How Do You Destroy A Horcrux?, Methods and means... |
 Aug 1 2006, 06:55 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup  Posts: 36 Joined: 12:38am July 5, 2006 Location: In the Hogwarts lake, swimming with the mermaids  |
It seems like a soul is definately more spiritual than physical. For a while I thought that someone's soul contains their personality. But that's probably wrong, as Voldemort's personality has not gone through any drastic changes since the time before he made any horcruxes. The soul is what makes a person human, which is why Voldemort does not look entirely like a person anymore. I guess that would make him less than natural... But I really don't have any other ideas for what a soul is.
I think that when you make a horcrux, you have to have a certain state of mind. You have to have evil or dark intentions. And on top of that, you have to perform several complex spells. To destroy a horcrux, most likely, you would need to kill the object like you would kill a person. Harry put basilisk venom into the diary and that destroyed it. Depending on the object the soul is stored in, you might even be able to destroy it by smashing it with a hammer... possibly. But people who are willing to go to the lengths to make a horcrux are going to go to great lengths to protect the horcrux and put spells and curses on or around it. From the conversation Dumbledore had with Harry about the horcruxes, it sounds like you can make any object into a horcrux. Voldemort just chose to put his soul into valuable objects. We don't know if when your soul is split, a piece of it leaves your body. But if that is the case, it would need to be encased in an object so it 's not just flying around somewhere. You might lose it. 
-------------------- icon by last5 |
 |
 
 
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 01:12 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 108 Joined: 12:25pm August 2, 2006 |
After destroying the ring as a horcrux of Voldemort's, Dumbledore continued to wear it.
I assume this precludes the notion that in order to 'inactivate' (exorcise?) a horcrux one need not accomplish the physical destruction of the object housing the fragmented soul. Such destruction might, however, prove the simplest means of doing so. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 01:15 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 38 Joined: 3:43pm February 2, 2006 Location: New York City |
But after Dumbledore destroyed the horcrux, wasn't the stone in the ring cracked. This would leave me to believe that the stone was the true horcrux, and it just happened to be attached to the ring.
-------------------- "Nobody's ever asked me to a party before, as a friend. Is that why you've dyed your eyebrow? Should I do mine too?"
http://www.andyschultz.com |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 01:31 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 108 Joined: 12:25pm August 2, 2006 |
QUOTE(PotionsMasterAndy @ Aug 2 2006, 01:15 PM) [snapback]901495[/snapback] But after Dumbledore destroyed the horcrux, wasn't the stone in the ring cracked. This would leave me to believe that the stone was the true horcrux, and it just happened to be attached to the ring. A good point, but a crack in the stone still indicates a slightly less spectacular destruction than others one might expect (such as smashing it with a hammer - or pitching it into a volcano). |
|
|
|
|
Aug 2 2006, 06:06 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Newest Housekeeper at The Leaky Cauldron Posts: 748 Joined: 12:25pm June 5, 2006 Location: First floor of the ivory tower |
QUOTE(Slythericious @ Aug 2 2006, 11:31 AM) [snapback]901518[/snapback] QUOTE(PotionsMasterAndy @ Aug 2 2006, 01:15 PM) [snapback]901495[/snapback] But after Dumbledore destroyed the horcrux, wasn't the stone in the ring cracked. This would leave me to believe that the stone was the true horcrux, and it just happened to be attached to the ring. A good point, but a crack in the stone still indicates a slightly less spectacular destruction than others one might expect (such as smashing it with a hammer - or pitching it into a volcano). Actually neither of the 'dehorcruxed' items that we know of were 'destroyed' per se--the diary had a big fang hole in it, and the stone in the ring was cracked. I would imagine that the soul piece is encased in such a way within the object as to require a point of exit, and would perhaps exit in an explosive manner, similar to gas under high pressure escaping a punctured tank, for example (recall Dumbledore's blackened hand, which he attributed to slow reflexes during his dehorcruxing of the ring). Beyond the necessary rift though which to extract the soul morsel, I don't think further damage to the object would be required. That said, I don't think it can be any old rift. I doubt that smashing it with a hammer or pitching it into a volcano would have any effect on the enchantments through which the soul morsel was encased. Instead, I think a particular counter-curse is necessary for the extraction  Dehorcruxio!-------------------- "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed" Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2006, 01:21 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 38 Joined: 3:43pm February 2, 2006 Location: New York City |
QUOTE(Inner eye @ Aug 2 2006, 06:06 PM) [snapback]901810[/snapback] I would imagine that the soul piece is encased in such a way within the object as to require a point of exit, and would perhaps exit in an explosive manner, similar to gas under high pressure escaping a punctured tank, for example. I like this line out thought! It definitely seems to fit with what we have seen in terms of past horcruxes. Also, the diary didn't exactly explode, but in explanation, most of the soul/horcrux originally in the diary was no longer there, but in the new Tom Riddle who had managed to leave the diary. Because most of the soul was gone, there wouldn't be the explosive force that may have been in the ring. -------------------- "Nobody's ever asked me to a party before, as a friend. Is that why you've dyed your eyebrow? Should I do mine too?"
http://www.andyschultz.com |
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2006, 09:23 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 128 Joined: 12:36pm June 29, 2006 Location: Chillin' by the fire in the Gryffindor common room |
QUOTE The placement of protective spells on horcruxes in my mind hints to a relatively easy destruction of the part of the soul encased in the object. It may even be as easy as altering the state of the item (for example bending it). In my recollection DD states that anyone and anything can be mad a horcrux, but that LV has only taken valuables to ensure that even if they fall 'into the wrong hands' it probably would stay intact due to their pricelesness. Anyone would be carefull with the original locket just for its monetairy value. By protecting it further with extremely dark magic enchantments and spells the probability of the horcrux being destroyed is virtually non-existent. I completely agree. I think finding the Horcruxes and getting through their protection is the problem. To me it seems that a fragmented soul piece would be very delicate, so the object is breakable. After the object is broken the soul leaves the object. But then what? does it just die, or fade, or disapeer, or does it move on like it had been a person? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2006, 09:33 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Keeper of the Monkeys  Posts: 1,190 Joined: 10:45pm February 19, 2006 Location: lingering outside the room of requirements with a fine bottle of sherry  |
I am wonering if you have to let the peice of soul out before you destroy it?
As we seen in COS, Tom Riddle was in the chamber prior to Harry stabbing it with the tooth, and in HBP, we never got the chance to hear Dumbledores story on how he destroyed the ring. Now I have to wonder if each horcrux would be a little easier to destoy, going on the assumption that each one is a little less part of LVs soul. If the ring was the first horcrux, it should be the most powerful one containing one half of the true soul, the diary containing one quarter. The ring, being destroyed by DD, caused major damage to his hand but it was a whole and undisterbed horcrux right? Oh boy, now I am more confused then ever. So I guess now I have just added another question, will they get easier to destroy? -------------------- Avator thanks to the wonderful Leaky Galleries
A brilliant mind is a terrible thing to waste, lucky for me I don"t have one to worry about. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 4 2006, 11:43 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Newest Housekeeper at The Leaky Cauldron Posts: 748 Joined: 12:25pm June 5, 2006 Location: First floor of the ivory tower |
QUOTE(mammaprince @ Aug 3 2006, 07:33 AM) [snapback]902340[/snapback] I am wonering if you have to let the peice of soul out before you destroy it? As we seen in COS, Tom Riddle was in the chamber prior to Harry stabbing it with the tooth, and in HBP, we never got the chance to hear Dumbledores story on how he destroyed the ring. Now I have to wonder if each horcrux would be a little easier to destoy, going on the assumption that each one is a little less part of LVs soul. If the ring was the first horcrux, it should be the most powerful one containing one half of the true soul, the diary containing one quarter. The ring, being destroyed by DD, caused major damage to his hand but it was a whole and undisterbed horcrux right? Oh boy, now I am more confused then ever. So I guess now I have just added another question, will they get easier to destroy? I think that the act of 'destroying' it is fulfilled by removing the soul piece within. The diary (fanged) and the ring (stone cracked) still existed after the fact, they just weren't horcruxes any longer. Hence the power bestowed by what they contained was destroyed, rather than the objects themselves. As to the degree of difficulty question, I've thought about this before, and I don't think there's enough data to conclude either way. If the soul chunk did get smaller with each horcrux, maybe that does mean they will be progressively less reactive, or maybe not. Most of the 'soul power'  in the diary was standing outside of it in the form of semi-solid Tom when Harry fanged it. Who knows what would have happened--how powerful the soul expulsion would have been--if the entire soul morsel had been inside at the time. The damage to Dumbledore's hand was clearly severe, but whether this was due to the large amount of soul he was attempting to destroy, or (as he explained) his slowing reflexes, or something entirely unrelated to either, I don't think we know enough to conclude anything from this--too many variables, and too small a sample size  It's a very interesting question, though.
-------------------- "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed" Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
|
Aug 9 2006, 05:04 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Getting Fitted for New Dress Robes Posts: 45 Joined: 10:09pm September 26, 2005 |
To destoy a horcrux I think that you have to go through the 'heart' of the object. From the two horcruxes that we know and have seen in their distructed state they both had something go through the centre of it to be detroyed. Harry drove the fang through the centre of the diary and though we don't know exactly how Dumbledore destoyed the ring he went through the stone that is the centre of the ring.
|
|
|
|
