Skip to main content

harry potter - What makes a Horcrux object (almost) indestructible?


We know that a Horcrux is the object in which a piece of the Horcruxee's Soul is stored in.


But these objects were once normal (albeit special) objects before being turned into a Horcrux, and could be destroyed like any other objects.


My question is: what is it about becoming a Horcrux that makes the object (almost) indestructible?


Is it that a powerful enchantment is placed on the object upon Horcruxation? Or something else?


My thinking is that it's not so much the object, but the piece of soul which is difficult to destroy. As Hermione puts it:



"Because a Horcrux is the complete opposite of a human being.”


Seeing that Harry and Ron looked thoroughly confused, Hermione hurried on, “Look, if I picked up a sword right now, Ron, and ran you through with it, I wouldn’t damage your soul at all.”


“Which would be a real comfort to me, I’m sure,” said Ron. Harry laughed.



“It should be, actually! 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 - the Ghoul in Pyjamas



So in a way, the object is linked to the piece of Soul's survival.



Answer



The Horcrux isn't innately durable on it's own; part of the creation process (not required, but recommended in Secrets of the Darkest Art) is enchantments to protect it. From right before the quote you provide, Hermione explains:



“No,” said Ron, before Harry could answer. “So does it say how to destroy Horcruxes in that book?”


“Yes,” said Hermione, now turning the fragile pages as if examining rotting entrails, “because it warns Dark wizards how strong they have to make the enchantments on them. From all that I’ve read, what Harry did to Riddle’s diary was one of the few really foolproof ways of destroying a Horcrux.”


[...]



“It doesn’t have to be a basilisk fang,” said Hermione patiently. “It has to be something so destructive that the Horcrux can’t repair itself. Basilisk venom only has one antidote, and it’s incredibly rare—”


[...] That’s a problem we’re going to have to solve, though, because ripping, smashing, or crushing a Horcrux won’t do the trick. You’ve got to put it beyond magical repair.”




[Emphasis added]


The fact that it references 'enchantments on them' suggests that the the spell itself doesn't protect the item, but that the wizard must cast spells upon it to do so. More to the point, it seems to suggest sufficient spells to restore the item from all but irreversible destruction.


So, in general, the container is made as tough as possible by other spells; since it's not in a living body (as a general rule) that can repair itself, it's enchanted to self-repair. The situations where we see a living host, it's much easier to destroy, as it's missing (at least MOST of) the protective spells -- a quick 'kill' and the soul is freed (see Naganini & Harry); no need for greater destruction as no magic can restore the dead to life in HP. (Not really surprising that enchantments to restore non-living objects are a bit more comprehensive than those for living items; otherwise the whole Horcrux idea would be unneeded.)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.
Post a Comment
Read more

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

harry potter - What is the difference between Diffindo and Sectumsempra?

In the Harry Potter books, Diffindo is called the 'Severing Charm' and it’s most commonly used to cut ropes and the like. However, in the last book Hermione uses it on Ron but misses, creating a 'slash in his jeans' and his knee gets cut, causing him to 'roar in pain'. We've only seen Sectumsempra used once on screen when Harry directly uses it on Malfoy in the sixth book, but there it's mentioned that he is 'waving his wand wildly'. Wouldn't Diffindo, if used in such a fashion also cause a similar effect? Similarly, if it was able to cut Ron, it would also be able to, say, chop off an ear (George's)? In that case, how are these two spells different, except for Sectumsempra seemingly used exclusively to hurt humans? Answer While Diffindo and Sectumsempra both can be countered by other spells, Diffindo is far more easily countered. Reparo, a relatively common spell, can completely reverse its effect when used once. “He pulled the old cop...
Post a Comment
Read more