The Horcrux curse - How it is done!!!
Frodo Baggins
also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse. And
finally, it is quite obvious how the Horcrux curse is activated.
Remember the Basilisk? The Basilisk "petrifies" a person or animal who
happens to look straight at it. By petrifying the person, their whole
being becomes totally immobile, no brain activity, but in some ways not
yet dead. This is something like a yogic/tantric trance claimed to be
achieved in some cultures where the yogi willingly leaves his body
behind while moving around as a soul. If the body is in this state for
a period of time, without the soul reuniting then death follows. There
is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or petrified) body.
So you must use a curse that performs the Basilisk stare on the person,
capture the soul before it leaves and then transfer it to an object as
a container for safekeeping. The person who performs these steps then
becomes the "owner" of the soul.
Riddle found a way to open the Chamber of Secrets. He went into the
chamber and investigated the "secrets" (so far we didnt see any secrets
there). Slytherin had left a part of himself in the school forever and
this part will teach his real followers the darkest of the dark arts.
Riddle began his learning from a REAL Dark Master. He discovers the
Horcrux curse and is totally excited by it as a way of going beyond
death. He is then obsessed with the idea of using it. He asks Slughorn
about the same. He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
(Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time with the help of
the Basilisk. Then the Diary followed as a practise Horcrux.
Why was Tom anxious to return to Hogwarts? Quite obvious too. The
Chamber is still there to be opened and explored right? Remember it was
"closed" after the Myrtle incident.
Frodo Baggins
Frodo Baggins
Fish Eye no Miko
> It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing.
> It is also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux
> curse. And finally, it is quite obvious how the Horcrux curse is
> activated.
> <snip>
> There is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or petrified)
> body. So you must use a curse that performs the Basilisk stare
> on the person, capture the soul before it leaves then transfer it to
> an object as a container for safekeeping
Uh, no.
A horcrux is a piece of the killer's soul, not the victims'.
> He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
> (Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time
> with the help of the Basilisk.
Actually, the attack on Myrtle sounds very random. She was in the wrong
place at the wrong time.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"I'm the impish officer of death."
-Mike Nelson, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
Paracelsus
>Frodo Baggins wrote:
>
>
>
>>It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing.
>>It is also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux
>>curse. And finally, it is quite obvious how the Horcrux curse is
>>activated.
>><snip>
>>There is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or petrified)
>>body. So you must use a curse that performs the Basilisk stare
>>on the person, capture the soul before it leaves then transfer it to
>>an object as a container for safekeeping
>>
>>
>
>Uh, no.
>A horcrux is a piece of the killer's soul, not the victims'.
>
>
>
>>He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
>>(Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time
>>with the help of the Basilisk.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, the attack on Myrtle sounds very random. She was in the wrong
>place at the wrong time.
>
>Catherine Johnson.
>
>
It may be that Tom Riddle was researching Horocruxes at the same time he
discovered the Basilisk. He saw an opportunity to commit a murder
without getting caught and create his first Horocrux.
Karnak17
Book 2 contains proof that the Diary is not the first Horcrux.
One of the symptoms of the splicing of Tom's soul is the reddish gleam
in his eyes, seen in the scene with Hepzibah, and later, more
pronouced, in his DADA interview with DD. The more his soul is split,
the stronger this red gleam.
Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN made it a
Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained these important
memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when Tom
confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously from the
Riddle murders.
The idea that he might have gained this knowledge from the CoS is an
interesting one.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>> Frodo Baggins wrote:
>>
>>> It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise
>>> swing. It is also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux
>>> curse. And finally, it is quite obvious how
>>> the Horcrux curse is
>>> activated.
>>> <snip>
>>> There is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or
>>> petrified) body. So you must use a curse that performs the
>>> Basilisk stare on the person, capture the soul before it leaves then
>>> transfer it
>>> to an object as a container for safekeeping
>>
>> Uh, no.
>> A horcrux is a piece of the killer's soul, not the victims'.
>>
>>> He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
>>> (Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time
>>> with the help of the Basilisk.
>>
>> Actually, the attack on Myrtle sounds very random. She was in
>> the wrong place at the wrong time.
>>
> It may be that Tom Riddle was researching Horocruxes at the same
> time he discovered the Basilisk. He saw an opportunity to commit a
> murder without getting caught and create his first Horocrux.
I don't dispute the timeframe Frodo gave at all, I'm just pointing out that
certain other parts of his theory seem a bit off, for the reasons explained
above.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"Don't go to Europe to 'find yourself'. Who told you that you were over
there, anyway?"
-Stephen Colbert, _The Colbert Report_.
Toon
wrote:
If Tom puts the Basilisk stare on himself, how can he remove his own
Soul Bit?
Fish Eye no Miko
> Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN made
> it a Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained these
> important memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
> So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when
> Tom confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
> Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
> incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously from
> the Riddle murders.
Those happened after, actually, between his sixth and seventh year of
school.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"The corpse's bitter crimson tears flow and mingle with the endless sand,
feeding the chaos within me and making me stronger."
-Gaara, _Naruto_.
Richard Eney
Frodo Baggins <douf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Remember the Basilisk? The Basilisk "petrifies" a person or animal who
>happens to look straight at it. By petrifying the person, their whole
>being becomes totally immobile, no brain activity, but in some ways not
>yet dead. This is something like a yogic/tantric trance claimed to be
>achieved in some cultures where the yogi willingly leaves his body
>behind while moving around as a soul. If the body is in this state for
>a period of time, without the soul reuniting then death follows.
Interesting concept...
>There
>is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or petrified) body.
Uh, yes there is. Mandrake potion.
=Tamar
Jane Grey
> It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing. It is
> also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse.
is it? i don't think so, i would like to know how he found out about
them concidering Hermy couldn't find anything out. Maybe one of his
Slytherin mates had parents with dark magic books LV borrowed.
> And
> finally, it is quite obvious how the Horcrux curse is activated.
the horcrux curse isn't something that is activated -it is cast, like
any other curse. Once a rip in the soul has been achieved, the wizard
can optionally make a horcrux by casting the spell -it doesn't happen
automatically.
> Remember the Basilisk? The Basilisk "petrifies" a person or animal who
> happens to look straight at it.
actually it kills the person who looks it straight in the eye, it only
petrifies if you look at it through something like
glasses/mirror/camera lense
> By petrifying the person, their whole
> being becomes totally immobile, no brain activity, but in some ways not
> yet dead. This is something like a yogic/tantric trance claimed to be
> achieved in some cultures where the yogi willingly leaves his body
> behind while moving around as a soul. If the body is in this state for
> a period of time, without the soul reuniting then death follows.
well there is nothing to suggest the petrification effects the soul
-just that it immobolises the body. there could be a person in there,
looking out but unable to move the body.
> There
> is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or petrified) body.
mandrake potion was used in CoS
> So you must use a curse that performs the Basilisk stare on the person,
> capture the soul before it leaves and then transfer it to an object as
> a container for safekeeping. The person who performs these steps then
> becomes the "owner" of the soul.
hmm, interesting idea, maybe you've got a story in there somewhere but
in terms of harry potter, it is a bit out of leftfield IMO ...
> Riddle found a way to open the Chamber of Secrets.
presumebly he did what harry did and spoke parseltongue.
> He went into the
> chamber and investigated the "secrets" (so far we didnt see any secrets
> there).
how about the Basilisk -previuosly thought to be extinct?
> Slytherin had left a part of himself in the school forever and
> this part will teach his real followers the darkest of the dark arts.
> Riddle began his learning from a REAL Dark Master. He discovers the
> Horcrux curse and is totally excited by it as a way of going beyond
> death. He is then obsessed with the idea of using it. He asks Slughorn
> about the same. He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
> (Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time with the help of
> the Basilisk. Then the Diary followed as a practise Horcrux.
hrm, no i don't think Riddle would have befriended muggle-born Myrtle.
And besides Slughorn says killing rips a potion of the murderer's soul.
er, i don't see JKR going down this whole Basilisk curse route -the
Basilisk bit of the story was done with, 4 books ago
> Why was Tom anxious to return to Hogwarts? Quite obvious too. The
Tom came for the reasons DD said in HBP -to a job inorder to get new
recruits and find a founder heirloom. failing that, he cursed the DADA
job.
> Chamber is still there to be opened and explored right? Remember it was
> "closed" after the Myrtle incident.
It was closed because Riddle decided he best not go down there because
he didn't want to risk expulsion.
so whilst you have some interesting and new ideas, i don't think they
fit into the potterverse...
--
Jane Grey
DaveD
"Frodo Baggins" <douf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149880283.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing.
ISTR Dd saying that - that he was practising. Charming.
> It is
> also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse.
I'm assuming you mean from the late Salazar Slytherin, but if so, how? He's
long dead - did Riddle find some of his papers or what?
And
> finally, it is quite obvious how the Horcrux curse is activated.
> Remember the Basilisk? The Basilisk "petrifies" a person or animal who
> happens to look straight at it.
Don't think so - looking straight at it kills you, which is how Moaning
Myrtle died. Only looking at it indirectly (eg through a camera or at a
reflection) petrifies you.
By petrifying the person, their whole
> being becomes totally immobile, no brain activity, but in some ways not
> yet dead. This is something like a yogic/tantric trance claimed to be
> achieved in some cultures where the yogi willingly leaves his body
> behind while moving around as a soul. If the body is in this state for
> a period of time, without the soul reuniting then death follows. There
> is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or petrified) body.
Yes there is - mandrake "juice", as per Mme Pomfrey and Prof Sprout.
> So you must use a curse that performs the Basilisk stare on the person,
> capture the soul before it leaves and then transfer it to an object as
> a container for safekeeping. The person who performs these steps then
> becomes the "owner" of the soul.
No, it's the caster's soul that's split by causing the murder (not
necessarily doing it, I'm guessing, as the basilisk killed Myrtle but it was
Riddle who set it up?) and the objective of the horcrux spell is to transfer
one of the torn pieces into the container of the caster's choice - the
diary, the ring, or Harry (*ducks and runs*)
> Riddle found a way to open the Chamber of Secrets. He went into the
> chamber and investigated the "secrets" (so far we didnt see any secrets
> there). Slytherin had left a part of himself in the school forever and
> this part will teach his real followers the darkest of the dark arts.
> Riddle began his learning from a REAL Dark Master. He discovers the
> Horcrux curse and is totally excited by it as a way of going beyond
> death. He is then obsessed with the idea of using it.
Interesting idea - but where are the remnants of Slytherin that Riddle got
his ideas and knowledge from? Does that mean even if (ok, when) Harry gets
rid of Voldy, Salazan's remnants or knowledge is still there waiting for the
next Voldy who comes along...
He asks Slughorn
> about the same. He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
> (Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time with the help of
> the Basilisk. Then the Diary followed as a practise Horcrux.
Nope, as above, he use the basilisk to kill Myrtle and make a horcrux out of
the process.
> Why was Tom anxious to return to Hogwarts? Quite obvious too. The
> Chamber is still there to be opened and explored right? Remember it was
> "closed" after the Myrtle incident.
Possibly...
DaveD
DaveD
"Karnak17" <karn...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1149901317....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paracelsus wrote:
> Book 2 contains proof that the Diary is not the first Horcrux.
>
> One of the symptoms of the splicing of Tom's soul is the reddish gleam
> in his eyes, seen in the scene with Hepzibah, and later, more
> pronouced, in his DADA interview with DD. The more his soul is split,
> the stronger this red gleam.
>
> Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN made it a
> Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained these important
> memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
>
> So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when Tom
> confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
>
> Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
> incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously from the
> Riddle murders.
>
> The idea that he might have gained this knowledge from the CoS is an
> interesting one.
Your theory rests on the assumption that putting his 16yo self into the
diary was a separate process to making it a horcrux. I'd have thought they
were part of the same one - making it into a horcrux necessarily involves
putting that torn part of your soul into it.You can't put the torn bit in if
it hasn't been torn yet!
So when Harry confronts Riddle, he'd already killed Myrtle - he had to kill
her first to make the diary into a horcrux, so his eyes would presumably
already have started tinging red as part of that horcrux-creating process
subject to any time delays (though why only Harry and no-one else like Dd,
noticed the red-eyed look is another question...)
Thom Madura
> It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing. It is
> also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse. And
> finally, it is quite obvious how the Horcrux curse is activated.
> Remember the Basilisk? The Basilisk "petrifies" a person or animal who
> happens to look straight at it. By petrifying the person, their whole
> being becomes totally immobile, no brain activity, but in some ways not
> yet dead. This is something like a yogic/tantric trance claimed to be
> achieved in some cultures where the yogi willingly leaves his body
> behind while moving around as a soul. If the body is in this state for
> a period of time, without the soul reuniting then death follows. There
> is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or petrified) body.
> So you must use a curse that performs the Basilisk stare on the person,
> capture the soul before it leaves and then transfer it to an object as
> a container for safekeeping. The person who performs these steps then
> becomes the "owner" of the soul.
Doesn't make sense at all
THe Horcrux (THe container for the soul fragment) doesn't do the spell
to create a Horcrux - we have proof of that - since it is clear that
most horcruxes are inanimate objects (Ring, locket, diary - etc) that do
not have the ability to perform a spell. Slughorn makes it clear that
using living things as a Horcrux is not good - since living things have
free will - etc.
That being the case - your theory cannot hold air.
>
> Riddle found a way to open the Chamber of Secrets. He went into the
> chamber and investigated the "secrets" (so far we didnt see any secrets
> there). Slytherin had left a part of himself in the school forever and
> this part will teach his real followers the darkest of the dark arts.
> Riddle began his learning from a REAL Dark Master. He discovers the
> Horcrux curse and is totally excited by it as a way of going beyond
> death. He is then obsessed with the idea of using it. He asks Slughorn
> about the same. He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
> (Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time with the help of
> the Basilisk. Then the Diary followed as a practise Horcrux.
WE also have proof of how RIddle found out about the curse IN THE BOOKS
- where he was told by Slughorn about it. WHile it is certainly possible
that he somehow was able to use Moaning Myrtle's death to create a
Horcrux - there is no indication that Slytherin left a piece of himself
in the chamber at all.
>
> Why was Tom anxious to return to Hogwarts? Quite obvious too. The
> Chamber is still there to be opened and explored right? Remember it was
> "closed" after the Myrtle incident.
Actually - it was Riddle himself who closed the chamber - also said in
the books.
>
> Frodo Baggins
>
Karnak17
Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>
> > Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN made
> > it a Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained these
> > important memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
> > So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when
> > Tom confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
> > Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
> > incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously from
> > the Riddle murders.
>
> Those happened after, actually, between his sixth and seventh year of
> school.
???????
They happened "the summer of his sixteenth year". That means the
summer he was fifteen years old. That means the summer before his 5th
year at Hogwarts.
Further, DD describes him leaving the ORPHANAGE to find his family.
According to the scene with Dippet in CoS, we may deduce that the
summer before his fifth year was the last he spent at the orphanage,
and that after that he was allowed to stay at Hogwarts for the summers.
Unless DD was trying to say that Tom left the orphanage in search of
his family in "the summer of his sixteenth year", and then took a whole
year to find them, then the Riddle murders took place before Tom's
fifth year.
John VanSickle
> It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing.
Not, it's not.
> It is
> also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse.
The spell which creates a Horcrux is not called a curse.
> And
> finally, it is quite obvious how the Horcrux curse is activated.
Yes. When the wizard protected by the Horcurx dies, it keeps his soul
from passing where all such souls ordinarily go.
> Remember the Basilisk?
No, but I remember the Alamo!
> The Basilisk "petrifies" a person or animal who
> happens to look straight at it. By petrifying the person, their whole
> being becomes totally immobile, no brain activity, but in some ways not
> yet dead.
Unlike a Congressman, who is rarely immobile.
> This is something like a yogic/tantric trance claimed to be
> achieved in some cultures where the yogi willingly leaves his body
> behind while moving around as a soul.
Put emphasis on the word "claimed." Lots and lots of emphasis.
> If the body is in this state for
> a period of time, without the soul reuniting then death follows. There
> is no way to revive an externally cursed (tranced or petrified) body.
> So you must use a curse that performs the Basilisk stare on the person,
> capture the soul before it leaves and then transfer it to an object as
> a container for safekeeping. The person who performs these steps then
> becomes the "owner" of the soul.
Sorry, but no prize. The soul captured in the Horcrux was Riddle's, not
Myrtle's. He split his soul by committing to Myrtle's murder, and used
the Horcrux spell to place one part of his soul in the diary.
> Riddle found a way to open the Chamber of Secrets. He went into the
> chamber and investigated the "secrets" (so far we didnt see any secrets
> there). Slytherin had left a part of himself in the school forever and
> this part will teach his real followers the darkest of the dark arts.
Well, there may be something more to the statue than its materials, but
unless Harry goes there again, we'll never know.
> Riddle began his learning from a REAL Dark Master. He discovers the
> Horcrux curse and is totally excited by it as a way of going beyond
> death. He is then obsessed with the idea of using it. He asks Slughorn
> about the same. He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
> (Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time with the help of
> the Basilisk. Then the Diary followed as a practise Horcrux.
The idea that Myrtle and Riddle knew each other is speculation, neither
supported nor contradicted by canon.
> Why was Tom anxious to return to Hogwarts?
The chicks, I tell you, the chicks!
> Quite obvious too. The
> Chamber is still there to be opened and explored right? Remember it was
> "closed" after the Myrtle incident.
Only because he didn't feel like going back in there.
Regards,
John
Karnak17
DaveD wrote:
> "Karnak17" <karn...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1149901317....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Paracelsus wrote:
>
> > Book 2 contains proof that the Diary is not the first Horcrux.
> >
> > One of the symptoms of the splicing of Tom's soul is the reddish gleam
> > in his eyes, seen in the scene with Hepzibah, and later, more
> > pronouced, in his DADA interview with DD. The more his soul is split,
> > the stronger this red gleam.
> >
> > Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN made it a
> > Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained these important
> > memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
> >
> > So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when Tom
> > confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
> >
> > Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
> > incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously from the
> > Riddle murders.
> >
> > The idea that he might have gained this knowledge from the CoS is an
> > interesting one.
>
>
> Your theory rests on the assumption that putting his 16yo self into the
> diary was a separate process to making it a horcrux. I'd have thought they
> were part of the same one - making it into a horcrux necessarily involves
> putting that torn part of your soul into it.You can't put the torn bit in if
> it hasn't been torn yet!
Putting his sixteen year old MEMORIES into the Diary would be a totally
separate process from putting his soul in there. We have seen lots of
objects invested with memories, such a portraits, which lack a soul.
And we have seen objects which contain a soul but lack memories (the
ring). It is obviously a separate magical process.
When Harry askes DD why Tom would have made the Diary into a Horcrux,
DD responds that the Diary was proof Tom was the Heir of Slytherin, and
that Tom would therefore regard it as of great importance, and worthy
of being a Horcrux. This suggests that the memories, the proof that
Tom was Slytherin's Heir, were already present in the Diary. Which
makes sense. Considering that two magical spells are involved,
naturally Tom would imbue the Diary with memory first, and soul second.
He wouldn't invest a piece of his soul into a worthless bit of Muggle
stationary, and THEN entrust the valuable memories to it.
> So when Harry confronts Riddle, he'd already killed Myrtle - he had to kill
> her first to make the diary into a horcrux, so his eyes would presumably
> already have started tinging red as part of that horcrux-creating process
> subject to any time delays
We have no evidence Myrtle was anything but an accident.
>(though why only Harry and no-one else like Dd,
> noticed the red-eyed look is another question...)
Harry was alone confronting "Tom" in the CoS. DD was not there.
Karnak17
Jane Grey wrote:
> Frodo Baggins wrote:
> > It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing. It is
> > also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse.
>
> is it? i don't think so, i would like to know how he found out about
> them concidering Hermy couldn't find anything out. Maybe one of his
> Slytherin mates had parents with dark magic books LV borrowed.
Frodo's assertion later in the post is that knowledge of Horcruxes were
among the secrets left by Salazar Slytherin in the Chamber. And that
that was how Tom found learned how to do it.
> > And
> > finally, it is quite obvious how the Horcrux curse is activated.
>
> the horcrux curse isn't something that is activated -it is cast, like
> any other curse. Once a rip in the soul has been achieved, the wizard
> can optionally make a horcrux by casting the spell -it doesn't happen
> automatically.
>
> > Remember the Basilisk? The Basilisk "petrifies" a person or animal who
> > happens to look straight at it.
>
> actually it kills the person who looks it straight in the eye, it only
> petrifies if you look at it through something like
> glasses/mirror/camera lense
>
> > By petrifying the person, their whole
> > being becomes totally immobile, no brain activity, but in some ways not
> > yet dead. This is something like a yogic/tantric trance claimed to be
> > achieved in some cultures where the yogi willingly leaves his body
> > behind while moving around as a soul. If the body is in this state for
> > a period of time, without the soul reuniting then death follows.
>
> well there is nothing to suggest the petrification effects the soul
Nearly Headless Nick was petrified.
> -just that it immobolises the body. there could be a person in there,
> looking out but unable to move the body.
According to Pomfrey (and Hermione doesn't contradict her when she gets
better) the victim has no awareness once they are petrified. "There is
no point in talking to a petrified person."
<snip>
> > He went into the
> > chamber and investigated the "secrets" (so far we didnt see any secrets
> > there).
>
> how about the Basilisk -previuosly thought to be extinct?
>
> > Slytherin had left a part of himself in the school forever and
> > this part will teach his real followers the darkest of the dark arts.
> > Riddle began his learning from a REAL Dark Master. He discovers the
> > Horcrux curse and is totally excited by it as a way of going beyond
> > death. He is then obsessed with the idea of using it. He asks Slughorn
> > about the same. He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
> > (Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time with the help of
> > the Basilisk. Then the Diary followed as a practise Horcrux.
>
> hrm, no i don't think Riddle would have befriended muggle-born Myrtle.
He would have if he could use her. But it was Myrtle's bad luck she
was in the bathroom at that time. Olive Hornby drove her there, not
Tom Riddle.
The point is that Tom must have learned to make Horcruxes while still
at Hogwarts. The "odd red gleam" in 16 year old Tom's eyes proves
this. Considering that it is banned knowledge, the fact that he
learned it in the Chamber of Secrets seems a farily likely guess. Why
wouldn't Salazar leave knowledge for his future heir as well as a
basilisk?
Karnak17
DaveD wrote:
> "Frodo Baggins" <douf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1149880283.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing.
>
> ISTR Dd saying that - that he was practising. Charming.
>
> > It is
> > also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse.
>
>
> I'm assuming you mean from the late Salazar Slytherin, but if so, how? He's
> long dead - did Riddle find some of his papers or what?
Salazar would have left the knowledge in a form only his heir could
understand or access, imho. Forbidden spell books are a possiblility,
if protected by a snake-lock such as protected the Chamber itself. He
might also have left a memory of himself -- something like portrait
magic -- to instruct his heir.
<snip>
> > Riddle found a way to open the Chamber of Secrets. He went into the
> > chamber and investigated the "secrets" (so far we didnt see any secrets
> > there). Slytherin had left a part of himself in the school forever and
> > this part will teach his real followers the darkest of the dark arts.
> > Riddle began his learning from a REAL Dark Master. He discovers the
> > Horcrux curse and is totally excited by it as a way of going beyond
> > death. He is then obsessed with the idea of using it.
>
>
> Interesting idea - but where are the remnants of Slytherin that Riddle got
> his ideas and knowledge from? Does that mean even if (ok, when) Harry gets
> rid of Voldy, Salazan's remnants or knowledge is still there waiting for the
> next Voldy who comes along...
Harry might be due for a return to the Chamber in Book 7. He's never
seriously explored it.
Is there any indication that DD et all explored the Chamber? Or has it
just been ignored since Book 2?
Karnak17
Thom Madura wrote:
> Frodo Baggins wrote:
>
<snip>
> > Riddle found a way to open the Chamber of Secrets. He went into the
> > chamber and investigated the "secrets" (so far we didnt see any secrets
> > there). Slytherin had left a part of himself in the school forever and
> > this part will teach his real followers the darkest of the dark arts.
> > Riddle began his learning from a REAL Dark Master. He discovers the
> > Horcrux curse and is totally excited by it as a way of going beyond
> > death. He is then obsessed with the idea of using it. He asks Slughorn
> > about the same. He befriends a girl whom he thinks is totally useless
> > (Myrtle) and performs the Basilisk curse, this time with the help of
> > the Basilisk. Then the Diary followed as a practise Horcrux.
>
> WE also have proof of how RIddle found out about the curse IN THE BOOKS
> - where he was told by Slughorn about it.
He wasn't told HOW to perform the spell. Sluggie himself didn't even
KNOW how to do so, let alone instruct Tom as to how. So, how did he
learn? The Chamber is one possiblility. Far more likely than any
other I've heard.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>> Karnak17 wrote:
>>
>>> Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN made
>>> it a Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained these
>>> important memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
>>> So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when
>>> Tom confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
>>> Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
>>> incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously from
>>> the Riddle murders.
>>
>> Those happened after, actually, between his sixth and seventh year
>> of school.
>
> ???????
> They happened "the summer of his sixteenth year". That means the
> summer he was fifteen years old.
Odd.. the summer of my 16th year, I was sixteen...
> That means the summer before his 5th year at Hogwarts.
Ok.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"At least some oboe player got a paycheck out of all this horse hockey..."
Jane Grey
> Jane Grey wrote:
> > Frodo Baggins wrote:
> > > It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing. It is
> > > also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse.
> >
> > is it? i don't think so, i would like to know how he found out about
> > them concidering Hermy couldn't find anything out. Maybe one of his
> > Slytherin mates had parents with dark magic books LV borrowed.
>
> Frodo's assertion later in the post is that knowledge of Horcruxes were
> among the secrets left by Salazar Slytherin in the Chamber. And that
> that was how Tom found learned how to do it.
ah, interesting. a possibililty, definately.
<snip>
> > well there is nothing to suggest the petrification effects the soul
>
> Nearly Headless Nick was petrified.
that doesn't suggest that petrification effects the soul. Ghosts aren't
souls. Ghosts are an imprint of a person. Wizards scared of death
choose to stay behind paley while their souls go beyond the veil upon
death.
> > -just that it immobolises the body. there could be a person in there,
> > looking out but unable to move the body.
>
> According to Pomfrey (and Hermione doesn't contradict her when she gets
> better) the victim has no awareness once they are petrified. "There is
> no point in talking to a petrified person."
so it is like your mind if as 'frozen' as your body... that doesn't
mean your soul isn't in there. mind is not the same as soul.
<snip>
> > hrm, no i don't think Riddle would have befriended muggle-born Myrtle.
>
> He would have if he could use her. But it was Myrtle's bad luck she
> was in the bathroom at that time. Olive Hornby drove her there, not
> Tom Riddle.
yeah it was a random killing. Lucky for Tom she was muggle-born, had
she been pureblood he'd have been a little peeved.
> The point is that Tom must have learned to make Horcruxes while still
> at Hogwarts. The "odd red gleam" in 16 year old Tom's eyes proves
> this. Considering that it is banned knowledge, the fact that he
> learned it in the Chamber of Secrets seems a farily likely guess. Why
> wouldn't Salazar leave knowledge for his future heir as well as a
> basilisk?
he might have and this might be where Tom Riddle leanrt it from. But
the rest of the theory by the original poster is completely out of
leftfield (about getting onwership of someone else's soul and using
that to create horcruxes).
--
Jane Grey
Karnak17
Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
>
> > Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> >> Karnak17 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN made
> >>> it a Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained these
> >>> important memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
> >>> So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when
> >>> Tom confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
> >>> Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
> >>> incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously from
> >>> the Riddle murders.
> >>
> >> Those happened after, actually, between his sixth and seventh year
> >> of school.
> >
> > ???????
> > They happened "the summer of his sixteenth year". That means the
> > summer he was fifteen years old.
>
> Odd.. the summer of my 16th year, I was sixteen...
I don't know about YOU. But Tom was born on New Years, in Winter. In
the summer of his FIRST year of life (ending, of course, with his
first birthday) he would therefore have been six months old. The
summer of his second year, he would be 1 year 6 months. The summer of
his third year, 2-and-a-half.
The summer of his sixteenth year, therefore, he was fifteen and a half
years old.
If he started Hogwarts Year One at age eleven and graduated Year Seven
at 18, then he began Year Five at age fifteen. Therefore he went
straight from the Riddle Murders to his Fifth Year at at Hogwarts.
I don't know where you get between sixth and seventh year from. I have
never even heard that theory before. That would have made Tom Head Boy
in Sluggie's memory, and he is clearly described as a prefect, and "far
from the oldest" of the boys present.
Karnak17
Jane Grey wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
> > Jane Grey wrote:
> > > Frodo Baggins wrote:
> > > > It is quite obvious that the Diary Horcrux was a practise swing. It is
> > > > also quite obvious how Tom Riddle found out the Horcrux curse.
> > >
> > > is it? i don't think so, i would like to know how he found out about
> > > them concidering Hermy couldn't find anything out. Maybe one of his
> > > Slytherin mates had parents with dark magic books LV borrowed.
> >
> > Frodo's assertion later in the post is that knowledge of Horcruxes were
> > among the secrets left by Salazar Slytherin in the Chamber. And that
> > that was how Tom found learned how to do it.
>
> ah, interesting. a possibililty, definately.
>
> <snip>
> > > well there is nothing to suggest the petrification effects the soul
> >
> > Nearly Headless Nick was petrified.
>
> that doesn't suggest that petrification effects the soul. Ghosts aren't
> souls. Ghosts are an imprint of a person. Wizards scared of death
> choose to stay behind paley while their souls go beyond the veil upon
> death.
That is an interesting theory. Based, I assume, on Snape's description
of ghosts as the "imprint of a departed soul". But has Rowling
confirmed this notion? It does not square with other remarks within
the books.
Jane Grey
> Jane Grey wrote:
<snip>
> > > > well there is nothing to suggest the petrification effects the soul
> > >
> > > Nearly Headless Nick was petrified.
> >
> > that doesn't suggest that petrification effects the soul. Ghosts aren't
> > souls. Ghosts are an imprint of a person. Wizards scared of death
> > choose to stay behind paley while their souls go beyond the veil upon
> > death.
>
> That is an interesting theory. Based, I assume, on Snape's description
> of ghosts as the "imprint of a departed soul".
Well it is the impression I get of what a ghost is from OftP and HBP;
Death in the potterverse seems to be when the soul goes beyond the
veil, and because ghosts come about from people who have died, ghosts
can't be souls. The only way to keep your soul from going beyond the
viel upon death is to have a horcrux (or seven :p), in which case you
haven't died and before do not get to choose whether to stay behind as
an imprint of your soul -so unless your soul goes beyond the veil you
can't become a ghost.
> But has Rowling
> confirmed this notion?
Not sure, but i do remember that she has talked about ghosts but I
don't recall her mentioning souls.
> It does not square with other remarks within
> the books.
the only other time it is talked about in the books, as i recall, is
when harry talks to Nearly-headless Nick in OftP. There he doesn't
contradict the notion so I am not sure which remarks you think it
doesn't sqaure with.
--
Jane Grey
Karnak17
Jane Grey wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
> > Jane Grey wrote:
> > > Karnak17 wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > > well there is nothing to suggest the petrification effects the soul
> > > >
> > > > Nearly Headless Nick was petrified.
> > >
> > > that doesn't suggest that petrification effects the soul. Ghosts aren't
> > > souls. Ghosts are an imprint of a person. Wizards scared of death
> > > choose to stay behind paley while their souls go beyond the veil upon
> > > death.
> >
> > That is an interesting theory. Based, I assume, on Snape's description
> > of ghosts as the "imprint of a departed soul".
>
> Well it is the impression I get of what a ghost is from OftP and HBP;
> Death in the potterverse seems to be when the soul goes beyond the
> veil, and because ghosts come about from people who have died, ghosts
> can't be souls.
Nick specifically said that he didn't choose to go beyond the veil, but
that Sirius would have chosen to go. THAT is what makes the
difference. If the soul goes beyond the viel whichever, then a ghost
is nothing more than a floating portrait. And Nick makes it fairly
clear that he is more than that.
>The only way to keep your soul from going beyond the
> viel upon death is to have a horcrux (or seven :p), in which case you
> haven't died and before do not get to choose whether to stay behind as
> an imprint of your soul -so unless your soul goes beyond the veil you
> can't become a ghost.
Well, I would agree that a Horcrux would prevent you from going beyond
the veil, because part of your soul was trapped here on earth. You
cannot die unless you get to take your soul with you.
<snip>
> > It does not square with other remarks within
> > the books.
>
> the only other time it is talked about in the books, as i recall, is
> when harry talks to Nearly-headless Nick in OftP. There he doesn't
> contradict the notion so I am not sure which remarks you think it
> doesn't sqaure with.
Well, "I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the
meanest ghost, but still I was alive". Implies that his tattered soul
fragment had LESS to it than a ghost would. Sluggie talks about how
"existence in such a form, few would want it" and he shudders. Nobody
speaks of ghosts with such horror. Because, I would deduce, they are
the full soul of the person, albeit trapped on this side of the veil.
DD says that without the 7th fragment of soul that still resides in
LV's body, he would not have any self at all. That suggests that the
soul and the self are one, that loss of soul is loss of self. If we
assume that the Nick we know is the real Nick (and so he seems to be)
then that would mean it is Nick's soul.
Jane Grey
> Jane Grey wrote:
> > Karnak17 wrote:
> > > Jane Grey wrote:
> > > > Karnak17 wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > > well there is nothing to suggest the petrification effects the soul
> > > > >
> > > > > Nearly Headless Nick was petrified.
> > > >
> > > > that doesn't suggest that petrification effects the soul. Ghosts aren't
> > > > souls. Ghosts are an imprint of a person. Wizards scared of death
> > > > choose to stay behind paley while their souls go beyond the veil upon
> > > > death.
> > >
> > > That is an interesting theory. Based, I assume, on Snape's description
> > > of ghosts as the "imprint of a departed soul".
> >
> > Well it is the impression I get of what a ghost is from OftP and HBP;
> > Death in the potterverse seems to be when the soul goes beyond the
> > veil, and because ghosts come about from people who have died, ghosts
> > can't be souls.
>
> Nick specifically said that he didn't choose to go beyond the veil, but
> that Sirius would have chosen to go. THAT is what makes the
> difference. If the soul goes beyond the viel whichever, then a ghost
> is nothing more than a floating portrait. And Nick makes it fairly
> clear that he is more than that.
Does he? i got quite the opposite impression from when he said, "I
chose to remain behind. I sometimes wonder whether I oughtn't to
have... well, that is neither here nor there... in fact, I am neither
here nor there... ....I know nothing of the secrets of death, Harry,
for I chose my feeble imitation of life instead"
<snip>
> > > It does not square with other remarks within
> > > the books.
> >
> > the only other time it is talked about in the books, as i recall, is
> > when harry talks to Nearly-headless Nick in OftP. There he doesn't
> > contradict the notion so I am not sure which remarks you think it
> > doesn't sqaure with.
>
> Well, "I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the
> meanest ghost, but still I was alive". Implies that his tattered soul
> fragment had LESS to it than a ghost would.
He is talking subjectively about an experience he loathed, he
concidered it less than being a spirit, ghost. Thinking about it
though, in appearances LV in spirit form was certainly less than a
ghost, ghosts resemble themselves but LV during PS-PoV didn't. Ghosts
don't appear to have any magical ability whereas LV did retain some
ability (he just couldn't ultilise it much apart from when he possesed
something) so in that he was more than a ghost. But the point is LV was
still /alive/, ghosts aren't -the difference being LV still had his
soul (though maimed) and ghosts don't.
> Sluggie talks about how
> "existence in such a form, few would want it" and he shudders. Nobody
> speaks of ghosts with such horror.
I would venture he had that reaction because, "the soul is supposed to
remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is
against nature". And remember the things LV had to do survive whilst in
that form, mentioned in PS? possess small animals and drink unicorn's
blood?
> Because, I would deduce, they are
> the full soul of the person, albeit trapped on this side of the veil.
doesn't that contradict with Snape's "imprint of a departed soul"?
ghosts can't be the full soul of a person and the imprint of one at the
same time.
> DD says that without the 7th fragment of soul that still resides in
> LV's body, he would not have any self at all.
> That suggests that the
> soul and the self are one, that loss of soul is loss of self. If we
This is backed up by what happens to a person after a Dementers Kiss.
> assume that the Nick we know is the real Nick (and so he seems to be)
> then that would mean it is Nick's soul.
But upon death if a wizard chooses to stay as a ghost, an imprint of
their soul is created, so their person does not stay behind but an
/imprint/ of the person does.
--
Jane Grey
Karnak17
"_I_ chose my feeble imitation of life." In short, that it is the
real Nick that we are talking to. He is not just a "portrait". There
is nothing tragic about portraits, the originals of the portraits are
not assumed to be "neither here nor there", to have passed up the "last
great adventure". We don't see them bemoaning their fate, and wishing
that they had never been painted. The Dumbledore in the portrait is
not the real Dumbledore. HE is dead.
> <snip>
> > > > It does not square with other remarks within
> > > > the books.
> > >
> > > the only other time it is talked about in the books, as i recall, is
> > > when harry talks to Nearly-headless Nick in OftP. There he doesn't
> > > contradict the notion so I am not sure which remarks you think it
> > > doesn't sqaure with.
> >
> > Well, "I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the
> > meanest ghost, but still I was alive". Implies that his tattered soul
> > fragment had LESS to it than a ghost would.
>
> He is talking subjectively about an experience he loathed, he
> concidered it less than being a spirit, ghost. Thinking about it
> though, in appearances LV in spirit form was certainly less than a
> ghost, ghosts resemble themselves but LV during PS-PoV didn't. Ghosts
> don't appear to have any magical ability whereas LV did retain some
> ability (he just couldn't ultilise it much apart from when he possesed
> something) so in that he was more than a ghost. But the point is LV was
> still /alive/, ghosts aren't -the difference being LV still had his
> soul (though maimed) and ghosts don't.
Ghost's have no power, it is true. Nick needs to talk Peeves into
doing anything he wants done, such as wrecking the Vanishing Cabinet.
But there is no evidence that a SOUL creates the difference between
being able to pick up a Vanishing Cabinet or not, or cast a spell or
not. By contrast, it is possession of a BODY which makes for this
difference.
"I was as powerless as the weakest createure alive, and without the
means to help myself . . . for I had no body, and every spell that
might have helped me required the use of a wand . . . . Only one power
remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others. I sometimes
inhabited animals --- snakes, of course, being my preference -- but I
was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies
were ill adapted to perform magic."
> > Sluggie talks about how
> > "existence in such a form, few would want it" and he shudders. Nobody
> > speaks of ghosts with such horror.
>
> I would venture he had that reaction because, "the soul is supposed to
> remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is
> against nature". And remember the things LV had to do survive whilst in
> that form, mentioned in PS? possess small animals and drink unicorn's
> blood?
>
> > Because, I would deduce, they are
> > the full soul of the person, albeit trapped on this side of the veil.
>
> doesn't that contradict with Snape's "imprint of a departed soul"?
> ghosts can't be the full soul of a person and the imprint of one at the
> same time.
Well, that is certainly a point. But if ghosts are not the soul at
all, then they are not the person at all, and are no different from
portraits.
> > DD says that without the 7th fragment of soul that still resides in
> > LV's body, he would not have any self at all.
> > That suggests that the
> > soul and the self are one, that loss of soul is loss of self. If we
>
> This is backed up by what happens to a person after a Dementers Kiss.
>
> > assume that the Nick we know is the real Nick (and so he seems to be)
> > then that would mean it is Nick's soul.
>
> But upon death if a wizard chooses to stay as a ghost, an imprint of
> their soul is created, so their person does not stay behind but an
> /imprint/ of the person does.
Like a portrait. But that would mean there is nothing tragic about
Nick at all. He didn't REALLY choose to stay behind, this is just some
unreal duplicate. The real Nick went on into death. When he speaks of
Sirius making the more courageous choice, he is speaking meaninglessly.
Sirius would have gone anyway, and the only issue is whether or not he
would have left behind a floating portrait, like that of Dumbledore.
All that makes sense in light of Snape's line, but no sense at all in
the context of the story and characters. If Nick isn't Nick, but just
a duplicate, then what was the point of the entire conversation -- or
indeed, of the real Nick creating this sad duplicate in the first place
before departing?
Jane Grey
<snip>
> "_I_ chose my feeble imitation of life." In short, that it is the
> real Nick that we are talking to. He is not just a "portrait". There
> is nothing tragic about portraits, the originals of the portraits are
> not assumed to be "neither here nor there", to have passed up the "last
> great adventure". We don't see them bemoaning their fate, and wishing
> that they had never been painted. The Dumbledore in the portrait is
> not the real Dumbledore. HE is dead.
JKR has said in interview that a portrait is the memories/character of
a person not the person themselves.
sounds to me LV had magical power in his spirit-form, but he was unable
to ultilise it without a body; "I sometimes inhabited animals ...but
was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies
were ill adapted to perform magic"
> > > Sluggie talks about how
> > > "existence in such a form, few would want it" and he shudders. Nobody
> > > speaks of ghosts with such horror.
> >
> > I would venture he had that reaction because, "the soul is supposed to
> > remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is
> > against nature". And remember the things LV had to do survive whilst in
> > that form, mentioned in PS? possess small animals and drink unicorn's
> > blood?
> >
> > > Because, I would deduce, they are
> > > the full soul of the person, albeit trapped on this side of the veil.
> >
> > doesn't that contradict with Snape's "imprint of a departed soul"?
> > ghosts can't be the full soul of a person and the imprint of one at the
> > same time.
>
> Well, that is certainly a point. But if ghosts are not the soul at
> all, then they are not the person at all, and are no different from
> portraits.
what if there is more to a person than the soul (let's call it a
lifeforce). The lifeforce could always be with the soul expect if the
wizard decides to stay upon death in which case an imprint of the soul
is made and the lifeforce gets transfered to it. The real soul goes
beyond the veil, but the person is now the imprint of the soul and
stays on 'this side' of the veil.
--
Jane Grey
Karnak17
Jane Grey wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
> <snip>
> > "_I_ chose my feeble imitation of life." In short, that it is the
> > real Nick that we are talking to. He is not just a "portrait". There
> > is nothing tragic about portraits, the originals of the portraits are
> > not assumed to be "neither here nor there", to have passed up the "last
> > great adventure". We don't see them bemoaning their fate, and wishing
> > that they had never been painted. The Dumbledore in the portrait is
> > not the real Dumbledore. HE is dead.
>
> JKR has said in interview that a portrait is the memories/character of
> a person not the person themselves.
Yes.
> > > <snip>
Yes. The power to inhabit other beings.
>but he was unable
> to ultilise it without a body;
Exactly my point.
<snip>
> > > doesn't that contradict with Snape's "imprint of a departed soul"?
> > > ghosts can't be the full soul of a person and the imprint of one at the
> > > same time.
> >
> > Well, that is certainly a point. But if ghosts are not the soul at
> > all, then they are not the person at all, and are no different from
> > portraits.
>
> what if there is more to a person than the soul (let's call it a
> lifeforce). The lifeforce could always be with the soul expect if the
> wizard decides to stay upon death in which case an imprint of the soul
> is made and the lifeforce gets transfered to it. The real soul goes
> beyond the veil, but the person is now the imprint of the soul and
> stays on 'this side' of the veil.
That means the "real soul" is not, in fact, the real person. Which
makes NO sense to me.
Obviously a ghost is SOMETHING. We can call it a lifeforce plus an
imprint/copy of a soul if we like, but all that means is that it is
some remnants of human energy animated by a COPY of the person.
Whatever words we play around with, it is either Nick or not. If no
soul, then not.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>> Karnak17 wrote:
>>> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>>> Karnak17 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN
>>>>> made it a Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained
>>>>> these important memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
>>>>> So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when
>>>>> Tom confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
>>>>> Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
>>>>> incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously
>>>>> from the Riddle murders.
>>>>
>>>> Those happened after, actually, between his sixth and seventh
>>>> year of school.
>>>
>>> ???????
>>> They happened "the summer of his sixteenth year". That means the
>>> summer he was fifteen years old.
>>
>> Odd.. the summer of my 16th year, I was sixteen...
>
> I don't know about YOU. But Tom was born on New Years, in Winter.
I was born in April. So, before summer at any rate.
> In the summer of his FIRST year of life (ending, of course, with
> his first birthday) he would therefore have been six months old.
> The summer of his second year, he would be 1 year 6 months. The
> summer of his third year, 2-and-a-half.
But do people really think like that, once they get to be a certain age?
Did you honestly consider the summer BEFORE you turned 16, "the summer of
your 16th year"?
> The summer of his sixteenth year, therefore, he was fifteen and a
> half years old.
> If he started Hogwarts Year One at age eleven and graduated Year
> Seven at 18, then he began Year Five at age fifteen.
> Therefore he went straight from the Riddle Murders to his Fifth
> Year at at Hogwarts.
> I don't know where you get between sixth and seventh year from.
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_voldemort.html
1944
Summer. Tom murders his grandparents and father in their home in Little
Hangleton (GF1).
September. Begins his seventh year at Hogwarts. Tom is Prefect, Head Boy,
and receives a Medal for Magical Merit.
Also, in GoF, it says that the Riddles' deaths were stated to have taken
place 50 years before the event in the book--making it 1944 (since the book
starts in 1994, and this statement is near the beginning of the book).
Oddly, they're (the Web Site above) now talking about a revised timeline
(based on the info in HBP) that indeed puts the murders in between his
fourth and fifth years at Hogwarts.
Well, that's bloody confusing. Frankly, I wish Jo would get someone who
knows math to go over her books at fix these things. If you don't mean "50
year ago", you need to put "about 50 years" or something... ~_~
> I have never even heard that theory before.
Really? I sure have. I imagine up until HPB, it was pretty common to
assume that they happened then, seeing as that's what GoF implies.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Jane Grey
<snip>
> > > "I was as powerless as the weakest createure alive, and without the
> > > means to help myself . . . for I had no body, and every spell that
> > > might have helped me required the use of a wand . . . . Only one power
> > > remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others. I sometimes
> > > inhabited animals --- snakes, of course, being my preference -- but I
> > > was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies
> > > were ill adapted to perform magic."
> >
> > sounds to me LV had magical power in his spirit-form,
>
> Yes. The power to inhabit other beings.
No, it sounds like LV had all his powers in spirit form but without a
body he is unable to use those powers except the ability to possess,
but he was little better off possessing than as pure spirit, because
the bodies of the animals he possessed were ill adapted to perform
magic.
> >but he was unable
> > to ultilise it without a body;
>
> Exactly my point.
so if ghosts don't have magic and if magic resides in the soul then it
follows that ghosts are not souls.
> <snip>
> > > > doesn't that contradict with Snape's "imprint of a departed soul"?
> > > > ghosts can't be the full soul of a person and the imprint of one at the
> > > > same time.
> > >
> > > Well, that is certainly a point. But if ghosts are not the soul at
> > > all, then they are not the person at all, and are no different from
> > > portraits.
> >
> > what if there is more to a person than the soul (let's call it a
> > lifeforce). The lifeforce could always be with the soul expect if the
> > wizard decides to stay upon death in which case an imprint of the soul
> > is made and the lifeforce gets transfered to it. The real soul goes
> > beyond the veil, but the person is now the imprint of the soul and
> > stays on 'this side' of the veil.
>
> That means the "real soul" is not, in fact, the real person. Which
> makes NO sense to me.
perphaps you are taking the importance you place in a soul with you
when you read the HP books but IMO JKR has not given us the impression
that a soul is essentially the person. it is just another part of a
person, like their memories, their mind, their body. to me it sounds
like in the potterverse:-
memories + soul (with magic) + lifeforce + human body = human wizard
memories + soul (without magic) + lifeforce + human body = human muggle
memories + soul (with magic) + (veela?) lifeforce + veela body = a
veela
memories + soul (with magic) + lifeforce = spirit wizard, like LV was
after AK rebounded on him
memories + soul fragment(with magic) = such a thing like the Diary
memories = such a thing like portraits
memories + imprint of soul + lifeforce = ghosts
> Obviously a ghost is SOMETHING. We can call it a lifeforce plus an
> imprint/copy of a soul if we like, but all that means is that it is
> some remnants of human energy animated by a COPY of the person.
> Whatever words we play around with, it is either Nick or not. If no
> soul, then not.
but you are assuming here that the soul is, essentially, the person. In
other fictions and some religious beliefs this may be the case but in
the potterverse this is not the impression i get. E.g. although the
TomRiddle in the Diary had LV's soul fragment and memories (up until he
was 16) he needed to suck Ginny's lifeforce before he could become
independant of the diary because the real LV had the LV-lifeforce. So
it seems the lifeforce is an essential part of independant existence,
whether that be as wizard, ghost or spirit form.
--
Jane Grey
Karnak17
Jane Grey wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > "I was as powerless as the weakest createure alive, and without the
> > > > means to help myself . . . for I had no body, and every spell that
> > > > might have helped me required the use of a wand . . . . Only one power
> > > > remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others. I sometimes
> > > > inhabited animals --- snakes, of course, being my preference -- but I
> > > > was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies
> > > > were ill adapted to perform magic."
> > >
> > > sounds to me LV had magical power in his spirit-form,
> >
> > Yes. The power to inhabit other beings.
>
> No, it sounds like LV had all his powers in spirit form but without a
> body he is unable to use those powers except the ability to possess,
> but he was little better off possessing than as pure spirit, because
> the bodies of the animals he possessed were ill adapted to perform
> magic.
<sigh>
Look. We are trying to isolote the difference between Voldemort and
Ghosts. You claim that he has powers because he is a soul, and they
aren't. HOWEVER, he has no powers THAT HE CAN USE exept the power to
possess physical beings. Only within a wizard body can he use his
magical powers.
You can argue, if you like, that he already HAS all his magic powers,
but just cannot use them, in his soul fragment form. That is a rather
pointless distinction from "has no powers unless he possesses a body"
to my mind, but I will grant it to you.
The point is that Voldemort is IN PRACTICE magically powerless without
a body. If you assume that ghosts are powerless because they have no
souls, you are fanwanking something in COMPLETE abscence of ANY
evidence. They are, for all we know, exactly as powerless as Voldemort
and for the same reasons -- because they lack bodies.
The only MEANINGFUL and REAL distinctions between Voldemort and Ghosts
which have been revealed SO FAR is that
1) Ghosts have insubstantial form
2) We have never seen or heard of a ghost possessing anybody as of yet.
If you are speculating that a ghost would fail to possess magical
abilities even IF he possessed a wizards body, that would certainly be
a difference between LV and ghosts. But it is not likely, in my mind,
to have much to do with the soul. You can lose your powers and keep
your soul, I am sure. Merope managed it.
> > >but he was unable
> > > to ultilise it without a body;
> >
> > Exactly my point.
>
> so if ghosts don't have magic and if magic resides in the soul then it
> follows that ghosts are not souls.
"If magic resides in the soul" is a big IF. And by that reasoning,
MUGGLES would NOT HAVE SOULS, you realize.
> > <snip>
> > > > > doesn't that contradict with Snape's "imprint of a departed soul"?
> > > > > ghosts can't be the full soul of a person and the imprint of one at the
> > > > > same time.
> > > >
> > > > Well, that is certainly a point. But if ghosts are not the soul at
> > > > all, then they are not the person at all, and are no different from
> > > > portraits.
> > >
> > > what if there is more to a person than the soul (let's call it a
> > > lifeforce). The lifeforce could always be with the soul expect if the
> > > wizard decides to stay upon death in which case an imprint of the soul
> > > is made and the lifeforce gets transfered to it. The real soul goes
> > > beyond the veil, but the person is now the imprint of the soul and
> > > stays on 'this side' of the veil.
> >
> > That means the "real soul" is not, in fact, the real person. Which
> > makes NO sense to me.
>
> perphaps you are taking the importance you place in a soul with you
> when you read the HP books but IMO JKR has not given us the impression
> that a soul is essentially the person. it is just another part of a
> person, like their memories, their mind, their body. to me it sounds
> like in the potterverse:-
Rowling has made it perfectly clear that it is the essential part of
the person, and we have already BROUGHT UP THE EVIDENCE of this earlier
in the thread. The fact that without the 7th part of his soul LV would
have "no self at all". The fate of dementor victims, etc.
> memories + soul (with magic) + lifeforce + human body = human wizard
> memories + soul (without magic) + lifeforce + human body = human muggle
> memories + soul (with magic) + (veela?) lifeforce + veela body = a
> veela
> memories + soul (with magic) + lifeforce = spirit wizard, like LV was
> after AK rebounded on him
> memories + soul fragment(with magic) = such a thing like the Diary
> memories = such a thing like portraits
> memories + imprint of soul + lifeforce = ghosts
>
> > Obviously a ghost is SOMETHING. We can call it a lifeforce plus an
> > imprint/copy of a soul if we like, but all that means is that it is
> > some remnants of human energy animated by a COPY of the person.
> > Whatever words we play around with, it is either Nick or not. If no
> > soul, then not.
>
> but you are assuming here that the soul is, essentially, the person.
As indicated by the text. Yes.
Karnak17
Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
>
> > Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> >> Karnak17 wrote:
> >>> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> >>>> Karnak17 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Tom put his "sixteen year old self" into the Diary, and THEN
> >>>>> made it a Horcrux. Naturally. Only after the book contained
> >>>>> these important memories was it worthy to become a Horcrux.
> >>>>> So why does Harry note an "odd red gleam" in Tom's eyes, when
> >>>>> Tom confronts him in the Chamber of Secrets?
> >>>>> Clearly, the 16-year-old Tom who made the Diary was ALREADY an
> >>>>> incomplete soul. He had already made Horcruxes -- obviously
> >>>>> from the Riddle murders.
> >>>>
> >>>> Those happened after, actually, between his sixth and seventh
> >>>> year of school.
> >>>
> >>> ???????
> >>> They happened "the summer of his sixteenth year". That means the
> >>> summer he was fifteen years old.
> >>
> >> Odd.. the summer of my 16th year, I was sixteen...
> >
> > I don't know about YOU. But Tom was born on New Years, in Winter.
>
> I was born in April. So, before summer at any rate.
So. You were not sixteen.
> > In the summer of his FIRST year of life (ending, of course, with
> > his first birthday) he would therefore have been six months old.
> > The summer of his second year, he would be 1 year 6 months. The
> > summer of his third year, 2-and-a-half.
>
> But do people really think like that, once they get to be a certain age?
> Did you honestly consider the summer BEFORE you turned 16, "the summer of
> your 16th year"?
That is what the phrase means. I really don't know what else to tell
you. You don't have a problem placing the 20th Century BEFORE the year
2000, do you?
> > The summer of his sixteenth year, therefore, he was fifteen and a
> > half years old.
> > If he started Hogwarts Year One at age eleven and graduated Year
> > Seven at 18, then he began Year Five at age fifteen.
> > Therefore he went straight from the Riddle Murders to his Fifth
> > Year at at Hogwarts.
> > I don't know where you get between sixth and seventh year from.
>
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_voldemort.html
> 1944
> Summer. Tom murders his grandparents and father in their home in Little
> Hangleton (GF1).
> September. Begins his seventh year at Hogwarts. Tom is Prefect, Head Boy,
> and receives a Medal for Magical Merit.
>
> Also, in GoF, it says that the Riddles' deaths were stated to have taken
> place 50 years before the event in the book--making it 1944 (since the book
> starts in 1994, and this statement is near the beginning of the book).
> Oddly, they're (the Web Site above) now talking about a revised timeline
> (based on the info in HBP) that indeed puts the murders in between his
> fourth and fifth years at Hogwarts.
Well, that is the only time that it could be, based on HBP.
> Well, that's bloody confusing. Frankly, I wish Jo would get someone who
> knows math to go over her books at fix these things. If you don't mean "50
> year ago", you need to put "about 50 years" or something... ~_~
"Half a century ago" is not a phrase I ever personally interpreted as
HAVING to mean "50 years exactly". And "fifty years ago" is how
Rowling describes all the STORIES about the Riddle House starting out
-- so it doesn't have the implication of precision either.
She has, at any rate, given us very precise information in Book 6.
Even if you interpret DD's words to mean that Tom was sixteen, that
still places it before his 6th Year, not his 7th.
> > I have never even heard that theory before.
>
> Really? I sure have. I imagine up until HPB, it was pretty common to
> assume that they happened then, seeing as that's what GoF implies.
Well, okay. I meant I haven't heard it since HPB came out.
Jane Grey
> Jane Grey wrote:
> > Karnak17 wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > "I was as powerless as the weakest createure alive, and without the
> > > > > means to help myself . . . for I had no body, and every spell that
> > > > > might have helped me required the use of a wand . . . . Only one power
> > > > > remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others. I sometimes
> > > > > inhabited animals --- snakes, of course, being my preference -- but I
> > > > > was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies
> > > > > were ill adapted to perform magic."
> > > >
> > > > sounds to me LV had magical power in his spirit-form,
> > >
> > > Yes. The power to inhabit other beings.
> >
> > No, it sounds like LV had all his powers in spirit form but without a
> > body he is unable to use those powers except the ability to possess,
> > but he was little better off possessing than as pure spirit, because
> > the bodies of the animals he possessed were ill adapted to perform
> > magic.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Look. We are trying to isolote the difference between Voldemort and
> Ghosts. You claim that he has powers because he is a soul, and they
> aren't. HOWEVER, he has no powers THAT HE CAN USE exept the power to
> possess physical beings. Only within a wizard body can he use his
> magical powers.
he was able to use his powers in the rudimentary body that wormtail
helped him into before his 2nd coming, so it is not the case that he
needed a wizard body, it is more the case that he needed any body which
was adapted to casting spells. animals in the forests of Albania
weren't but that weird ugly baby body was.
> You can argue, if you like, that he already HAS all his magic powers,
> but just cannot use them, in his soul fragment form. That is a rather
> pointless distinction from "has no powers unless he possesses a body"
> to my mind, but I will grant it to you.
it makes all the difference because it demostrates that without the
soul (or a soul fragment) magic cannot be cast.
> The point is that Voldemort is IN PRACTICE magically powerless without
> a body.
true
> If you assume that ghosts are powerless because they have no
> souls, you are fanwanking something in COMPLETE abscence of ANY
> evidence. They are, for all we know, exactly as powerless as Voldemort
> and for the same reasons -- because they lack bodies.
but then you could assume that they can possess students and teachers
like LV did to Quirrel. Only they never have.
> The only MEANINGFUL and REAL distinctions between Voldemort and Ghosts
> which have been revealed SO FAR is that
>
> 1) Ghosts have insubstantial form
> 2) We have never seen or heard of a ghost possessing anybody as of yet.
yes exactly, so it seems that while LV had magical powers but was
unable to use them in this spirit form, ghosts do not have any powers
at all.
> If you are speculating that a ghost would fail to possess magical
> abilities even IF he possessed a wizards body, that would certainly be
> a difference between LV and ghosts.
that is what i am proposing
> But it is not likely, in my mind,
> to have much to do with the soul. You can lose your powers and keep
> your soul, I am sure.
what makes you so sure? there is anything in the books to suggest this.
to the contray DD seems to attribute much of TomRiddletheDiary abilties
to his being a fragment of a soul;
"Four years ago, I received what I considered certain proof that
Voldemort had split his soul."
"Where?" asked Harry. "How?"
"You handed it to me, Harry," said Dumbledore. "The diary, Riddles
diary, the one giving instructions on how to reopen the Chamber of
Secrets."
"I don't understand, sir," said Harry.
"Well, although I did not see the Riddle who came out of the
diary, what you described to me was a phenomenon I had never
witnessed. A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere
memory, sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had
fallen? No, something much more sinister had lived inside that book.
... a fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it. ...<snipped>.. there
could be no doubt that Riddle really wanted that diary read, wanted the
piece of his soul to inhabit or possess somebody else, so that
Slytherin's monster would be unleashed again."
so TomRiddleDiary had the ability to unleash the Slytherin monster
(that ability being the magical power of parseltongue) because he was a
horcrux i.e. a fragment of a soul
also note that whilst this soul fragment needed to possess Ginny before
it could use his powers to get into the chamber, it was using HIS
powers and not hers (for she can't parseltongue) that was being used.
Ginny's body was just the vessel, not the source of the powers. the
soul fragment itself was the source of the powers. this is important to
note because it shows that if ghosts are completely lacking in powers
as they seem to be, it means that they do not have souls (because the
diary is an example that shows that magical ability resides in the soul
or a fragment of it)
> Merope managed it.
Merope never lost her powers. Her inabilty to do magic well in the
presence of her scolding father was physlogical, as indicated when
Dumbledore said "that Merope was a witch. I do not believe that her
magical powers appeared to their best advantage when she was being
terrorized by her father. Once Marvolo and Morfin were safely in
Azkaban, once she was alone and free for the first time in her life,
then, I am sure, she was able to give full rein to her abilities and to
plot her escape from the desperate life she had led for eighteen
years."
> > > >but he was unable
> > > > to ultilise it without a body;
> > >
> > > Exactly my point.
> >
> > so if ghosts don't have magic and if magic resides in the soul then it
> > follows that ghosts are not souls.
>
> "If magic resides in the soul" is a big IF. And by that reasoning,
> MUGGLES would NOT HAVE SOULS, you realize.
no, because I am not saying souls without magic can't exist. I am
suggesting that wizards souls are different to muggle souls in that
they have the ability to do magic. DD's deductions that the diary had
to have been a horcrux after hearing how it was able to unleash the
monster implie that a mere memory could not speak parseltongue but the
addition of a soul fragment allowed it to.
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > doesn't that contradict with Snape's "imprint of a departed soul"?
> > > > > > ghosts can't be the full soul of a person and the imprint of one at the
> > > > > > same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, that is certainly a point. But if ghosts are not the soul at
> > > > > all, then they are not the person at all, and are no different from
> > > > > portraits.
> > > >
> > > > what if there is more to a person than the soul (let's call it a
> > > > lifeforce). The lifeforce could always be with the soul expect if the
> > > > wizard decides to stay upon death in which case an imprint of the soul
> > > > is made and the lifeforce gets transfered to it. The real soul goes
> > > > beyond the veil, but the person is now the imprint of the soul and
> > > > stays on 'this side' of the veil.
> > >
> > > That means the "real soul" is not, in fact, the real person. Which
> > > makes NO sense to me.
> >
> > perphaps you are taking the importance you place in a soul with you
> > when you read the HP books but IMO JKR has not given us the impression
> > that a soul is essentially the person. it is just another part of a
> > person, like their memories, their mind, their body. to me it sounds
> > like in the potterverse:-
>
> Rowling has made it perfectly clear that it is the essential part of
> the person, and we have already BROUGHT UP THE EVIDENCE of this earlier
> in the thread. The fact that without the 7th part of his soul LV would
> have "no self at all".
that could be because the soul usually houses memories but memories
must be a separatable thing in themselves if it is possible to create
talking portraits. However parents of squib children don't copy their
powers into their children so powers aren't separatable from the
soul/soul fragment. The exception to the "the soul usually houses
memories" notion could be when, upon death, a wizard choses to stay
behind, in which case an imprint of their soul is made to house the
memories and thus the wizard becomes a paler/shadow/insubstantial
version of the person they used to be (while their soul, which they no
longer inhabit goes on)
> The fate of dementor victims, etc.
in this case the memories/lifeforce and anything else that might be
housed by the soul would get sucked into the Dementer with the soul.
Whereas upon death, these things are preserved in the imprint of the
soul that is created (if the wizard choses to stay).
> > memories + soul (with magic) + lifeforce + human body = human wizard
> > memories + soul (without magic) + lifeforce + human body = human muggle
> > memories + soul (with magic) + (veela?) lifeforce + veela body = a
> > veela
> > memories + soul (with magic) + lifeforce = spirit wizard, like LV was
> > after AK rebounded on him
> > memories + soul fragment(with magic) = such a thing like the Diary
> > memories = such a thing like portraits
> > memories + imprint of soul + lifeforce = ghosts
> >
> > > Obviously a ghost is SOMETHING. We can call it a lifeforce plus an
> > > imprint/copy of a soul if we like, but all that means is that it is
> > > some remnants of human energy animated by a COPY of the person.
> > > Whatever words we play around with, it is either Nick or not. If no
> > > soul, then not.
> >
> > but you are assuming here that the soul is, essentially, the person.
>
> As indicated by the text. Yes.
not quite.
--
Jane Grey
Karnak17
Jane Grey wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
> > Jane Grey wrote:
> > > Karnak17 wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > > > "I was as powerless as the weakest createure alive, and without the
> > > > > > means to help myself . . . for I had no body, and every spell that
> > > > > > might have helped me required the use of a wand . . . . Only one power
> > > > > > remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others. I sometimes
> > > > > > inhabited animals --- snakes, of course, being my preference -- but I
> > > > > > was little better off inside them than as pure spirit, for their bodies
> > > > > > were ill adapted to perform magic."
<snip>
> > You can argue, if you like, that he already HAS all his magic powers,
> > but just cannot use them, in his soul fragment form. That is a rather
> > pointless distinction from "has no powers unless he possesses a body"
> > to my mind, but I will grant it to you.
>
> it makes all the difference because it demostrates that without the
> soul (or a soul fragment) magic cannot be cast.
You know what that translates into? Magic can only be cast by a
PERSON. Well, duh! I never argued with THAT, I'm sure.
The point is the person (soul, soul fragment) needs a BODY to do the
MAGIC. THAT is the point under discussion. If something doesn't have
a BODY and cannot do MAGIC, therefore, it is the height of illogic and
circular reasoning to try to claim their lack of magical ability proves
they have no SOUL, since you already KNOW that whether they had a soul
or NOT, they would NEED A BODY to do magic.
Okay??????
<snip>
> > If you assume that ghosts are powerless because they have no
> > souls, you are fanwanking something in COMPLETE abscence of ANY
> > evidence. They are, for all we know, exactly as powerless as Voldemort
> > and for the same reasons -- because they lack bodies.
>
> but then you could assume that they can possess students and teachers
> like LV did to Quirrel. Only they never have.
To our knowledge. Something tells me it would be frowned on by
Hogwarts authorities. And unlike Muggle ghosts, they have no need to
possess people, since they can talk to them directly. FANWANK ALERT --
if muggles can't see Dementors, it might be they cannot see ghosts
either, and that would be why ghosts occassionally possess particularly
sensitive Muggles in order to communicate. FANWANK TERMINATED.
<snip>
> > If you are speculating that a ghost would fail to possess magical
> > abilities even IF he possessed a wizards body, that would certainly be
> > a difference between LV and ghosts.
>
> that is what i am proposing
Yes, that is your speculation. I think it is a possibility. But let's
keep it distinct from what the evidence has established.
> > But it is not likely, in my mind,
> > to have much to do with the soul. You can lose your powers and keep
> > your soul, I am sure.
>
> what makes you so sure? there is anything in the books to suggest this.
> to the contray DD seems to attribute much of TomRiddletheDiary abilties
> to his being a fragment of a soul;
> "Four years ago, I received what I considered certain proof that
> Voldemort had split his soul."
<snip>
> "Well, although I did not see the Riddle who came out of the
> diary, what you described to me was a phenomenon I had never
> witnessed. A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere
> memory, sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had
> fallen? No, something much more sinister had lived inside that book.
> ... a fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it. ...<snipped>.. there
> could be no doubt that Riddle really wanted that diary read, wanted the
> piece of his soul to inhabit or possess somebody else, so that
> Slytherin's monster would be unleashed again."
>
> so TomRiddleDiary had the ability to unleash the Slytherin monster
> (that ability being the magical power of parseltongue) because he was a
> horcrux i.e. a fragment of a soul
>
> also note that whilst this soul fragment needed to possess Ginny before
> it could use his powers to get into the chamber, it was using HIS
> powers and not hers (for she can't parseltongue) that was being used.
> Ginny's body was just the vessel, not the source of the powers. the
> soul fragment itself was the source of the powers. this is important to
> note because it shows that if ghosts are completely lacking in powers
> as they seem to be, it means that they do not have souls (because the
> diary is an example that shows that magical ability resides in the soul
> or a fragment of it)
It is true that Ginny did possess LV's unique power, as well as his
memories and knowledge. Now, if Harry was a Horcrux, and THAT is why
HE can speak Parseltongue, then that makes even more of a case that
unique magical abiltiy is transferred with the soul fragment -- even
without memories.
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > what if there is more to a person than the soul (let's call it a
> > > > > lifeforce). The lifeforce could always be with the soul expect if the
> > > > > wizard decides to stay upon death in which case an imprint of the soul
> > > > > is made and the lifeforce gets transfered to it. The real soul goes
> > > > > beyond the veil, but the person is now the imprint of the soul and
> > > > > stays on 'this side' of the veil.
> > > >
> > > > That means the "real soul" is not, in fact, the real person. Which
> > > > makes NO sense to me.
> > >
> > > perphaps you are taking the importance you place in a soul with you
> > > when you read the HP books but IMO JKR has not given us the impression
> > > that a soul is essentially the person. it is just another part of a
> > > person, like their memories, their mind, their body. to me it sounds
> > > like in the potterverse:-
> >
> > Rowling has made it perfectly clear that it is the essential part of
> > the person, and we have already BROUGHT UP THE EVIDENCE of this earlier
> > in the thread. The fact that without the 7th part of his soul LV would
> > have "no self at all".
>
> that could be because the soul usually houses memories but memories
> must be a separatable thing in themselves if it is possible to create
> talking portraits. However parents of squib children don't copy their
> powers into their children so powers aren't separatable from the
> soul/soul fragment.
No soul, no self. That is what DD said. That is what Lupin said. I'm
going to take them at their word. The fact that Squibs don't get power
transplants from mom and dad is nothing compared to bald and clear
statements from major characters on the nature of the soul and the
self. I like fanwanking just fine, but not when it goes directly
counter to the plainly stated evidence of the books.
> > The fate of dementor victims, etc.
>
> in this case the memories/lifeforce and anything else that might be
> housed by the soul would get sucked into the Dementer with the soul.
> Whereas upon death, these things are preserved in the imprint of the
> soul that is created (if the wizard choses to stay).
Then why, when people talk of how UTTERLY HORRIBLE dementors are, do
they talk about this "soul" thing, which is so darn UNIMPORTANT that
you can send it winging off to the afterlife with no detriment to
yourself other than the loss of the purely hypothetical ability to do
magical powers IF you had a body?
If what is so horrifying is the loss of your most essential "self", why
is this loss of "self" always referred to -- by Lupin and Dumbledore --
with the word "SOUL". Why don't they use "lifeforce" if THAT is the
part that is important, and represents the REAL SELF in this reality.
I am perfectly willing to belive that unique magical abilites are bound
up in the soul to a stronger extent than memories are. But that
doesn't rule out being able to LOSE your magical powers without losing
your soul. Ghosts could simply use up all their magic through the
effort of staying on this reality.
And if we ASSUME that ghosts lack both "potential" magical powers and
souls, then they are NOT the REAL PEOPLE.
tramp
okay you are missing my point, let me try an analogy; the difference
from my having the ability to play cricket (on the batting team) and
being able to play cricket is a cricket bat. If I am standing there
without a bat then I can't play cricket though I still have the ability
to. Similarly the difference between spirit!LV and ghosts is that LV
has the ABILITY to do magic and ghosts don't. I am not assuming
anything at this point (or fanwanking as you put it), LV said himself
that while he had the ability to perform magic he could not possess
anybody that was adapted to be the vessel of magic. And as we observed
of ghosts, they do not have the ability to perform magic at all.
> <snip>
> > > If you assume that ghosts are powerless because they have no
> > > souls, you are fanwanking something in COMPLETE abscence of ANY
> > > evidence. They are, for all we know, exactly as powerless as Voldemort
> > > and for the same reasons -- because they lack bodies.
> >
> > but then you could assume that they can possess students and teachers
> > like LV did to Quirrel. Only they never have.
>
> To our knowledge. Something tells me it would be frowned on by
> Hogwarts authorities.
but you'd think that might not stop someone like the bloody baron from
giving it a go just to feel what eating etc is like again. but there
have been no mention of ghost possession in any of the books. not even
a passing mention of how some students are wary of ghosts because they
don't want to be possessed. IMO JKR never intended for ghosts to be
able to possess anybody or interect with anything in the mortal world
physically.
<snip>
<snip>
> > that could be because the soul usually houses memories but memories
> > must be a separatable thing in themselves if it is possible to create
> > talking portraits. However parents of squib children don't copy their
> > powers into their children so powers aren't separatable from the
> > soul/soul fragment.
>
> No soul, no self. That is what DD said. That is what Lupin said. I'm
> going to take them at their word. <snip>
This is certainly true during life but upon death there is evidence to
show that you can have self without soul. Concider these evidences from
the books:-
1. Ghosts have never demostrated any magical ability.
2. There is evidence from when LV was in spirit form and from the diary
that magical ability seems to reside in the soul.
3. Snape said ghosts are imprints of /departed/ souls,
4. Nick said, `I chose to remain behind.... I know nothing of the
secrets of death"
> > > The fate of dementor victims, etc.
> >
> > in this case the memories/lifeforce and anything else that might be
> > housed by the soul would get sucked into the Dementer with the soul.
> > Whereas upon death, these things are preserved in the imprint of the
> > soul that is created (if the wizard choses to stay).
>
> Then why, when people talk of how UTTERLY HORRIBLE dementors are, do
> they talk about this "soul" thing, which is so darn UNIMPORTANT that
> you can send it winging off to the afterlife with no detriment to
> yourself other than the loss of the purely hypothetical ability to do
> magical powers IF you had a body?
But there are detriments to staying behind in the imprint of your soul
because the imprint is not as good as the real thing. the imprint
hasn't got the ability to do magic nor is it substantial (imprints
can't interact with anything physically). I am not saying souls are
unimportant, only that ghosts are imprints of souls, not the soul
itself.
> If what is so horrifying is the loss of your most essential "self", why
> is this loss of "self" always referred to -- by Lupin and Dumbledore --
> with the word "SOUL". Why don't they use "lifeforce" if THAT is the
> part that is important, and represents the REAL SELF in this reality.
because upon death you have lost yourself to the mortal world and the
rules change. you can stay behind as an imprint of your self or you can
go on.
> I am perfectly willing to belive that unique magical abilites are bound
> up in the soul to a stronger extent than memories are. But that
> doesn't rule out being able to LOSE your magical powers without losing
> your soul. Ghosts could simply use up all their magic through the
> effort of staying on this reality.
>
> And if we ASSUME that ghosts lack both "potential" magical powers and
> souls, then they are NOT the REAL PEOPLE.
Except Nick seems to think he is the real person and Snape is sure
ghosts are imprints of a departed soul.
--
Jane Grey
Jane Grey
under my brother's account, 'tramp'
--
Jane Grey
Karnak17
No, I understand you point completely, and have conceded it is
possible. I am pointing out to you that there is no evidence for it as
yet. And that you CANNOT -- if you are a reasonable person -- argue
that the inablity of ghosts to perform magic proves they don't have
souls, since you ALREADY know that they would need a body to perform
magic whether they had souls or not. Therefore, while it may be that
ghosts don't have souls, and that is why they cannot perform magic, the
fact that they don't perform magic at present doens't prove anything
one way or another. OBVIOUSLY. Since their lack of bodies would
prevent them performing magic either way.
> > <snip>
> > > > If you assume that ghosts are powerless because they have no
> > > > souls, you are fanwanking something in COMPLETE abscence of ANY
> > > > evidence. They are, for all we know, exactly as powerless as Voldemort
> > > > and for the same reasons -- because they lack bodies.
> > >
> > > but then you could assume that they can possess students and teachers
> > > like LV did to Quirrel. Only they never have.
> >
> > To our knowledge. Something tells me it would be frowned on by
> > Hogwarts authorities.
>
> but you'd think that might not stop someone like the bloody baron from
> giving it a go just to feel what eating etc is like again. but there
> have been no mention of ghost possession in any of the books. <snip>
Possession might require a willing victim, for all we know. Or an
unusually weak-willed one. What little evidence we have on the subject
suggests it. We do not know, so you are back to square one. Your
theory is possible, but still unsupported by actual evidence.
> <snip>
> <snip>
> > > that could be because the soul usually houses memories but memories
> > > must be a separatable thing in themselves if it is possible to create
> > > talking portraits. However parents of squib children don't copy their
> > > powers into their children so powers aren't separatable from the
> > > soul/soul fragment.
> >
> > No soul, no self. That is what DD said. That is what Lupin said. I'm
> > going to take them at their word. <snip>
>
> This is certainly true during life but upon death there is evidence to
> show that you can have self without soul. Concider these evidences from
> the books:-
> 1. Ghosts have never demostrated any magical ability.
Not evidence of anything to anyone who isn't employing circular
reasoning. Clearly you are VERY fond of such reasoning, but can I
please ask you to stop. It is not going to convince me of anything
other than perhaps that this conversation is a waste of time.
> 2. There is evidence from when LV was in spirit form and from the diary
> that magical ability seems to reside in the soul.
Yes. There is evidence that magical ability is transferred along with
the soul in the case of Tom/Ginny. That has nothing to do with the
soul/self issue.
> 3. Snape said ghosts are imprints of /departed/ souls,
> 4. Nick said, `I chose to remain behind.... I know nothing of the
> secrets of death"
Okay. These are the relevant bits of evidence. If we understand Snape
as meaning that the imprint is a COPY of a soul which has passed beyond
the veil, then when "Nick" is speaking, it is a COPY of Nick's soul
which is speaking.
Your assertion is that this mere COPY of Nick's soul is the REAL Nick.
Even though without your soul, a living person has "no self at all".
Once you are dead, you can lose your soul, but keep your self. While
"soul" in life means "self", once you are DEAD, it suddenly gets
demoted from "self" to "ability to do magic".
In otherwords, death changes all definitions. "Soul" no longer means
"self", as in CLEARLY means during life. Now it means "magical
ability". THIS is your argument in a nutshell, and I simply don't buy
it.
> > > > The fate of dementor victims, etc.
> > >
> > > in this case the memories/lifeforce and anything else that might be
> > > housed by the soul would get sucked into the Dementer with the soul.
> > > Whereas upon death, these things are preserved in the imprint of the
> > > soul that is created (if the wizard choses to stay).
> >
> > Then why, when people talk of how UTTERLY HORRIBLE dementors are, do
> > they talk about this "soul" thing, which is so darn UNIMPORTANT that
> > you can send it winging off to the afterlife with no detriment to
> > yourself other than the loss of the purely hypothetical ability to do
> > magical powers IF you had a body?
>
> But there are detriments to staying behind in the imprint of your soul
> because the imprint is not as good as the real thing. the imprint
> hasn't got the ability to do magic nor is it substantial (imprints
> can't interact with anything physically).
And they would be substantial if they had SOULS? Are you saying that a
soul is SUBSTANTIAL? If so, how does it fit into a ring or a diary?
Or possess another person, for that matter?
>I am not saying souls are
> unimportant, only that ghosts are imprints of souls, not the soul
> itself.
Not the "real thing", in your own words. In short, not the REAL
PERSON.
> > If what is so horrifying is the loss of your most essential "self", why
> > is this loss of "self" always referred to -- by Lupin and Dumbledore --
> > with the word "SOUL". Why don't they use "lifeforce" if THAT is the
> > part that is important, and represents the REAL SELF in this reality.
>
> because upon death you have lost yourself to the mortal world and the
> rules change.
Meaning, that you are changing all the meanings ascribed in the
Potterverse to the word "soul" to suit your convenience, and pretending
that the firmly established meaning of the word "soul" suddenly means
something different after people are dead, just so you can support your
argument.
> > I am perfectly willing to belive that unique magical abilites are bound
> > up in the soul to a stronger extent than memories are. But that
> > doesn't rule out being able to LOSE your magical powers without losing
> > your soul. Ghosts could simply use up all their magic through the
> > effort of staying on this reality.
> >
> > And if we ASSUME that ghosts lack both "potential" magical powers and
> > souls, then they are NOT the REAL PEOPLE.
>
> Except Nick seems to think he is the real person and Snape is sure
> ghosts are imprints of a departed soul.
Either Nick is giving us the wrong impression, or Snape means something
different than what we think he means. It is that simple.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>> Karnak17 wrote:
>>
>>> In the summer of his FIRST year of life (ending, of course, with
>>> his first birthday) he would therefore have been six months old.
>>> The summer of his second year, he would be 1 year 6 months.
>>> The summer of his third year, 2-and-a-half.
>>
>> But do people really think like that, once they get to be a
>> certain age? Did you honestly consider the summer BEFORE
>> you turned 16, "the summer of your 16th year"?
>
> That is what the phrase means.
Really? Weird.
> I really don't know what else to tell you. You don't have a problem
> placing the 20th Century BEFORE the year 2000, do you?
Yes. So? I don't look at my age the same way I look at century markings.
>>> The summer of his sixteenth year, therefore, he was fifteen and a
>>> half years old.
>>> If he started Hogwarts Year One at age eleven and graduated Year
>>> Seven at 18, then he began Year Five at age fifteen.
>>> Therefore he went straight from the Riddle Murders to his Fifth
>>> Year at at Hogwarts.
>>> I don't know where you get between sixth and seventh year from.
>>
>> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_voldemort.html
>> 1944
>> Summer. Tom murders his grandparents and father in their home in
>> Little Hangleton (GF1).
>> September. Begins his seventh year at Hogwarts. Tom is Prefect,
>> Head Boy, and receives a Medal for Magical Merit.
>>
>> Also, in GoF, it says that the Riddles' deaths were stated to have
>> taken place 50 years before the event in the book--making it 1944
>> (since the book starts in 1994, and this statement is near the
>> beginning of the book). Oddly, they're (the Web Site above) now
>> talking about a revised timeline (based on the info in HBP) that
>> indeed puts the murders in between his fourth and fifth years at
>> Hogwarts.
>
> Well, that is the only time that it could be, based on HBP.
Ok.
>> Well, that's bloody confusing. Frankly, I wish Jo would get
>> someone who knows math to go over her books at fix these things.
>> If you don't mean "50 year ago", you need to put "about 50 years"
>> or something... ~_~
>
> "Half a century ago"
Where did I say "half a century ago"? The term used is "50 years before"
(I said "ago" before; my bad).
> is not a phrase I ever personally interpreted as HAVING to mean
> "50 years exactly".
Except hat that is the term used. "50 years before." Not "about 50 years"
or "over 50 years" or "around 50 years"...
> And "fifty years ago" is how Rowling describes all the STORIES
> about the Riddle House starting out -- so it doesn't have the
> implication of precision either.
And yet I'm hardly the only fan who does look at tem this way.
Oh, and actually, since the event in Cos take place in '92, the "50 years
before" thing does work out for that...
> She has, at any rate, given us very precise information in Book 6.
Yes, she has. And thinking back on it, I do recall feeling like there was
a contradiction between that info and what I'd previously assumed. So he
was 15 when he killed the Riddles? Eek.
> Even if you interpret DD's words to mean that Tom was sixteen,
> that still places it before his 6th Year, not his 7th.
Right. I was confused. Sorry.
Karnak17
Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> Karnak17 wrote:
>
> > Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> >> Karnak17 wrote:
> >>
> >>> In the summer of his FIRST year of life (ending, of course, with
> >>> his first birthday) he would therefore have been six months old.
> >>> The summer of his second year, he would be 1 year 6 months.
> >>> The summer of his third year, 2-and-a-half.
> >>
> >> But do people really think like that, once they get to be a
> >> certain age? Did you honestly consider the summer BEFORE
> >> you turned 16, "the summer of your 16th year"?
> >
> > That is what the phrase means.
>
> Really? Weird.
>
> > I really don't know what else to tell you. You don't have a problem
> > placing the 20th Century BEFORE the year 2000, do you?
>
> Yes. So? I don't look at my age the same way I look at century markings.
Counting is counting. The sixteenth is the one that comes sixteenth in
the sequence, with years as with Centuries. I don't know any other way
to look at it. The phrasing is misleading (deliberately, I think),
because it is no longer a common way of expressing age, but the meaning
is unambiguous once you think about it.
Not you, sorry. The book. It uses two phrases. "Half a century ago",
and then later "50 years before".
> > is not a phrase I ever personally interpreted as HAVING to mean
> > "50 years exactly".
>
> Except hat that is the term used. "50 years before." Not "about 50 years"
> or "over 50 years" or "around 50 years"...
>
> > And "fifty years ago" is how Rowling describes all the STORIES
> > about the Riddle House starting out -- so it doesn't have the
> > implication of precision either.
>
> And yet I'm hardly the only fan who does look at tem this way.
Well, yes. I did to. I mean, that IS what it means. I just think
that Rowling covered her ass a bit by the precise way she framed it.
She didn't say "fifty years before" in omnicient author voice. She
says, this is how all the stories in Little Hangleton start out: "Fifty
years before . . . " It seems plausible that the little Hangletons
might not have been big on precision when telling their stories, to the
extent that even at the time I always took the "fifty years" in GoF
with a grain of salt.
> Oh, and actually, since the event in Cos take place in '92, the "50 years
> before" thing does work out for that...
You mean that Rowling got her math right in CoS?