-quote.org is probably the largest online resource of JK Rowling interviews that are available to all and definitely worth a read through.

[Valinduvel]

Originally Posted by Kat_Suki

Thank you for providing these quotes by JKR; I'm satisfied with the explanation above for my question about why the piece of Voldemort's soul in Harry was destroyed with Avada Kedavra. Not so much because its 'container' was destroyed, but because of the power of the killing curse.
I'm somewhat embarrassed that I interpreted the King Cross scene so much differently than what she had in mind when she wrote it, though she probably wanted some aspects to be left to interpretation

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by RemusLupinFan

One possibility is that to destroy a horcrux within an inanimate object you need to physically destroy the item in question. I figure since the item isn't alive in the first place, the killing curse wouldn't work. Though another possibility could be that Harry and the trio were simply incapable of casting the killing curse, and thus had to find another way to destroy the horcruxes.

I think this might have been because the pieces of soul that Voldemort used within the horcruxes had been separated from him for so long that he could no longer "feel" them per se, and thus, was unaware of their destruction. However, I do think that his soul pieces were still connected to him in a sense, and that's why he collapsed. As I think about it further, I can't help wondering if Voldemort did in fact suspect that his horcruxes were being destroyed, and as a result had to go check on them to be sure (it's been a long time since I read DH, so I might be mistaken).

Originally Posted by Kat_Suki

I agree with RemusLupinFan's take. Harry was a living person, as Nagini was a living animal, living beings who had zero extra protective enchantments on them from the wizard who had made them Horcruxes.

But with living creatures, to put them beyond all known magical means of repair, they must be killed because there is no known spell or potion that can bring the dead back to life. Avada Kedavra does that well enough.

The other Horcruxes were non-living/inanimate objects, all of which had extra protections placed on them to prevent their destruction {all except the diary which had been created with the intent to later use as a weapon, that is}. And like with an Inferi, you can't kill what isn't alive so to destroy an inanimate object then it must be put beyond all known magical means of repair also.

While Harry was envenomated by the Basilisk, he didn't die because he received the only known cure to the venom within seconds of being bitten: phoenix tears.

Destruction of the Horcrux normally goes unknown by the creator of such, examples: Riddle's diary; Marvolo's Ring; Slytherin's Locket; Hufflepuff's Cup; Ravenclaw's Diadem

But in the case of Harry and the snake, Voldemort was witness to their destruction/deaths.

Remember also that Voldemort and Harry shared the same blood protection - Lily's protection - because Voldemort used the blood of his enemy, Harry Potter, to create his new body at the end of Goblet of Fire. This is what that mysterious look of "triumph" that Dumbledore had in his office, when Harry recounted the events in the cemetary at the end of Goblet of Fire. That's what that was all about.

It was that blood protection of Lily's which flowed in both of their veins that gave Harry the chance to come back from death, it acted almost in exactly the same way a Horcrux does {i.e. preventing total death}, but for Harry's benefit rather than for Voldemort's. It was that mysterious link which affected Voldemort so badly, that knocked him unconscious when he struck Harry dead in the forest, and not his destruction of Harry the unintended Horcrux.

Nagini the Horcrux had a soul fragment of Voldemort's inside of her, yes, but did not share her master's blood and therefore she did not share Harry Potter's blood either. That's why her death didn't affect Voldemort the way Harry's did.

Thanks for the answers, they were quite informative.

1) I think I do understand now: how killing curses wouldn't affect inanimate objects. But wouldn't the piece of soul inside the Horcrux be counted as a "living" thing? All the Horcrux did afterall have some sort of a mind of themselves. It would be quite impressive if the enchantments Voldemort placed on the Horcrux could prevent them from harm from the Killing Curse.

2) @RemusLupinFan: I don't really get you. If Voldemort has been detached from his Horcrux already, there would be no further reason why he collapsed when the Harry Horcrux was destroyed.


@Kat_Suki: Yes, that does seem to fit nicely. It took me a few reads of what you wrote before I understood. So basically Voldemort prolonged the effects of Lily's protection upon Harry when he took Harry's blood?

Also another quick clarification: when Harry sacrificed himself as a Horcrux to Voldemort, it was Lily's enchantment all again right? Where Lily was now Harry, and Harry was everyone else Harry wanted to protect?

[Kat_Suki]

Originally Posted by Clueless

@Kat_Suki: Yes, that does seem to fit nicely. It took me a few reads of what you wrote before I understood. So basically Voldemort prolonged the effects of Lily's protection upon Harry when he took Harry's blood?

Right. While the main enchantment Dumbledore instituted on Harry - the bond of blood enchantment - stopped functioning when Harry turned 17, Lily's protection continued to exist and provide some protection to Harry.

Voldemort got around both the bond-of-blood enchantment & Lily's protection by taking Harry's blood and using it to make his new body in Goblet of Fire. Now having Lily's protection in his veins, he ensured that Harry had an "out", a "choice", when it came to that time in limbo.

Originally Posted by Clueless

Also another quick clarification: when Harry sacrificed himself as a Horcrux to Voldemort, it was Lily's enchantment all again right? Where Lily was now Harry, and Harry was everyone else Harry wanted to protect?

IMO, it was several things, rather than just the one:

1. Lily's protection, her blood in both their veins - It was that blood protection of Lily's which flowed in both of their veins that gave Harry the chance to come back from death, it acted almost in exactly the same way a Horcrux does -JK Rowling
2. The Elder Wand not functioning properly against its true master
3. Voldemort casting the spell - anyone/thing else and Harry wouldn't have survived
4. Harry's "choice" to return

Rowling actually has more to say, however:

FAQ It is important to state that I always saw these kinds of magic (the very deepest life and death issues) as essentially un-scientific; in other words, there is no “Elder Wand + Lily’s Blood = Assured Survival” formula. What count, ultimately, are Harry and Voldemort’s own choices. They have each been given certain weapons and safeguards, but the power of these objects and past happenings lie in how they are understood, and how they are used or enacted upon. Harry has a deeper and truer understanding of the meaning of the objects and past events, but his greatest powers, those that save him, are free will, courage and moral certainty.

But yes, actually, Harry did for every one fighting at Hogwarts what his own mother had done for him. His utterly defenseless, sacrificial death brought about the same type of protection but based on "love" rather than "blood". That's why Voldemort's spells wouldn't work properly after that. They, all of the defenders of Hogwarts, were protected by Harry's sacrifice. Harry even taunts Voldemort with this fact:

The Flaw in The Plan "I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?"

[Willz]

Did Rowling ever say what happened when Hermione destroyed the cup. It must of put up some sort of defence?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Willz

Did Rowling ever say what happened when Hermione destroyed the cup. It must of put up some sort of defence?

I don't think so. The locket had gotten close to the trio, having been right on their chests for so long, and thus was able to draw a bit of "strength," if you will, from their souls. The diary did the same to a greater extent with Ginny. The rest of them had no such luck, so I doubt that there was any trouble with the cup, and the diadem obviously didn't get much of a chance. I don't think the ring was with Dumbledore for very long, so I doubt it put up a fight either.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

[Janm20]

Hi, I've got a question. Basilisk venom and Fiendfyre (sp?) are two means in which the Horcruxes could be destroyed. Does this mean that the venom and de fyre destroyed the parts of Voldemorts soul? I mean destroyed-destroyed: not kill, like 'go to heaven'. Because then, would Harry's soul be destroyed too if Fawkes wouldn't have saved him in the CoS? And is the soul of Crabbe/Goyle (don't know which one) now also destroyed, because he died in the Fiendfyre in the RoR? It seems a bit radical, that someones soul can really be destroyed, but I think I've read somewhere that dying is different than the destruction of a horcrux. Can someone explain me the difference?

[Harry23]

Originally Posted by Janm20

Hi, I've got a question. Basilisk venom and Fiendfyre (sp?) are two means in which the Horcruxes could be destroyed. Does this mean that the venom and de fyre destroyed the parts of Voldemorts soul? I mean destroyed-destroyed: not kill, like 'go to heaven'. Because then, would Harry's soul be destroyed too if Fawkes wouldn't have saved him in the CoS? And is the soul of Crabbe/Goyle (don't know which one) now also destroyed, because he died in the Fiendfyre in the RoR? It seems a bit radical, that someones soul can really be destroyed, but I think I've read somewhere that dying is different than the destruction of a horcrux. Can someone explain me the difference?

It only destroyed Voldemort's soul because his soul didn't have a container after its container had gotten destroyed. If Harry had died from the basilisk or fiendfyre his soul would still be safe. like Hermione said, if she ran through Ron with a sword then his soul would still be safe because it doesn't depend on the body as a container. It can exist after the body is destroyed.

[Ginny_Spinner]

Originally Posted by Clueless

I have some questions regarding the part where Voldermort kills the Horcrux in Harry.

1) All Voldermort did to destroy the Horcrux was the Killing Curse. Although Voldermort was using the Elder Wand, he was not the master of it thus it was just an ordinary wand. So if a plain killing curse was able to destroy a Horcrux, why did the trio go through so much trouble to destroy Horcruxes?

My guess would be that as it came from Voldemort...he alone could possibly be able to destroy it in any way he wanted to. While the trio needed a basilisk injected sword to destroy it...Voldemort may be able to step on it and do the same damage.

Originally Posted by Clueless

2) After destroying the Horcrux in Harry, Voldermort collapsed. How can this be possible when Voldermort only knew of the loss of his Horcruxes when he found out that they were destroyed/gone? Even when Neville killed Nagini, all Voldermort did was scream with rage.

Maybe it's like stretching chewing gum. It bounced back...in theory, and hit him. It was basically like he dropped of a line of immortal life. His grasp to neverending life just disintergrated, so it made a physical retaliation. I amnot suprised that he felt it.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Ginny_Spinner

My guess would be that as it came from Voldemort...he alone could possibly be able to destroy it in any way he wanted to. While the trio needed a basilisk injected sword to destroy it...Voldemort may be able to step on it and do the same damage.

I think this is reading too far into things. The fact is, we are told that destroying the Horcrux permanently eradicates the piece of soul therein. Unlike a human, all of the other Horcruxes were not objects which could be destroyed by the killing curse. In order for something to be destroyed by the killing curse, it must be "killable." We do not consider snapping a piece of chocolate in two to be "killing" the thing, as one cannot kill an inanimate object. In essence, Harry was a special case because a living thing is the only thing which can be irrevocably destroyed by the act of killing, and Harry was the only Horcrux to be a living thing.

[megaphoniumfare]

I know this is going back a a bit but...

Originally Posted by AldeberanBlack

As usual, Harry is saved by Deux Ex Machina, AKA Fawkes the Phoenix.

Are you even aware of what a Deus Ex Machina is? Fawkes is introduced back when Harry is in Dumbledore's office after the Justin-Nick attacks, and it is mentioned that his tears have healing powers. It is only a Deus Ex Machina if it occurs truly randomly and without previous reference. It would be to a point if we find out right there in the CoS that Fawkes conveniently HAPPENS to have healing powers. It would only 100% truly be if we'd not seen Fawkes once previously and he showed up completely at random.

There's a difference between Deus Ex Machina and basic storytelling. A story doesn't have to be so predictable and without unexpected twists, it would have no reason to exist yet. If I'm going to play the game of dropping random references to fancy named plot devices just to make myself look intelligent, then Chekhov's Gun. That is where Jo is truly brilliant. Two examples that come straight to mind relevant to the topic are the locket and the diadem, both referenced in such a supremely incidental and almost unnoticed way. The locket as being in the cupboards they cleaned out early in OotP, the diadem as being in the ROR when Harry hid his book (the famous 'how is the movie going to do that' case thanks to how the Ginny kiss was done.)

Jo is supreme at using Chekhov's gun. I mean in Chapter 13 of PS we hear an unimportant backstory mention of Dumbledore as being 'famous for the defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945', on the ultimate purveyor of unimportant trivial information, FWW cards. He ends up being relevant seven whole books later!

[fishorchips]

Originally Posted by willfitz

I don't think so. The locket had gotten close to the trio, having been right on their chests for so long, and thus was able to draw a bit of "strength," if you will, from their souls. The diary did the same to a greater extent with Ginny. The rest of them had no such luck, so I doubt that there was any trouble with the cup, and the diadem obviously didn't get much of a chance. I don't think the ring was with Dumbledore for very long, so I doubt it put up a fight either.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

The ring did have a curse on it though, one strong enough to kill Dumbledore. I think the horcruxes can have defences other than growing close to people and gaining strength from them or discovering their fears like the diary and the locket did. We'll see that in DH2 with the cup, more will be made of its destruction but I don't want to give anything away to anyone who wants to remain surprised.

Originally Posted by Ginny_Spinner

My guess would be that as it came from Voldemort...he alone could possibly be able to destroy it in any way he wanted to. While the trio needed a basilisk injected sword to destroy it...Voldemort may be able to step on it and do the same damage.



Maybe it's like stretching chewing gum. It bounced back...in theory, and hit him. It was basically like he dropped of a line of immortal life. His grasp to neverending life just disintergrated, so it made a physical retaliation. I amnot suprised that he felt it.

He was also using the elder wand which might have had something to do with it. It could be foreshadowing that the elder wand can't be used by Voldemort to kill Harry. He doesn't seem to feel anything when Neville kills Nagini which is the last horcrux to be destroyed.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by fishorchips

The ring did have a curse on it though, one strong enough to kill Dumbledore. I think the horcruxes can have defences other than growing close to people and gaining strength from them or discovering their fears like the diary and the locket did. We'll see that in DH2 with the cup, more will be made of its destruction but I don't want to give anything away to anyone who wants to remain surprised.

Well, the movie is not canon for one thing, to make that absolutely clear. I think the key with the ring is, as you say, that it had a curse on it. It did not curse Dumbledore as a form of self-defence. In essence, the ring was not defending itself, but Voldemort was defending the ring.

What I am saying is that the only form of self-defence which we are made aware of in canon for Horcruxes is if they can feed off of a living soul for long enough to gain strength. Otherwise, I think it is pretty tame, like the diadem and (we can assume, in my opinion), the cup.

[Janm20]

Originally Posted by Harry23

It only destroyed Voldemort's soul because his soul didn't have a container after its container had gotten destroyed. If Harry had died from the basilisk or fiendfyre his soul would still be safe. like Hermione said, if she ran through Ron with a sword then his soul would still be safe because it doesn't depend on the body as a container. It can exist after the body is destroyed.

Okay... I always viewed the souls in the Horcruxes more or less equal to the soul that remains in the body...? But obviously it doesn't work like that. I do recall Hermione saying once that Horcruxes are the complete opposite of 'normal soul-containers', like people. And now that I'm thinking out loud, that would explain that, when Voldemort was hit by the rebound AK in Godric's Hollow and his soul split again, ONE part attached it self to Harry (because it's like a Horcrux-soul: it needs a container) and the other, original soul, lived on as Vapormort. But why would there be a difference between the soul in a locket and a soul in Voldemorts body...? It doesn't make real sense to me, more a useful fact for storytelling, but I can't see a clear explanation....

[fishorchips]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Well, the movie is not canon for one thing, to make that absolutely clear. I think the key with the ring is, as you say, that it had a curse on it. It did not curse Dumbledore as a form of self-defence. In essence, the ring was not defending itself, but Voldemort was defending the ring.

What I am saying is that the only form of self-defence which we are made aware of in canon for Horcruxes is if they can feed off of a living soul for long enough to gain strength. Otherwise, I think it is pretty tame, like the diadem and (we can assume, in my opinion), the cup.

Yeah I'm not saying it's canon, just that it's infinitely more interesting to have it actually fight back. In the book I got the distinct impression that the cup put up nothing of a fight from Ron and Hermione's complete nonchalance about the matter. I see what you mean about the ring, but why did Voldemort put protection upon the ring that would take effect after it had been taken from its hiding spot, but not on the locket? Or were the locket and diary specially enchanted so that their protection was feeding off a living soul? Why didn't the locket have a curse like the one on the ring? I got the feeling from the book that Dumbledore was cursed when trying to use the ring and/or put it on. Obviously Voldemort doesn't know the ring is what it is, so must have decided to place a curse that would take effect when somone tried to wear it, which he could also have done with the locket. I wasn't really disagreeing with you on your original point, just trying to rationalise Voldemort's defences which don't make that much sense to me.

[Janm20]

Originally Posted by Harry23

It only destroyed Voldemort's soul because his soul didn't have a container after its container had gotten destroyed. If Harry had died from the basilisk or fiendfyre his soul would still be safe. like Hermione said, if she ran through Ron with a sword then his soul would still be safe because it doesn't depend on the body as a container. It can exist after the body is destroyed.

Just to make it clear: The venom and the fiendfyre didn't destroy the soul right? they just destroyed the container and thus the horcrux-soul was destroyed, since it cannot exist without a container... Right?

[Harry23]

Originally Posted by Janm20

Just to make it clear: The venom and the fiendfyre didn't destroy the soul right? they just destroyed the container and thus the horcrux-soul was destroyed, since it cannot exist without a container... Right?

Correct.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by fishorchips

Yeah I'm not saying it's canon, just that it's infinitely more interesting to have it actually fight back. In the book I got the distinct impression that the cup put up nothing of a fight from Ron and Hermione's complete nonchalance about the matter. I see what you mean about the ring, but why did Voldemort put protection upon the ring that would take effect after it had been taken from its hiding spot, but not on the locket? Or were the locket and diary specially enchanted so that their protection was feeding off a living soul? Why didn't the locket have a curse like the one on the ring? I got the feeling from the book that Dumbledore was cursed when trying to use the ring and/or put it on. Obviously Voldemort doesn't know the ring is what it is, so must have decided to place a curse that would take effect when somone tried to wear it, which he could also have done with the locket. I wasn't really disagreeing with you on your original point, just trying to rationalise Voldemort's defences which don't make that much sense to me.

I got the impression that Dumbledore took every precaution with the ring possible until his urge to see his loved ones again took him over. He probably was well aware of the ring, but his emotions over-powered him, and he attempted to resurrect his sister.

Therefore, I feel it is likely that he first retained it with a cloth or gloves or something, but decided it was worth it to risk touching the ring to attempt to use the resurrection stone.

As for his other items, the locket was very heavily guarded anyway, and I'm sure he was more than happy with its defences, and the same can be said for how he felt about the defences or hiding places of the cup and the diadem.

[adrienie]

So, I just finished my 3rd reading of Deathly Hallows and I'm amazed at how much I've forgotten! I also think I paid a lot more attention to detail this time around, which brought up this question in my mind:

Lily’s sacrifice: “…while that enchantment survives so do you…” (p.710 of DH) So the enchantment can’t die just because Voldemort dies; it is still living within Harry, isn’t it? So does that mean that Harry can never be killed? But he can die naturally? I hope that makes sense. What do you guys think? Or has Rowling spoken about this before?

Thanks!