Re: Harry not truly a Horcrux

Toon wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 14:16:43 -0800 (PST), remysun2000@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Dec 21, 5:21 pm, Thom Madura <Tommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Because nobody wants to admit that they were wrong about Harry being a
I'll admit to being wrong on the technicality, but not the abstract
concept. I started reading the series during the summer of 2000.
Through the first book, everything built a connection between Harry
and Lord V. After the freaky incident creating The Boy Who Lived (with
a tell tale scar), Harry grows up, he can talk to snakes, and the
climax was that Harry could not be touched. With the second book, the
connections were made more apparent, because how could Harry ever have
been an heir of Slytherin? Then the blood connection with the
resurrection in GoF, and the prophecy in Book Five. There is a
connection there, it is unmistakable, it is indescribable. Why are
their fates so tied up together?

Finally, Book Six offers a plausible explanation with the first
mention of Horcruxes. Voldemort was splitting up his soul. I guess
Harry is a Horcrux too, for the lack of a better term. Somehow a
little bit of Voldy got trapped in the scar. DH explains it all, and
it was the byproduct of a tragic accident, as well as the horcruxes.

In the end, it's a matter of applying the duck test. Harry pretty much
served as a horcrux. If somebody wants to continue to claim that--
fine. Others hold on to much more ridiculous ideas. Was Harry really
really a horcrux? There was no ritual and the creation never killed
Voldemort before, and Voldemort never had the intention. It looks like
a duck, swims like a duck, but it might be a goose.

How easy for Jo to have said, a Horcrux requires a ritual and
intention. But then there's Harry, an accidental Horcrux. He
survived AK when nobody did, and became a Horcrux in a new manner,
unlike any before. Voila. Keeps her Horcrux idea the same, no

Instead, we get the book saying, "You're a Horcrux Harry," and then Jo
pops up and says, "Well, no, I just said it for simplicity sakes.
Harry isn't one because of a technicality of not being intentional".
Clealry, she's been in the sauce.

You last statement comes without any substantiated proof and clearly relfects only your own frame of mind - and is also probably libelous too.