Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » My Latest Theory on Voldemort's Horcruxes
My Latest Theory on Voldemort's Horcruxes [message #231795] Mo, 13 März 2006 06:32
dlh  
I have been dwelling on certain passages in Goblet of Fire recently
because of the relationship I think they have to knowing about
Voldemort's Horcruxes.

The first one I was thinking about was in the chapter titled "The
Dream". There is a very interesting conversation between Voldemort and
Wormtail:

"You are in luck, Wormtail. You are very fortunate indeed. Your blunder
has not ruined everything. He is dead."

Here Voldemort seems to be judging the success of some operation just
by whether or not a murder has been committed. And, furthermore, he
seems so bent on committing murder that, just in case this didn't take
place as planned, he had a backup plan, wherein he would have Nagini
eat Wormtail:

"Nagini, you are out of luck. I will not be feeding Wormtail to you,
after all... but never mind, never mind... there is still Harry
Potter..."

The single-mindedness with which Voldemort is bent on committing murder
in this passage is very strange, and the only satisfying explanation I
can think of for it is that Voldemort needs this murder for the
creation of a Horcrux.

Also, this offers a possible explanation as to why Voldemort made the
"one more murder" remark. He knew he needed to make one more Horcrux
after Nagini, and he made it with the murder he described in "The
Dream".

This would also account for six Horcruxes (the diary, the ring, the
cup, the locket, Nagini, and the one made here), and if the soul piece
destroyed in Chamber of Secrets does not affect the relevant count
(seven needs to be the number present overall, not necessarily all at
the same time), then this seems to account for all Horcruxes. This is
also in keeping with Rowling's tendency to give clues about things
before they are revealed.
Note that this theory implies that Harry (or his scar) is very likely
not a Horcrux. The final Horcrux could have been made once Voldemort
knew the murder had succeeded and probably used something in the Riddle
house for the final Horcrux. Harry was nowhere near that house at the
time, since he was in Professor Trelawney's classroom. (Also, I don't
think Voldemort would use Wormtail as a Horcrux, since Wormtail is a
very weak person, and this seems to me to be a bad choice because of
that.)

Now I will mention problems with my theory:

1. After the "one more murder" remark, Voldemort says "Nagini has some
interesting news" and it seems he did not know about the presence of
Frank Bryce before that. Then. if "one more murder" refers to Horcrux
creation murder, then Frank Bryce was the last murder victim used in
Horcrux creation, and not the unnamed victim in "The Dream".

This is a major problem with my theory, and I am not sure how to
adequately answer it or revise my theory in light of it. My best
attempt at answering this objection is that Voldemort already knew
about Bryce's presence (eventually if not at the moment, and possibly
from overhearing or having Wormtail overhear the town gossip) and had
already counted that Horcrux as made.

2. Dumbledore thinks Nagini is the sixth Horcrux, while this theory
would make her the fifth. Also, on madamscoop.org, JKR is quoted as
saying that 'Dumbledore's guesses are never far off the mark' (or
something very much like that), so his opinion has extra authority.
However, we know Dumbledore was wrong about the location of Slytherin's
locket, so it is possible (though I don't know how likely) for him to
be wrong here too. I don't have a very good answer to this objection.

3. How do we know Voldemort wasn't just killing someone to get him out
of the way?
Voldemort's resurrection plan was pretty simple, and nothing in it (as
far as I saw, although I should read again to make sure) indicates the
need for a murder to prevent someone from interfering. If one person
saw and recognized Wormtail, then the Ministry of Magic probably would
have done nothing. It didn't believe as prominent and respected a
person as Dumbledore for a _whole year_ when he said Voldemort had
returned. The fact that Wormtail was not really dead would also be a
much smaller and forgettable matter.

Now I will mention a more answerable objection:

Why didn't anyone corresponding to the murder victim mentioned in "The
Dream" come out of Voldemort's wand before Frank Bryce?

There are other ways of killing someone. People come out of wands
(during Priori Incantatem) probably only for Avada Kedavra murders. The
diary was probably made into a Horcrux using the murder of (Moaning)
Myrtle. This counts as a murder Tom Riddle committed because he
controlled Slytherin's basilisk monster to accomplish this.

Tell me what you think.

To send me email, move the r from the beginning to the end of the part
before the [at] and insert "alum." at the beginning of the part after the
[at] . If you are a spammer and you still foolishly use the email address
with which I post, then HA HA HA. IT SUCKS TO BE YOU, for that account
exists no longer.
Re: My Latest Theory on Voldemort's Horcruxes [message #231800 ] Mo, 13 März 2006 08:20
dsueme  
dlh wrote:
> I have been dwelling on certain passages in Goblet of Fire recently
> because of the relationship I think they have to knowing about
> Voldemort's Horcruxes.

Dude (or dudette, as appropriate) - you are free to speculate to your
heart's content. You are also free to attempt to get me interested.
But be warned - I consider the "horcrux" concept one of the least
inspired parts of what is far and away the weakest book of the series.


It would be just fine with me if Harry determines that the senescent
Dumbledore was headed down a blind alley in the first chapter of HP7,
Harry finds them all and they turn out to be of little importance.

Dave
Re: My Latest Theory on Voldemort's Horcruxes [message #231853 ] Mo, 13 März 2006 19:58
Kish  
dlh wrote:

> Also, this offers a possible explanation as to why Voldemort made the
> "one more murder" remark.

Rowling explained that.

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Initially she planned to have the real Mad-Eye Moody killed. She
changed her mind, but didn't catch those two references in editing.
Printings of the book after the first, however, change them to refer to
cursing the mysterious victim and removing him from their way, rather
than killing him.
Re: My Latest Theory on Voldemort's Horcruxes [message #238134 ] Di, 14 März 2006 02:35
dlh  
Kish wrote:
> dlh wrote:
>
> > Also, this offers a possible explanation as to why Voldemort made the
> > "one more murder" remark.
>
> Rowling explained that.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. Can you give me a reference
for this?
Re: My Latest Theory on Voldemort's Horcruxes [message #238148 ] Di, 14 März 2006 05:41
theMonitor  
>
> There are other ways of killing someone. People come out of wands
> (during Priori Incantatem) probably only for Avada Kedavra murders. The
> diary was probably made into a Horcrux using the murder of (Moaning)
> Myrtle. This counts as a murder Tom Riddle committed because he
> controlled Slytherin's basilisk monster to accomplish this.
>

I don't see Myrtle's death by basilisk as a murder, more of a sacrafice.
Magic of the type to create a Horcrux would require spilled blood, not
getting turned to stone or being eaten.
Re: My Latest Theory on Voldemort's Horcruxes [message #238152 ] Di, 14 März 2006 07:08
Fish Eye no Miko  
theMonitor wrote:

>> There are other ways of killing someone. People come out of wands
>> (during Priori Incantatem) probably only for Avada
>> Kedavra murders. The diary was probably made into a Horcrux
>> using the murder of (Moaning) Myrtle. This counts as a murder
>> Tom Riddle committed because he controlled Slytherin's basilisk
>> monster to accomplish this.
> I don't see Myrtle's death by basilisk as a murder, more of a
> sacrafice. Magic of the type to create a Horcrux would require
> spilled blood, not getting turned to stone or being eaten.

What's your basis for this? Especially since none of the murders we've
known V to do have drawn blood. Aside from using the basilisk, he usually
AK's people, which draws no blood.

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"I'm the impish officer of death."
-Mike Nelson, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
Vorheriges Thema:A few random questions
Nächstes Thema:What color is "Expelliarmus"?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 14:10:30 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02399 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered