How did Voldemort destroy the Hocrux in Harry Potter?

Question

When Voldemort killed Harry in the Forbidden Forest with Avada Kedavra, why did the Hocrux break if a Hocrux can only be destroyed by basilisk venom and infinite fire?

emily0426 · Answer

Well, Harry was almost dead, so the horcrux doesn't live anymore. But very interesting question👍 LG E✨ calibre🏻

sommerfrage · Answer

That's the question?

Maybe. because he's from flesh + blood. For Neville also killed the snake (Nagini) with a blow! Think if he had the sword of Gryffindor, what about basil poison? Or disturbs A vada Kedavra also Horcruxes if they are not a thing? Like the diary, the cup, etc.! Harry's not a thing, but meat and blood!

I don't know if that's true, 'cause I thought that out.

Cheese, a nice and healthy evening!🤓 🐑

haruktora · Answer

The exact description is that Horcruxes can only be destroyed by powerful magic, such as basil poison and demon fire curse.

So other powerful spells like the death curse are not excluded.

Maybe it was because the Voldemort used the Elder Wand.

kajjo · Answer

There is a very basic misunderstanding here, which unfortunately JK Rowling himself created by unfortunate word choice in the book and was then continued by many fan pages.

Harry Potter is NOT a Horcrux. Point.

Horcruxes are deliberately created by a complicated spell and then the magician can split his soul in a second step by a murder and keep a soul part in the Horcrux.

Harry Potter never had a Horcrux record. Harry Potter is not a Horcrux. As a Voldemort Harry tries to kill, the spell came back to him, his already greatly reduced soul split again and the fragment searched for the only living being nearby to survive: Harry Potter.

Harry Potter therefore also houses a soul fragment of Voldemort's soul. Harry Potter is a Horcrux — with the common sense that both keep a soul piece. But with the difference that Harry never became a Horcrux by complicated spells.

CONCEPTION ON YOUR QUESTION

The soul piece in Harry can simply be killed with the death curse, as it reacts just like all the other souls. This is quite straight and did not have to do with Horcrux.

Furthermore, we only read examples of how Horcruxes can be destroyed, without claiming that these are the only possibilities (Basilikengift, Demon Fire, Coboldmade Weapons). It must be at least extremely strong, magical methods.

tjspringer · Answer

Interesting that you seem smarter within the world of Harry Potter than the author himself. If she writes that Harry is a Horcrux, he's one. And where is it written that the ritual is absolutely necessary? A source of this would be good before you attack other people's opinion and presume you rise above it. Especially you write that we only know well-known methods of destroying Horcruxes without it being the only ones. So you reaffirm your own argument that the success of the death curse speaks against a horcrx. The death curse can also be a method for human or living containers, but does not affect objects because they do not live. Another argument for why one does not normally use living beings as Horcrux.

Your answer could have given the basis for an interesting exchange, but instead you just bite about yourself. This shows that you cannot deliver sound arguments. Too bad for you.

tjspringer · Answer

Furthermore, you forget something in your conviction of the necessity of the ritual: Voldemort is the only one who ever went so far with Horcruxes that his soul was so fragile. If you see Slughorn's mention of the ritual as your ultimate proof, you understand that just like anyone else up to Harry, he didn't know that a soul piece can be kept in a container by himself. The intentional process by means of the ritual was the only means that nobody had such a brittle soul that a soul piece independently seeks a place of storage.

kajjo · Answer

are smarter within the world of Harry Potter than the author himself.

I wouldn't like to express this and not to say it, but the fact is that Rowling has created a number of contradictions and is very much not logical or consistent.

I love the Harry Potter series and I appreciate Rowling very much for what she created here. An incredible creativity, a great universe, so many multifaceted characters, great storylines. I can only highly appreciate Rowling for this "gift to humanity".

Nevertheless, it can be shared opinion whether an author can subsequently declare his work in interviews incorrectly or illogically if he contradicts the work.

I feel very strong that the work speaks for itself. Harry Potter are the seven volumes for me. I'll call you that. Not the movies, not the later works, not interviews.

The work itself describes Horcruxes very clearly and so they were also interpreted for many years (!) in the community. Harry Potter is not a Horcrux, but the only common thing is that he also contains a soul piece.

The fact that Rowling repeatedly gives interviews and relativizes her own work and creates new logic gaps is regrettable, but does not change the work anymore.

In this respect, I say to your quota: Yes, I adhere to the work and not to misinterpretations, even if they come years later from the author himself.

that we only know well-known methods of destroying Horcruxes without being the only ones. So you can reaffirm your own argument that the success of the death curse speaks against a Horcrux

I already see your argument here, but I don't think that this thing was meant in the work. Again, I'll stick to the main work. The killing of Nagini would otherwise have been drastically simpler. It makes little sense to assume that living horcrxe can be done by the way with a death curse. But yes, you do not know, it is not clearly answered in the work. But it doesn't seem to me logical and coherent in itself.

kajjo · Answer

Furthermore, you forget something in your conviction of the necessity of the ritual: Voldemort is the only one who ever went so far with Horcruxes that his soul was so fragile.

I have not forgotten that, but this point is always very conscious. Why such accusations?!

The intentional process by means of the ritual was the only means

Here you are now sitting on a logical argumentation error.

The Horcrux thing has two parts:

On the one hand, the magician has to commit a murder, because his soul splits or becomes unstable at least in the short term. It can then also remain healed, but at short notice it becomes unstable enough to deliberately magically split off and take out a soul piece. This aspect was simplified by the very fragile, greatly reduced soul of Voldemort, the soul obviously disintegrates much easier. Nevertheless, Voldemort has already committed a double murder to his parents and the soul is exactly consequently disintegrated — apparently the separation and removal of a part was not intended, but the mere division or instability was logical in a double murder.

Part 2 of the Horcrux thing is that the wizard has to create the storage capacity in the object with a complicated spell and at the same time also gives a certain special status and protection. I think this is a horror story.

One more argument: Soul parts appear in various forms. For example, while one teacher is possessed by Voldemort. He's not going to be a Horcrux, is he? Horcrux as an expression of "what always holds a fragment of a soul" clearly makes no sense at all. That would be far too easy and can really not be meant.

Horcruxes are objects made with a terrible, dark magic. In addition to the anyway terrible murder that splits the soul.

tjspringer · Answer

I agree with Nagini and the death curse. This is a theory that can be discussed. Had the curse worked with her? If no, is it only protected by this sphere? But then it is no longer true that there is no defense spell against the death curse. Maybe it would have been against Nagini and they just didn't think about it because they didn't expect it to work with her.

I'll stick to the seven books. They're canon and nothing else. Among other things, the statement of Dumbledore applies to me exactly as it is written: Harry is the Horcrux who never wanted to create the Voldemort. Therefore, since this statement is valid in my opinion, I also interpret the method of creation in accordance with the statement. This implies for me that the ritual is not a mandatory requirement, although I have never understood it in any case that it must be done.

And that's why I'm also wondering what point/output you're working on, that a "complicated ritual" is necessary for the production of a Horcrux. In the sixth book, Slughorn says that there is a spell to close the soul, but Riddle should not ask and Slughorn does not know. In the seventh volume, Hermine in Fuchsbau explains that the book, which certainly had Riddle, explains how to create a Horcrux. I don't know what's been said. You'd like to enlighten me.

tjspringer · Answer

Where exactly do I set up a logical argumentation error? I don't know what you're saying.

To Quirrel: Is a good argument on your part. I have never interpreted him as Horcrux, since the "main piece" of Voldemort lived in him. So not a separate piece of Voldemort, but Voldemort himself with his own right consciousness and that the two thereby coexist in Quirrel's body. Something visually expressed: As if a Horcrux is a finger that keeps someone from Voldemort. He can't talk, he has no consciousness, but he's on someone. But at Quirrel Voldemort has hung himself with his body and his own brain. So there is a second correct personality next to it.

Of course, it is also possible to argue about Quirrel and to what extent it is a (right) Horcrux or whether there is a logic error.

But also at this point, I have to contradict that the ritual belongs to it (see my other answer). So, I recall Slughorn's statement that "Horcrux […] is the word for an object in which a person keeps a part of her soul hidden." Dumbledore later expands the subject to living beings (Nagini), which is why this can also happen to Harry as a living entity according to the logic (if one wanted to contradict that Harry is not an object.)

In any case, you're right that Voldemort's soul was further torn by the murder of Harry's parents. A small but fine difference: you say that you can magically perform a split on the unstable soul. But this is not quite correct, because the elimination is done in this way or in this way by the murder. You can only use the automatic damage to its advantage and store the soul piece elsewhere. From here, the creation of a horcrx usually takes place. An active separation of the soul therefore also does not belong to the creation of a Horcrux and would therefore not be necessary for Harry to be considered a Horcrux. But, as I said, keeping with the magic is only the previously known way to a Horcrux. The fact that this piece of soul can also be kept independently outside the owner elsewhere was simply not known by Voldemort's advance as the first and only to this extent of magic. Since Voldemort destroyed his own body and the soul piece in it by the falling death curse, his soul piece otherwise had nothing to do with it. Therefore, the ritual was not necessary, so to speak, but the transfer to another container took place on its own.

tjspringer · Answer

The fact that the Horcrux theme is interpreted in the community as you say, I hear now quite honestly for the first time. I have heard this discussion from individual people, but I think it was a misunderstanding of these people. Just as with many other topics where some people see alleged errors or logic gaps or re-interpret things (without wanting to say that there is no logic error at all, but I am concerned with these concrete). Otherwise, I only know people who have always understood Harry as Horcrux and don't see a problem in it. That a certain majority thinks differently is new to me.