Skip to main content

Why can't the Voldemort's soul fragment in Harry find a new host



'Tell him that on the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort's soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself on to the only living soul left in that collapsing building. Part of Lord Voldemort lives inside Harry...'


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - pp.550-1 - Bloomsbury - chapter 33, The Prince's Tale




What we have here, then, is a soul fragment existing outside of a body for long enough to "latch itself on to" another host, when its body is destroyed.


Why, then, can this not happen again? Why is the soul fragment destroyed in the Forbidden Forest, when Voldemort hits Harry with a Killing Curse? Why does the fragment of Voldemort's soul, blasted apart from its new host, not "[latch] itself on to [any] living soul" in the forest?


I answer this by saying that it is simply the nature of Horcruxes.



'But even if we wreck the thing it lives in,' said Ron, 'why can't the bit of soul in it just go and live in something else?'


'Because a Horcrux is the complete opposite of a human being.'


...


'Look, if I picked up a sword right now, Ron, and ran you through with it, I wouldn't damage your soul at all.'


...


'...But my point is that whatever happens to your body, your soul will survive, untouched,' said Hermione. 'But it's the other way round with a Horcrux. The fragment of soul inside it depends on its container, its enchanted body, for survival. It can't exist without it.'



Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - p.90 - Bloomsbury - chapter 6, The Ghoul in Pyjamas



But then I ask myself - well, if soul fragments can be blasted apart from the whole and latch onto other souls, why couldn't that happen again in the Forest? If Harry had been made into a physical Horcrux - like the others - I could sort of understand. A piece of soul is consciously transferred into an object, on which it then becomes dependent, because, of course, it's just a little fragment - not able to exist on its own, outside of its new container. But the soul fragment that latched itself onto Harry was not transferred by whatever the standard Horcrux creating spell is. More importantly, that fragment certainly was able to exist on its own and find a new body (much like the bit of soul that existed in the Forest of Albania during Voldemort's exile, and later had a body resurrected around it).


So, does anybody have anything more concrete to add on this. Hermione's explanation is okay, but it just seems a bit ... unsatisfying. I wouldn't say this is an out and out plothole, it just feels like the magic is ... arbitrary. And JK Rowling has generally taken great pride in making her magic consistent and making it make sense.



Answer




When the Killing Curse rebounded on the Dark Lord, it ripped him from his body and fractured a piece off of his main soul, and that piece went on to live in Harry as he’s a living host and souls that aren’t intentionally encased in a Horcrux object naturally only live in living beings.



“Tell him that on the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort’s soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself on to the only living soul left in that collapsing building.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 33 (The Prince’s Tale)




At that point, the Dark Lord’s main soul was tied to life by the Horcruxes, so when it split, both pieces remained alive as the main soul cannot move on while there are Horcruxes tying it to life.



“Well, you split your soul, you see,’ said Slughorn, ‘and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one’s body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged. But, of course, existence in such a form …”
- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 23 (Horcruxes)



The piece that fractured off was still part of the main soul until it did, so it was also tied to life then.



The second time the Dark Lord hits Harry with the Killing Curse, the soul fragment is already separate from his main soul, and therefore no longer tied to life by the Horcruxes. Since nothing tied it to life, it was simply killed when the Dark Lord’s Killing Curse hit Harry, and it in him.




“So the part of his soul that was in me …’ Dumbledore nodded still more enthusiastically, urging Harry onwards, a broad smile of encouragement on his face. ‘… has it gone?’


‘Oh, yes!’ said Dumbledore. ‘Yes, he destroyed it. Your soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry.”
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 35 (King’s Cross)



There was nothing keeping the soul fragment alive, so the Killing Curse killed it once it hit.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed....

story identification - Animation: floating island, flying pests

At least 20 years ago I watched a short animated film which stuck in my mind. The whole thing was wordless, possibly European, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it... It featured a flying island which was inhabited by some creatures who (in my memory) reminded me of the Moomins. The island was frequently bothered by large winged animals who swooped around, although I don't think they did any actual damage. At the end one of the moomin creatures suddenly gets a weird feeling, feels forced to climb to the top of the island and then plunges down a shaft right through the centre - only to emerge at the bottom as one of the flyers. Answer Skywhales from 1983. The story begins with a man warning the tribe of approaching skywhales. The drummers then warn everybody of the hunt as everyone get prepared to set "sail". Except one man is found in his home sleeping as the noise wake him up. He then gets ready and is about to take his weapon as he hesitates then decides ...