 |
|
Nacht
|
|
Amsterdam
May 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
I think he questioned Draco about how he planned to do it, not what he was going to do.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nostromo
Then how do you explain Harry getting some of Voldemort's powers, the ability to speak parseltongue, his insight into Voldemort's moods? |
The explination need not be that of Hoxcrux. After all, Ginny while possesed by the soul of Voldermort did not have any insights into anything, and in fact was unaware of the role she was playing, and a puppet of Voldermort.
We have already seens hoxcrux in action, in the seocnd book, and the behavior of someone controlled by a piece of his soul is very different from the "feelings" Potter gets.
Even if we don;t know much about these things, having part of the soul of someone inside you must be an extremely radical thing.
Perhaps Voldemorts plan was to make Harry a Hoxcrux in the first place and that plan failed, hence the scar, whatever.
I seriously doubt part of your soul going into another person is something that can EVER be accidental.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
An addendum to my earlier post, regarding Harry's other friends...
Actually, the two (former) students I'd most want at my side, by far, are Fred and George. Rowling has made a point in the last two books of commenting on how incredibly clever and skilled they really are, in spite of their academic difficulties. I think they will have much more to do in the next book apart from running their shop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, immortal by having copies of yourself. So if something happens, you can use another one. |
Wrong. Otherwise why was Voldemort left bodyless, when he could have, by your theory, "used another bit of himself" in the hoxcruxes he most certainly knew existed?
quote:
If they were all active, there is the threat of 7 Voldemorts and I'm sure the original would not have wanted that. |
Sorry Imran, but that contyradicvts the very story as it has occured. As the story has been told, specially from everything we know about Hoxcruxes, told to us BY DUMBLEDORE (and hence, all speculation that ignores these statements is utterly groundless) the point of the Hoxcrux is immortality, because the soul can;t be fully destroyed as long as any piece of it remains. That said, there is still the original soul, the true soul, that which was bodyless until the end of book 4. That bit can only be destroyed forever if all the other bits of the soul are removed, yet never once is it claimed that those bits are equal to the original soul.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
What do you mean, 'active'? MOst of them are not "active". They are not meant to be. They are repositories of his soul. Obviously the Diary was special in that, as Dumbledore himself said, it was designed not only as a place to safeguard a bit of his soul, but a weapon. |
And thus.... if Harry was indeed a horcrux, it could be that Voldemort was trying to find a place to safeguard his soul and not for use as a weapon. There is nothing that says that a horcrux inside a living creature is 'weapon-like' in that it can possess that person.
As Tom Riddle said in CoS, he was weak, but grew stronger as Ginny believed more and more in him through the book.
quote:
Dumbledore is the greatest wizzard in the land. HOw could you possibly think that what might happen to Dumbledore might be comparable to what happens to totally clueless kids like Harry or Ginny? Besides, Dumbledore knew what the ring was, and look at what it did to him- destroyed one hand and left him weak, and unable to recover.
If the greatest wizzard in the world suffers that from one of Voldermort's Hoxcruxes, why the hell would anyone assume the effects on Harry would be so minimal!? |
DUH! It was cursed! You know like the bad green water Dumbledore drank at the end? I don't think that green water came with the locket (obviously it couldn't since that wasn't the actual locket).
If the ring tried to possess Dumbledore don't you think he may have TOLD Harry seeing as he was enlisting Harry to get the horcruxes. He told him about the curse when he was ready, but never mentioned any attempted possession attempts. Why would he keep that secret? Hmmm?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Like Harry does not believe in Voldemort. |
WTF? I think Ginny believed in Voldemort in CoS... after all, she is a Weasley and knows what Harry did. Ginny believed that the thing writing back in the book was a real person and poured her heart out to him.
quote:
Why would he tell Harry that? |
Yeah, Dumbledore wants Harry to come break horcruxes with him and lets him know that there are curses on them, but doesn't warn him that they will attempt to possess you, or if he thinks Harry knows already doesn't tell him how to prevent them from possessing you? Get real!
And with the book in CoS, it DIDN'T try to possess him, only Ginny. And from the note in the end, it seems the locket didn't possess R.A.B. either.
It may kind of be important to know. You know, when Harry gets to a horcrux, if it possesses you, he may want to know how to destroy it without having the soul take you over.
quote:
I am sorry, but this is still a ridiculous notion that is based on the weakest of conjecture from what we are given in the book. |
If it is so ridiculous then why has it been advances in every Harry Potter thread in every forum I've seen? Obviously people find it plausible all over the internet. And even if they don't think it'll occur, they can see where it can happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
WTF? I think Ginny believed in Voldemort in CoS... after all, she is a Weasley and knows what Harry did. Ginny believed that the thing writing back in the book was a real person and poured her heart out to him. |
And maybe this was the only way a piece of soul placed into a book (whose main soul had no body at this time) could take over. That wopuld seem to make sense, NO?
quote:
Yeah, Dumbledore wants Harry to come break horcruxes with him and lets him know that there are curses on them, but doesn't warn him that they will attempt to possess you, or if he thinks Harry knows already doesn't tell him how to prevent them from possessing you? Get real! |
Me get real? You are the one positing that Dumdledore, after positing this whole theory, would somehow miss the one Hoxcrux in front of him all this time. Besides, the first hoxcrux destroyed did not have much of a curse defending it.
quote:
And with the book in CoS, it DIDN'T try to possess him, only Ginny. And from the note in the end, it seems the locket didn't possess R.A.B. either. |
Maybe because Voldermort did not intend these pieces of his soul to do anything more than survive. Hence why Dumdledore thinks the diary a very frightening action.
quote:
It may kind of be important to know. You know, when Harry gets to a horcrux, if it possesses you, he may want to know how to destroy it without having the soul take you over. |
And it would be strange to think that Voldermort would put his soul into someone and that that piece of soul would allow its carrier to go around killing other parts of himself, yet you are the one trying to say that is plausible.
quote:
If it is so ridiculous then why has it been advances in every Harry Potter thread in every forum I've seen? Obviously people find it plausible all over the internet. And even if they don't think it'll occur, they can see where it can happen. |
Because it is exactly the stupid kind of thing people would come up once the idea of Hoxcruxes came out. "Hey, what if HARRY! is one! Gasp!". 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Which indicates that the the soul didn't have power by itself. It needed someone to actively unlock it. |
NO, that indicates that was the purpose of that one HOxcrux. Which is why dumbledore states he thought it dangerous that Voldermort would actually make his Hoxcruxes a weapon.
quote:
Why in the world would Dumbledore know if something was actually a horcrux or not before looking inside? You act like he was omnipotent. It ain't like he's never made a mistake. Hell, he had no idea if the locket was a horcrux or not. If he could tell so easily, even in his weakened state he should have been able to figure that out. |
Dumbledore spends years upon years examining the psychology of Tom Riddle, goes to get as many memories as possible, and out of those years of study is able to assemble what seems to be a very good picture of what Voldermot was up to, and formulates an idea as to which are his Hoxcruxes based on the information he is able to get on where Tom Riddle was, and what he got his hands on, and so forth. Why then would he NOT imagine Harry as one possible Hoxcrux, given he certainly knows so much about Harry and Voldermort's connections? To think that Dumbledore did not himself think of the possiblity and did all possible to discover it, or that he, having been the one who determined this theory and having told Harry that he believed there to be six, and telling Harry how to get rid of them (a point you brought up), THEN WHY THE HELL WOULD HE NOT TELL HARRY SUCH A SUSPICION!?
That is the crux of it. You say Dumbledore may be wrong, then maybe he was wrong about there being seven, maybe there are 20. Maybe he is wrong about them being made only after signifcant muders-maybe Voldermort made on after every single kiling. Maybe he is wrong about list of possible Hoxcruxes he made. Yet I see no one challenging any of these assumptions, but using them and then making a huge asumption, which honestly, seems rather strange for me to think Dumbloedore himself did not have-and if he did have it, and you think he is telling Harry everything about Hoxcurxes, why not tell him "Oh, and Harry, you might be one yourself".
quote:
And the book was in the possession of Lucius. Any curse was probably dismantled either before or by Lucius' ownership. |
And maybe it never did.
quote:
So then why would it possess Harry then? |
Why put it in a kid he intends to KILL then?!?
quote:
Voldemort has no idea if any of his horcruxes die.. or what is really going on with any of them. Also there is the fact that he may have not entirely intended the horcrux to be Harry's living body (ie, maybe it was intended to be Harry's corpse [which I've heard elsewhere].. but it didn't work that way). |
The corpse, oh please.
quote:
Or because it is a plausible theory and a reasonable prediction. |
Plausible only if you ignore what we were actually told in the book, yes, plausible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
NO, that indicates that was the purpose of that one HOxcrux. |
And what do we know about the purpose of any other horcrux aside from holding a soul... oh we don't.
quote:
Dumbledore spends years upon years examining the psychology of Tom Riddle, goes to get as many memories as possible, and out of those years of study is able to assemble what seems to be a very good picture of what Voldermot was up to, and formulates an idea as to which are his Hoxcruxes based on the information he is able to get on where Tom Riddle was, and what he got his hands on, and so forth. Why then would he NOT imagine Harry as one possible Hoxcrux, given he certainly knows so much about Harry and Voldermort's connections? To think that Dumbledore did not himself think of the possiblity and did all possible to discover it, or that he, having been the one who determined this theory and having told Harry that he believed there to be six, and telling Harry how to get rid of them (a point you brought up), THEN WHY THE HELL WOULD HE NOT TELL HARRY SUCH A SUSPICION!?
That is the crux of it. You say Dumbledore may be wrong, then maybe he was wrong about there being seven, maybe there are 20. Maybe he is wrong about them being made only after signifcant muders-maybe Voldermort made on after every single kiling. Maybe he is wrong about list of possible Hoxcruxes he made. Yet I see no one challenging any of these assumptions, but using them and then making a huge asumption, which honestly, seems rather strange for me to think Dumbloedore himself did not have-and if he did have it, and you think he is telling Harry everything about Hoxcurxes, why not tell him "Oh, and Harry, you might be one yourself". |
Ah, the Dumbledore is omnipotent again. He is making speculation about things based on what is known to him personally. He says that a horcrux within a living thing is risky and indicates that he doesn't really know much about it. He wouldn't be able to confirm Harry as a horcrux without probably doing some tests on him, and even if he did suspect, would you think Harry would be ready for that speculation? He may have done a lot, but that may be too much for him to take until he's ready to face the big guy himself. And if Dumbledore is wrong on that speculation, Harry is not going to be very happy with the headmaster. And Rowling's propensity for the big surprise would indicated something massive that Dumbledore may have missed or not said within the pages of the books.
Once in the book he says Voldemort intended to make a horcrux after killing the Potters, but Dumbledore thought that maybe he implanted the horcrux in Nagini after the spell backfired. Though Dumbledore made it clear that he wasn't sure.
It could be foreshadowing based on Dumbledore's error (or purposely being vague).
quote:
Why put it in a kid he intends to KILL then?!? |
Who says he intended to put it in the living Harry?
quote:
The corpse, oh please. |
Well it could be a 'trophy'. Harry was the prophesied boy to bring down Voldemort. His dead body could be quite a treasure. We already know he's crude. Not like Harry has any possessions... unless you think Lily's wedding ring was the intended object for a horcrux.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-07-2005 00:23
ACK!
|