0

I spent time on due diligence and did not find this exact question, which surprised me greatly. I think it's a hugely important issue when it comes to Harry Potter. I see many questions posed with the presumption that Harry was a Horcrux -- but was he really? I'll give a couple of canon hints:

‘Well,’ said Slughorn, not looking at Riddle, but fiddling with the ribbon on top of his box of crystallised pineapple, ‘well, it can’t hurt to give you an overview, of course. Just so that you understand the term. A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul.’

[...]

‘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?’

‘No, sir, of course not,’ said Riddle quickly.

Half-Blood Prince - pages 464 - 465 - Chapter twenty-three, Horcruxes

Was Harry an actual, legitimate Horcrux? Why or why not?

I'm looking only for a canon-based answer, so basically I'm willing to accept Word of God (J.K. Rowling), a direct quote from any of the ten Harry Potter books, or a definitive statement from Pottermore. Just as a general FYI, I am 100% disinterested in anything the HP Wikia has to say on the matter, and will likely skip over any answer with Wikia content. If this question is found to be a duplicate, by all means vote accordingly.

Slytherincess
  • 164,854
  • 146
  • 684
  • 899
  • after reading slughorns conversation, it almost seems like a horcrux is anything that contains another's soul, and that the spell he references is not the horcrux "spell" its the encasement spell(a spell made to bind a piece of the soul). however, JK Rowling dispells all of this speculation stating matter of factly that harry is not a horcrux, and from what I've read she is intending a compendium of sorts that will address the actual spell and how a horcrux will be created. So even though though said spell, a soul can be combined to an object, this object by Rowlings statement is not a horcrux – Himarm Mar 27 '15 at 19:33
  • Id be fine keeping this open, as its probably a more searched for topic, the the question that is similar. – Himarm Mar 27 '15 at 19:40
  • 1
    @randal'thor and, of course, she's the one who answered the original. – KutuluMike Apr 03 '15 at 13:41

1 Answers1

0

He was, but the author wants to play semantics and say that a horcrux has to be intentional to be a horcrux. And then she said that Dumbledore literally calling Harry a horcrux doesn't count. Writers' regret.

  • So your answer is "despite the author explicitly denying it, and despite him being different than every other one in the series, yes he is, because there's no possible way Dumbledore ever spoke figuratively." ? – KutuluMike Mar 27 '15 at 19:32
  • 1
    @MichaelEdenfield hes not really different then the others, other then how his creation came about, i personally choose to ignore authors after their works are released. imo what you write is set in stone at publication because only a small population of your readers will ever see your out of book corrections. She could if she really wanted put forth an office edit to the book, and all future publications would be clear, but she hasn't. – Himarm Mar 27 '15 at 19:37
  • Sad truth: Dumbledore isn't necessarily always correct. He may have believed that Harry was a horcrux - but that doesn't mean that Harry was one. – phantom42 Mar 27 '15 at 19:45
  • Because she went back and word of God retcon, not even in universe retcon. And here is an example comparison, if someone shoots you and you die, is their intention relevant? You still died from a gunshot, even if it was a stray bullet and not a direct shot. –  Mar 27 '15 at 20:09
  • @cde That is possibly the most terrible analogy I've ever seen. – KutuluMike Mar 27 '15 at 20:42
  • @Himarm but there is also plenty of in-universe evidence to back up her assertion that Harry was different from a Horcrux. When people talk about them they always have to specify "unintentional" or "accidental" Horcrux to explain why Harry's different than the rest; instead of the much more simple explanation that he never was one. – KutuluMike Mar 27 '15 at 20:43
  • 1
    the only noticeable difference between harry and say, nagini the only official living horcrux, is that voldemort personally created her, while harry was an accident. – Himarm Mar 27 '15 at 21:01
  • @cde a truly terrible analogy indeed. More appropriate would be for me to say out loud "My sister got shot in the kidney!" When in reality she got shot in the leg. My saying something doesn't make it so. Dumbledore is not infallible. – nzifnab Mar 27 '15 at 21:02
  • @nzifnab except that by definition (an object containing another's soul), and dumbledore, harry is a horcrux, so 2 instances she overrode, so now it comes down to 2 characters who mispoke, or 1 author who miswrote. – Himarm Mar 27 '15 at 21:25
  • 1
    An author known to be bad with numbers and facts between books –  Mar 27 '15 at 21:29