Skip to main content

How Would Harry Breaking the Unbreakable Vow Have Affected the Piece of Voldemort's Soul?


Based on what we know from canon, how would Harry breaking an Unbreakable Vow have affected him and the piece of Voldemort's soul inside him? What would have happened?


It was determined in Could the Sorting Hat Have Told Dumbledore That Harry Was a Horcrux that Harry is actually not a proper Horcrux:



JKR: "Here is the thing: for convenience, I had Dumbledore say to Harry, "You were the Horcrux he never meant to make," but I think, by definition, a Horcrux has to be made intentionally. So because Voldemort never went through the grotesque process that I imagine creates a Horcrux with Harry, it was just that he had destabilized his soul so much that it split when he was hit by the backfiring curse. And so this part of it flies off, and attaches to the only living thing in the room. A part of it flees in the very-close-to-death limbo state that Voldemort then goes on and exists in. I suppose it's very close to being a Horcrux, but Harry did not become an evil object. He didn't have curses upon him that the other Horcruxes had. He himself was not contaminated by carrying this bit of parasitic soul."

[SNIP]

"I do think that the strict definition of "Horcrux," once I write the [Harry Potter Encyclopedia], will have to be given, and that the definition will be that a receptacle is prepared by Dark Magic to become the receptacle of a fragmented piece of soul, and that that piece of soul was deliberately detached from the master soul to act as a future safeguard, or anchor, to life, and a safeguard against death." J.K. Rowling - Pottercast 12.23.07 - The Leaky Cauldron



So, yes, what would have happened?



Answer




I've thought long and hard on this one; these questions that are almost addressed in canon, but not quite, make excellent grey matter fodder. :)


We know from Half Blood Prince that when someone breaks the Unbreakable Vow, that they die. How exactly this takes place, is never directly addressed. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the magical theory behind it is very similar to how Avada Kedavra works, however; I would posit that the Unbreakable Vow is sort of a delayed, conditional Avada Kedavra. We also know from PotterCast Interviews J. K. Rowling, PotterCast #130 that in order to destroy a Horcrux, the container must be destroyed.



SU: So, can I ask this? This is kind of a random question but if Harry had this Horcrux in him, of course, sort of, would he have actually have died, like say when a dragon could've killed him, or when he was falling during Quidditch, or anything?


JKR: Well, you've got to-- if his body had been irreperably destroyed, he has to die to get rid of that piece of soul. His body has got to be irreperably damaged. So a lot of people asked, and I think I've answered this since... but a lot of people immediately said, having finished "Hallows", "(gasps) But then, that means, in Chamber of Secrets when he was pierced by the basilisk..." But no, no, no, no. He didn't die! He didn't die! That was stated right at the beginning with the Horcrux. The receptacle has got to be destroyed. His body wasn't destroyed. He got a bit poisoned, and then he got the antidote immediately. So, you know, that's not gonna drive out this piece of soul. [...]



By now, we all know that Harry wasn't a true Horcrux, but Rowling maintains that the piece of Voldemort's soul within him was there under much the same conditions as a Horcrux. If we operate under the assumption that a magically induced death can indeed sufficiently "destroy the container" of a Horcrux, as in the case of Voldemort using the Killing Curse on Harry, then it is not out of the way to assume that breaking the Unbreakable Vow would have the same effect.


My conclusion, drawn from what we know of Horcrux destruction and the Unbreakable Vow, is that if Harry had broken the Unbreakable Vow, the piece of Voldemort's soul within him would have been destroyed, since it's container would be "irreparably destroyed".


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

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

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

Which Doctor Who works are canon?

I have been watching a Doctor Who documentary and they mentioned that Paul McGann did audio stories so he wasn't just a one-hit Doctor (and that there are novels featuring his Doctor as well). My question is: is Doctor Who canon just the show, or is it like Star Wars where some books and audios are canon and some are not? The documentary also shows that before 2005 they did audio stories where the Doctor is female and obviously that cannot be — not the female part, but the show doesn't count any female Doctors in episodes like The Day of the Doctor . Answer Nothing, and also everything The definitive piece of writing on Doctor Who canon is this blog post by writer Paul Cornell . I'm essentially going to be summarizing his post here, much less eloquently, but one section I want to quote directly is this: Nobody at the BBC has ever uttered a pronouncement about what is and isn't canonical. (As I'm sure they'd put it, being such enthusiasts for good grammar.) Be...
Post a Comment
Read more