Re: Harry was NOT a Horcrux - Evidence in canon

Lyle Francis Delp wrote:
On 2008-01-13 17:33:22 -0500, Thom Madura <Tommadura@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

Lyle Francis Delp wrote:
Reread DH this past week.

In the scene where Hermione is telling Harry and Ron
about the dark magic book, she describes a horcrux
as very complicated magic that is the complete opposite
of the human being. How can Harry be a human being
and the complete opposite of a human being at the
same time?

You can use the term for the sake of convenience
if you like. DD did it when he was talking to Harry
in King's Cross. But you have to accept the truth.
Harry was NOT a Horcrux.

Case closed.


Who are you trying to convince?

Toon.


I have always said that Harry was not a Horcrux - I gave my reasons when we first discussed it.

Those of us who did not believe that Harry was Horcrux will agree with you.

Reading the recent thread (a free-for-all actually) on the subject,
I figured you would be pleased that I found this bit of info. Didn't
expect you to be so contentious.


Those of us who believe that this is JKR's story to tell and explain and her statements establish the facts - even out of the books - agree with you. This includes some people who originally said that Harry was a Horcrux - but will not argue with JKR.

So - you are left with those who believed that Harry was a Horcrux - who point to a statement in the books that "confirms" it - and choose to ignore anything else about the subject until it is written in canon - ie - the Encyclopedia. You have as much chance of convincing those people as you have of re-forming the British Empire again.

Yes, Toon believes only the books are canon. Therefore, I've
found evidence in canon to support our argument.

Why are you jumping on me?


I am not - I agree with you. I too have found evidence in Canon that disputes toon as well. And I am not trying to be contentious either.

However - I have been in this group for an awfully long time - and while toon has not been here quite as long - I do know that neither my statements or yours are going to bring him to that reality. I really consider our back and forth to be little more than an exercise for fun. At least it got us off the subject du-jour and back to the books.

SOO - I hope you will accept my apology for making you thing I am fighting you on this issue - I am not.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Harry is a ...well, I was just thinking
    ... WHen I support my statements by points in the books - you dismiss the books. ... You're convicned he failed at making a horcrux. ... We do know he failed at murdering Harry. ... It was his memories and a Soul Bit. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Harry is a ...well, I was just thinking
    ... Harry needn't necessarily be a horcrux for this. ... another other than RIddle himslef ... the point is there is nothing in the books that say it doesn't. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Harry is a ...well, I was just thinking
    ... books - you dismiss the books. ... You're convicned he failed at making a horcrux. ... We do know he failed at murdering Harry. ... It was his memories and a Soul Bit. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Harry probably is a Horcrux, yknow!
    ... > horcrux once she is dead. ... You don't consider it "twisting canon" to assume DD doesn't know Harry ... > We know that making horcruxes invovle taking out an ripped soulbit from ... I'll burn all the books. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Harry is a ...well, I was just thinking
    ... Harry needn't necessarily be a horcrux for this. ... A soul bit does not do that. ... the point is there is nothing in the books that say it doesn't. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)