9

I want to say the answer is "no", because Voldemort probably killed way more people than the amount of horcruxes he has and not every evil murderer wants to make horcruxes.

Also it seems to be a complex process, given that Tom Riddle asks Slughorn about it. It requires an evil act (like murder), but it seems to be more to it.

But, Harry was a horcrux Voldemort never wanted and not really knew about.

Can one accidentally make a horcrux?

SQB
  • 38,680
  • 33
  • 212
  • 350
Pudora
  • 669
  • 1
  • 6
  • 9

1 Answers1

16

No, a horcrux cannot be made accidentally, and Harry was not a horcrux

“By an act of evil — the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion —” “Encase? But how —?” “There is a spell, do not ask me, I don’t know!” said Slughorn shaking his head like an old elephant bothered by mosquitoes. “Do I look as though I have tried it — do I look like a killer?”

-Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

Voldemort clearly didn't kill Harry successfully. He might have intended to make a horcrux, but he didn't succeed. JKR has confirmed that Harry was not a horcrux.

"Here is the thing: for convenience, I had Dumbledore say to Harry, "You were the Horcrux he never meant to make," but I think, by definition, a Horcrux has to be made intentionally. So because Voldemort never went through the grotesque process that I imagine creates a Horcrux with Harry, (SU: Mm-hm.) it was just that he had destabilized his soul so much that it split when he was hit by the backfiring curse. And so this part of it flies off, and attaches to the only living thing in the room. A part of it flees in the very-close-to-death limbo state that Voldemort then goes on and exists in. I suppose it's very close to being a Horcrux, but Harry did not become an evil object. He didn't have curses upon him that the other Horcruxes had. He himself was not contaminated by carrying this bit of parasitic soul."

-JKR's interview

Community
  • 1
Simpleton
  • 3,933
  • 3
  • 29
  • 51
  • 17
    So I've seen this before, and still never really understood why Harry isn't a horcrux. I mean he isn't an "evil object," but the point of a horcrux isn't to be an evil object. It's to house a piece of a shattered soul, thereby protecting the soul's owner from death. Harry does this, just as a horcrux should. JRR saying he isn't really a horcrux because he isn't evil is like saying that a truck isn't really a truck because it isn't yellow. She says she had Dumbledore call him that for convenience. My guess is she meant it when she wrote it, and changed her mind later. – Misha R Jan 10 '19 at 14:45
  • 3
    @MishaR I don't think that's a good analogy. To bake a cake, you need flour and eggs. If I throw some eggs into some flour and bake it, I still won't t get a cake. There's a lot more to it to get what would be considered even edible. Likewise, just because an evil piece of someone has attached itself to another does not mean that it is a horcrux, even if the end result is similar in preserving the soul fragment. – Dúthomhas Jan 10 '19 at 14:49
  • 6
    @Misha I too felt that it was flimsy logic, especially when Dumbledore himself says that he was a horcrux... But then again, JKR has done this sort of thing in many areas in the series. – Simpleton Jan 10 '19 at 15:00
  • 4
    @Dúthomhas You could argue that, but that seems in no way necessary for the story, and the story doesn't describe horcruxes that way. And when Dumbledore says what he says, it actually works. It makes complete sense within the narrative, and is an interesting point. What doesn't make sense is JKR later saying "oh, yeah, that part of my story, don't take that as legitimate, it's just for convenience." And, I mean, it's fine - as Simpleton said, JKR does that sort of thing - but it's weird. – Misha R Jan 10 '19 at 15:23
  • 3
    I think this could make a great new plot, like someone kills someone and doesn't know that "something like a horcrux" is made by it. When he gets old and dies he doesn't really die and goes on a quest to kill his own "horcruxes". – Pudora Jan 10 '19 at 15:50
  • 10
    I think you're getting hung up on the naming, when I think J. K. Rowling's point was that prior to Harry, all horcruxes were created the same way, and followed the same rules due to the way they were created, and so that was previously understood to be the nature of horcruxes. But, as it turns out, Harry the "horcrux" was created a different way, and so had a different nature than the others. What they understood about the nature of horcruxes did not apply to him, and therefore, you could interpret this as either, he is not a horcrux, or you can expand the definition of horcrux. – Kai Jan 10 '19 at 16:26
  • In addition, the current understanding of horcrux is that it's so cursed and evil, even corrupting people in contact with it, that it's anathema to even talk about it. In that context, I think it makes perfect sense to lean towards the "he is not a Horcrux" interpretation because the alternative would be sort of like calling Harry a slur in their universe, I would imagine. But again, I think the naming is sort of irrelevant compared to the important distinction of their different natures. – Kai Jan 10 '19 at 17:03
  • 1
    This answer would be improved by calling out the inherent contradiction in Rowling's retcon, and by explaining the 2 possibilities (either Harry was a Horcrux (as per the books) or he wasn't (as per Rowling)). – GreySage Jan 10 '19 at 18:38
  • 5
    Personally, I don't see any contradiction. The books made it perfectly clear that a horcrux was something specific and difficult to make. The problem is we're arguing unimportant semantics. I can keep my tissues in a tissue box, or I can use any old box to keep my tissues in. Either way it is not entirely incorrect to call the box used for holding my tissues a tissue box, even it it is technically an apple crate. It only makes a difference if we must distinguish between an actual tissue box and a crate, as JK has done in interview. – Dúthomhas Jan 10 '19 at 19:12
  • @Kai Well, if it's just about hanging up on the naming, then I'm with you. A rose by any other name and all that. If we can agree that whether or not Harry is called a "horcrux," he still ends up being the same thing as a horcrux, then fine. But if the only difference is that he was made via a different method, well, anybody who has read the books knows that. The question is, does that make them fundamentally different, and the books do not say so. What the books have is Dumbledore calling Harry an accidental horcrux - and then JK Rowling going "jk," and rolling it back. – Misha R Jan 10 '19 at 20:40
  • 4
    While I agree the HP series has many retcons, I'm not personally convinced this is one exactly. It is implied that how Harry the "horcrux" is made is not the only difference. Horcruxes are supposed to be cursed, evil objects due to how they are made, such that multiple of them have been shown to have harmful influence on people exposed to them. Harry, however, is not an inherently evil or cursed in that way. However, I think the entire idea of horcruxes is partially a retcon, because I don't get the impression that the diary was originally supposed to be a horcrux when she wrote book 2. – Kai Jan 10 '19 at 20:55