Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > MuggleNet Editorials > General Editorial

Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes



Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old July 13th, 2006, 10:10 pm
blaqlives  Female.gif blaqlives is offline
MuggleNet Editorial
 
Joined: 3608 days
Location: Biloxi, MS
Age: 33
Posts: 2
Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

Discussion of the editorial Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes by Cady McKinnon.


Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old July 13th, 2006, 11:34 pm
Wimsey's Avatar
Wimsey  Male.gif Wimsey is offline
Curse Breaker
 
Joined: 3559 days
Location: What day is it?
Posts: 6,989
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

Quote:
Originally Posted by editorial
Dumbledore clearly states that no part of Voldemort can exist inside of Harry (33)
In CoS, Dumbledore confirms that Lord Voldemort left part of himself in Harry. Remember, Voldemort cannot feel his soul fragments. If there was one in Harry, then it might be in pain (and Harry's scar does hurt him occasionally), but as nobody else would feel that pain.

This does not mean that Harry's scar is a Horcrux; it only means that Dumbledore did not state what you quote him as stating. There is a piece of Voldemort in Harry, and what that is we do not yet know for certain. Dumbledore has confirmed this.


This editorial was very difficult to read. However, it seemed to be predicated on the false notion that a Horcrux had to be present for the user to "regenerate." There is no indication that this is the case. Classically, horcruxes (which had the entire soul) simply prevented death. In this case, it binds the primary soul to the Earth, rather than allowing it to go beyond the Veil.

However, that just confines the individual to a rather nasty existence, as Slughorn pointed out. Voldemort was not using Quirrel's body to regenerate himself: but instead he was using Quirrell to get the Philosopher's Stone, which could then be used to make a new body. The trick is always to make a new body that the primary soul fragment can possess.

This is a classical logical fallacy known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent; that is, if P, then q; q is true; ergo, P is true. However, this is not the case because nowhere do we say that only P causes q. Nowhere is it suggested that possession can hapen only through Horcruxes. Indeed, we know that this is not the case: if so, then Ginny being possessed by Voldemort would have either flummoxed everyone ("how can she have been possessed?") or tipped off the few who knew about Horcruxes directly, rather than indirectly as it did Dumbledore.

So, we have no reason to think that Voldemort did not simply apply the same magics to Quirrel that he applied to all of the Snakes that he possessed.


I had real problems following the rest of it.


__________________
(It doubles for The Hobbit, too!)
If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there. - A. P. Chekhov, Gurlyand's Reminiscences, and who knew why the Dog was long before the Shack!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old July 13th, 2006, 11:45 pm
moe_shalash  Male.gif moe_shalash is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3374 days
Location: a desert in arabia
Age: 24
Posts: 77
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

very good editorial, but people do milk snake's, but it's for there poison.


__________________
Big fan of Luna, Neville and Ginny (the other Trio)

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old July 13th, 2006, 11:53 pm
NeonDisease  Female.gif NeonDisease is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3351 days
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 14
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

I second what the person above said--"milking" a snake means forcing venom from its fangs and collecting it.

Overall, it was a good editorial with some interesting points. The narrative was a little distracting, but it was a welcome change from some of the more bland and unimaginitive editorials. And congratualtions on your impeccable documentation of sources.

Great job!


__________________

"Hang on. This Lord Voldything's back, you say."
"Yes."
"The one who murdered your parents."
"Yes."
"And now he's sending dismembers after you?"

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old July 14th, 2006, 12:06 am
Eric_Cartman  Male.gif Eric_Cartman is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 3308 days
Age: 31
Posts: 234
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

I have to say, this is a bloody brilliant editorial.


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old July 14th, 2006, 2:07 am
YaMo YaMo is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 3105 days
Posts: 108
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimsey
I had real problems following the rest of it.
So much is obvious -_-"
I have to agree that this editorial is almost complete rubbish (EXCEPT the part about Harry not being a horcrux). Most of all the other theories are completely out there. No offense to Cady, but most of it doesn't make any sense.
But even though what you wrote didn't make much sense, what Wimsey wrote made it totally clear he didn't understand poop of it.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old July 14th, 2006, 2:10 am
CrookshanksG  Undisclosed.gif CrookshanksG is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3420 days
Posts: 3
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

When I first started reading the editorial, I thought it was a very creative way of writing it, but it was too much. It was so difficult to pull out the theory from the narrative, that I gave up. I'm sorry. Perhaps when I have more time to try and disern the idea from the story, I'll try again.


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old July 14th, 2006, 2:18 am
Douglas  Undisclosed.gif Douglas is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3332 days
Age: 29
Posts: 20
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimsey
In CoS, Dumbledore confirms that Lord Voldemort left part of himself in Harry. Remember, Voldemort cannot feel his soul fragments. If there was one in Harry, then it might be in pain (and Harry's scar does hurt him occasionally), but as nobody else would feel that pain.

This does not mean that Harry's scar is a Horcrux; it only means that Dumbledore did not state what you quote him as stating. There is a piece of Voldemort in Harry, and what that is we do not yet know for certain. Dumbledore has confirmed this.


This editorial was very difficult to read. However, it seemed to be predicated on the false notion that a Horcrux had to be present for the user to "regenerate." There is no indication that this is the case. Classically, horcruxes (which had the entire soul) simply prevented death. In this case, it binds the primary soul to the Earth, rather than allowing it to go beyond the Veil.

However, that just confines the individual to a rather nasty existence, as Slughorn pointed out. Voldemort was not using Quirrel's body to regenerate himself: but instead he was using Quirrell to get the Philosopher's Stone, which could then be used to make a new body. The trick is always to make a new body that the primary soul fragment can possess.

This is a classical logical fallacy known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent; that is, if P, then q; q is true; ergo, P is true. However, this is not the case because nowhere do we say that only P causes q. Nowhere is it suggested that possession can hapen only through Horcruxes. Indeed, we know that this is not the case: if so, then Ginny being possessed by Voldemort would have either flummoxed everyone ("how can she have been possessed?") or tipped off the few who knew about Horcruxes directly, rather than indirectly as it did Dumbledore.

So, we have no reason to think that Voldemort did not simply apply the same magics to Quirrel that he applied to all of the Snakes that he possessed.
Absolutely right. The evidence is that need both a physical form and a piece of soul to regenerate (diary riddle + ginny's soul used to create a body, Vapormort + snake venom/bone/flesh/blood). Further, the diary Riddle was not Voldemort - it was distinct, clearly a separate piece of soul, which implies that a horcrux is not in fact required in order to regenerate - just the soul piece you want alive and where you want it to be. What would have happened if Riddle had become fully alive, I wonder - would he and returned-to-body-Voldemort acted as each others' horcruxes still? And what would have happened to Vapormort if all his horcruxes were destroyed - could he still have regenerated? If so, wouldn't that mean that having two live Voldys meant he really was unkillable since it appears that the "live" bits of soul seemingly don't get destroyed on death?

This raises an interesting question: if you're subject to the Dementor's Kiss, your soul is removed from your body which then continues to exist. Could one use the body of a victim to put a soul piece into, I wonder? I don't think the idea would appeal to Voldemort; creating his own body through snakes and dark magic and whatnot would appeal more to his perverted sense of romance. Still, it's a thought.

One final point: Hagrid tells Harry in PS/SS (haven't got the book to hand so probably paraphrasing): "most of us reckon he's (Voldemort) still out there, biding his time, too weak to carry on". Voldemort was hit by a reflected AK, and JK said she was surprised nobody asked how he survived. This implies that she thinks that the wizarding world would not expect him to survive - unless, of course, they suspect a horcrux. Perhaps "most of us" is Hagrid exaggerating, perhaps he means only the Order, but it does seem to me like more people than we think either suspect or know Voldemort made a horcrux.


__________________
Join Me! - http://www.join-me.co.uk/
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old July 14th, 2006, 2:28 am
Hurricane Hurricane is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3138 days
Posts: 6
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

i don't think that enough new ideas were presented in this editorial to make it worth reading all of the irritating literary ramblings. the endless prose does not add to the editorial, but makes the reading tiring and dull. the conclusions that were supposed to be drawn from this essay are not very clear, as the whole piece is bogged down with too many words and too few ideas, and thee is noreal conclusion.


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old July 14th, 2006, 2:29 am
hpscigurl  Female.gif hpscigurl is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 2996 days
Age: 24
Posts: 153
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

First, let me say WOW!!! That editorial was amazing. It brought a lot of information together. The only thing that I can find in there that seems hard to believe that Quirrell actually found a horcrux. The explination of how he came to be possessed is too far out there for me. I was wondering how Voldemort managed to possess him but that doesn't feel right. Maybe you're right...I don't know. I really thought the first few sections were great information but when we got into all of the speculation it was a little bit hard to believe.


Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old July 14th, 2006, 2:46 am
SusanBones's Avatar
SusanBones  Female.gif SusanBones is offline
Inconceivable!
 
Joined: 3564 days
Location: in a galaxy far, far away
Posts: 4,090
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

I agree that Nagini is a red herring and will not be a horcrux and I also agree that Harry could not be a horcrux. But I disagree that Quirrell found a horcrux and that is how he Voldemort possessed him.

It was a very unique way of presenting your ideas. I did like your interpretation of what the gleam of triumph means. It makes a lot of sense that Voldemort has now made them truly equal by taking Harry's blood and unknowingly fulfilling the terms of the prophecy.



Last edited by SusanBones; July 14th, 2006 at 2:49 am.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old July 14th, 2006, 3:31 am
Shewoman  Female.gif Shewoman is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 3564 days
Location: 5 minutes behind everyone else
Age: 56
Posts: 2,720
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

I'll need to read it again. I thought it was provocative . . . but right now I want another butterbeer.


__________________
WHY DUMBLEDORE TRUSTED SNAPE: PoA 204-5, 285, 361; GoF 588, 590-91; 709-10; OotP 363, 841-3; HBP 549 (American hardbacks). It's not because he said he was remorseful, it's what he did about it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old July 14th, 2006, 3:56 am
square634  Undisclosed.gif square634 is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3361 days
Posts: 0
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

First of all, I'd like to say that although the narrative was an interesting idea for writing a creative editorial, I found myself either skipping it or just getting confused. From what I have understood from your ideas, I would like to make a few points:

1) I am almost certain that Voldemort says in book 4 that he can possess any animal (his preference, of course, being snakes), but that animal then has its energy sapped away or dies quickly. There is no reason that Voldemort could not have possessed Quirrell in the same way he did for others.

2) I assume this has been mentioned, but just in case... Milking a snake refers to extracting venom. Thus Voldemort was gaining sustenance from venom, not actually milk. There's no need for any pregnant animagi theories.

3) It seems to me that there are many other ways to interpret the "in essence divided" scene. Dumbledore could be noting that Voldemort's soul is divided between himself and either Nagini or Harry (although you dismiss both).

4) I agree that Nagini is a red herring, but only because of the wording in the book. Dumbledore throws out this idea last, with his only evidence being that Voldemort likes snakes and that he seems to perhaps have more control over the snake than usual, even for a parselmouth. I also doubt that the muggle gardener of the Riddle house would have counted as a "significant" enough death to warrant a horcrux. The main reason I see this as a red herring is the discussion afterwards - Harry asks Dumbledore whether living creatures can be horcruxes, to which Dumbledore responds that it is a bad idea because they can think and feel for themselves, so their actions are unpredictable (I believe this editorial mentioned that). This seems to me to be introducing the idea that a living creature can be a horcrux, so that the reader is not cheated out in book 7.

My theory is that Nagini's mention as a possible horcrux was used to at least show the possibility that Harry is a horcrux. My question is: from Voldemort's perspective, would it make sense to make Harry (or his scar) a horcrux? Voldemort sets store by the prophecy, which clearly states that "either must die at the hand of the other." Thus, if Voldemort created a horcrux somewhere within Harry, he would see it as the ultimate defense - Voldemort cannot comprehend love, so he would never be able to fathom that someone would sacrifice him/herself (i.e. the horcrux would be "unpredictable" in this case). Thus, Voldemort would never be able to die, because Harry would have to die first (and Harry is prophesied to be the only one who can defeat Voldemort). Harry could also be a symbolic "object of Gryffindor."

So how would Voldemort have created a horcrux in Harry? He could have accidentally created one during the murders in Godric's Hollow (thus accounting for the scar/powers). If so, I believe Dumbledore realized this in Book Four, while Voldemort only realized it in Book Five after the Arthur Weasley/Nagini scene. My other thought occurred after just re-reading HBP. We clearly see Voldemort wearing the ring in Slughorn's memory, but Dumbledore later says that (paraphrase here) "once he had succeeded in encapsulating his soul within the ring, he did not wish to wear it any more." Could this mean that Voldemort can delay in using his torn piece of soul (i.e. not have to create a horcrux immediately after a murder?) After rereading Slughorn's information on horcruxes, he never says there is a time limit after which the torn portion of soul "expires" or cannot be encapsulated. If so, he could have made Harry a horcrux during the rebirthing scene, which would possibly explain Dumbledore's gleam of triumph - he would know that Harry is capable of sacrificing himself, and would thus anticipate Voldemort's underestimating love once again. I see Harry dying to kill Voldemort as well, either in the locked room or by passing through the veil. It just seems to me that that would be poetic.

Of course, all of what I hypothesized could be completely wrong, and it may not belong in a comments thread. Overall, I liked a lot of the fact-finding (and thanks for GREAT documentation ), but I found that the narrative distracted and made the editorial long and burdensome to read. Also, it seemed that you were way too certain about some of your conjectures that were not necessarily true (or were even unlikely to be true), such as Voldemort's possession of Quirrell only being possible due to a horcrux.



Last edited by square634; July 14th, 2006 at 3:59 am.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old July 14th, 2006, 3:56 am
tonx  Female.gif tonx is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3268 days
Posts: 0
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

I thought that it was reasonably well-written. I especially enjoyed the narrative as a metaphor for what we know for sure, etc. The speculation and explanation dragged and was less organized than the editorial as a whole, but the ideas were obviously thought out well. Kudos to Cady!


__________________
THE PANDA SAYS "NO!"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old July 14th, 2006, 4:43 am
ColdIron  Male.gif ColdIron is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 2979 days
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 71
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

I must thank you for voicing ideas that I have had for quite a while. Along with others on this board, I am in the 'Nagini is a fake' camp. I didn't agree that she was a Horcrux the first time I read HBP, and I am still of that opinion. She's mortal, of all things. Furthermore, to use her would bump one of the founder's objects from the 7-part soul plan, most likely Gryffindor since his posessions seem rarest of all. I don't think Voldemort would give up like that, and I think that he was in fact able to secure something of Godric Gryffindor's, and when the Godric's Hollow that night with it. (See my signature for my general opinion of this). This will be a significant plot twist in Book 7, and could make the visit to the Hollow more than just a chance to cry (though I do want to see some serious waterworks from Harry).

Your suggestion about Hufflepuff's Cup is plausible and interesting (I liked it), but unfortunately it is so speculative that there is nothing to place it above any other theory.


__________________

HP Personality Type: ENTJ - Minerva McGonagall
Yeah, it fits. Just ask MY former students.
http://piratemonkeysinc.com/quiz.htm
Godric's Hollow and Godric Gryffindor: If it looks like a Chekovian Gun, and smells like a Chekovian Gun....
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old July 14th, 2006, 5:05 am
Ticci  Female.gif Ticci is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3733 days
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 42
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

Is this editorial summarized somewhere? I'd like to see what it all simmers down to. I'm open to new ideas on Horcruxes but got lost in the search. I'm sure it's a brilliant editorial, I just like to see.. 1-2-3


Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old July 14th, 2006, 6:33 am
Emerald63  Female.gif Emerald63 is offline
Fourth Year
 
Joined: 3401 days
Location: Kansas
Age: 51
Posts: 512
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonDisease
The narrative was a little distracting, but it was a welcome change from some of the more bland and unimaginitive editorials. And congratualtions on your impeccable documentation of sources.
I agree that the writing format was a cute idea, but it was taken so far that it did become distracting. That's not to say using something similar again, but in smaller proportion, wouldn't be a good thing - it would, because it was a nice change from the bland.

But for the "impeccable" documention... I wanted to check out #33 for myself but found quickly there was no page #844 in either the hard or paperback editions of GoF. That's because the quote was from OotP. Hey, at least there were tons of citations. I'm sure some, or probably most, were legit and most authors don't bother at all.

Sooo... Cady, you write well. I think you missed how horcruxes work, but that's no reason not to try writing something else. Having a first ed published and getting any negative feedback has got to be tough. Don't let it discourage you, though - that raw talent thing is definitely there.



Quote:
Originally Posted by square634
Of course, all of what I hypothesized could be completely wrong, and it may not belong in a comments thread.
Welcome to the forums, square634!

Lots of people add their own theory to their comments about someone else's. As long as you don't try to steer the conversation completely over to your theory, it's cool.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdIron
I am in the 'Nagini is a fake' camp. I didn't agree that she was a Horcrux the first time I read HBP, and I am still of that opinion. She's mortal, of all things.
Here's an idea... if Voldemort did more than just make horcruxes to extend his life, or even make himself immortal, couldn't he have done the same things to Nagini? If he could make her immortal as well then he wouldn't need to worry about her dying or being killed and she'd work OK as a horcrux. Do we know if there are other ways to be immortal besides horcruxes and the Philosopher's Stone? Just because there might not have been any mentioned doesn't mean it's not possible. (Erg, I hope that made sense! )



Last edited by Emerald63; July 14th, 2006 at 6:55 am.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old July 14th, 2006, 6:36 am
HoneyNutBoy  Male.gif HoneyNutBoy is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 3152 days
Location: Canada
Posts: 95
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

The writing style irritated me to no end... I found it long-winded and rather condescending.

The ideas... some were better than others. Milking a snake does indeed refer to extracting venom, but I was intrigued by the idea that Fetal!Voldy was actually snake-flesh (the Nagini-is-a-pregnant-Animagus theory is really out there, though).

As for needing to be resurrected from a Horcrux... I had pondered this myself, actually, and I concluded that no, you don't need to be. While I agree that the Diary was unique as far as Horcruxes go, Horcruxes are always referred to as anchors. At the risk of being too literal about the comparison: you don't bring up an anchor to use it. If you indeed had to use a soul-piece to regenerate, it would be less like an anchor and more of an "extra life", a get-out-of-death-free card.

The speculation about Quirrell finding Hufflepuff's Cup is interesting, but predicated on faulty logic. No one in their right mind would make a weapon, then hide it (well, maybe Kim Jong Il... but I digress). If a Horcrux is intended as a weapon, you use it as a weapon. Lucius was given the Diary with specific instructions on its use. I doubt very much that Voldemort would've banked on some fool tripping over a magical cup in a forest and deciding to drink from said mysterious chalice.

Oh, and a flaw in your reasoning. You state that Voldemort was merely a consciousness, and was bound to his Horcruxes. Would he not have known, then, that the locket had been removed, if he could only float around between Horcruxes? Surely he would've realized "hey, wait, I'm not bound to that spooky cave anymore..."

Finally, your assertion that Harry cannot be a Horcrux because it causes him pain, is fallacious. Voldemort cannot possess Harry due to his love, but being a Horcrux vessel and actually being possessed are two very different concepts. Also, consider: Harry could touch Riddle's Diary, even write in it, and the Diary indicated no discomfort. Ergo, a Horcrux could survive physical contact with Harry. A person possessed by Voldemort (like Quirrell) could not.

Overall, it was a good effort, and with excellent research. However, the writing style did not endear me to the theories expounded, most of which were based on simplistic logic or a misinterpretation of facts (or all-out wackiness ). When I read an editorial, I'm looking for sober, reasoned thought expressed in a concise, clear manner.


Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old July 14th, 2006, 9:59 am
DagnytheDaft  Female.gif DagnytheDaft is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3483 days
Location: A Blue State
Posts: 24
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

It's obvious you put a good deal effort into the editorial which is to be commended. While I didn't agree with many of your assertions, nevertheless they did provoke some some new thoughts. I found the pregnant-animagus theory to be rather out there, but on the other hand, the imagery in the description of the SnakeBabyVoldemort (or whatever you want to call him) is heavily snakey and so it is not unreasonable to think that he was in some way regenerated into that form from snake--a piece of Nagini's shed skin? one of her eggs? Who knows? It is not covered in canon in a way that allows to really know why he looked like that. Not yet anyway... But I found the notion that Voldemort might THINK of Nagini as an improved mother to be sort of interesting. She doesn't necessarily have to have been literally a new mother as you've proposed in order for him to feel that way about her, thus explaining his apparent affection (?) for her if not his control. I thank you for placing that concept into into my consideration.

As for the Quirrell found a cup in the woods theory, well, wasn't Quirrel in Albania? Why would Voldemort have hidden a cup in the woods in Albania? His pattern so far has been to hide the Horcruxes in places connected to his past--the home of his relatives, the cave where he terrorized small children. The diary was an exception possibly because he intended it to be used as a weapon, but we don't have any reason to think that the other Horcruxes will be hidden in random locations, do we? I suppose it is possible that Voldemort possessed Quirrell and then used him to access another Horcrux, but I doubt this would have been necessary as Quirrell would have been possessed by the primary piece of soul and wouldn't have needed another, would he?

As for the narrative form of the editorial, I'm somewhat mixed on that. I appreciate your efforts to be creative and entertaining. I find those to be very valuable qualities. However it does somewhat detract from the clarity and gravity with which you can get your ideas across which is, afterall, the goal of the editorial.


Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old July 14th, 2006, 12:49 pm
witch007  Female.gif witch007 is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 3282 days
Location: slovakia
Posts: 17
Re: Harry Potter and the Red Herring Horcruxes

Hi! I actually liked the concept of your editorial, as I think it was very imaginative and a nice change. What distracted me, though were some of the theories and concepts you presented.

As others have pointed out, it is not very likely that the Horcruxes have to be used when their owner needs them.

It wouldn't be very useful since ONE Horcrux is supposed to ensure immortality. From what I understand from the books the purpose of a Horcrux is to store a part of the soul and bind it to earth. So the soul is trapped and can't go on (beyond the veil or wherever) because a part of it is still somewhere out there. The Horcrux is not supposed to be touched (see how Voldemort protected the Locket and the Ring). If you needed the Horcrux to regenerate you would basically reunite your soul inside your new body and be mortal again. Only Voldemort would still have other Horcruxes because he was the first one twisted enough to make more than one (according to Dumbledore).

About Nagini, well I was thinking more along the same lines as Dagny. Voldemort might think of her as a 'mother' because she really did help him. He told his Death Eaters how he got the first snakebaby body: 'a spell or two of my own invention... a little help from my dear Nagini...a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided...' It might have been something similar to the 'rebirth ceremonial' we've seen and Nagini might have provided the flesh or skin...

That might have made her special enough for Voldemort to use her as a Horcrux and maybe he even made her immortal somehow, as Emerald63 suggested (Maybe he made a Horcrux for her as well! she must have killed someone during her career as Voldy's pet! )


Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > MuggleNet Editorials > General Editorial

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 7:54 am.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright its respective owners.