Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
question
The HUGE fault in this
Will Solace
Oct 03, 2014 01:32PM
Okay, ladies and gents of the HP fandom, answer me this:
If Harry was bitten by the basilik in his second year, why didn't that suck the Horcrux out of him?
Just a thought...
If Harry was bitten by the basilik in his second year, why didn't that suck the Horcrux out of him?
Just a thought...
reply
flag
The 'container' of a horcrux has to be physically destroyed for the horcrux to be destroyed as well. Remember how all the other horcruxes are destroyed? The locket is smashed with Gryffindor's Sword, the Diary and Cup are stabbed with Basilisk fangs, the Diadem is burnt in Fiendfyre, Nagini is killed with Gryffindor's Sword as well. The Horcrux inside Harry would have been destroyed if he had died when the Basilisk bit him - as it finally did get destroyed when he 'died' at Voldemort's hands in DH. But he didn't die in CoS - Fawkes saved him. So the container - i.e. Harry himself - was not destroyed, and the horcrux lived on.
I think it's because first, he didn't get bit in the scar, plus it's more dramatic of Voldemort is the creator of his own DESTRUCTION. You'll understand in the 6th and 7th book my friend.
deleted member
Oct 07, 2014 05:50PM
0 votes
@Nico is Mine
This instantly popped into my head:
Nico, like from Septimus Heap?!?!?!
This instantly popped into my head:
Nico, like from Septimus Heap?!?!?!
The horcrux in Harry would have been destroyed, if the vemon had actually done it's job.
The things that kill horcruxes (basilisk venom, fiendfyre, ect.) kill the horcrux because they destroy it completly and it's very hard to reverse/stop that.
Fawks saved Harry, the one cure for basilisk venom. Becasue he was cured before he died, the horcrux in him lived on.
Had Fawks not been there, Harry would have died (we can assume) the same way he did in book 7, which is to say, he wouldn't die, just the horcrux would.
Hope this helped!
The things that kill horcruxes (basilisk venom, fiendfyre, ect.) kill the horcrux because they destroy it completly and it's very hard to reverse/stop that.
Fawks saved Harry, the one cure for basilisk venom. Becasue he was cured before he died, the horcrux in him lived on.
Had Fawks not been there, Harry would have died (we can assume) the same way he did in book 7, which is to say, he wouldn't die, just the horcrux would.
Hope this helped!
Rachel Paige Hamlin
Julia wrote: "I think you're mostly right, except at the end. There's a lot of debate about why Harry didn't actually die in Book 7. Some think it's b
...more
It's because the venom did not get to Harry completely.
It was neutralized by Fawkes's tears before it could destroy him. If he had died from the venom, then yes, the horcrux in him would have dies as well.
It was neutralized by Fawkes's tears before it could destroy him. If he had died from the venom, then yes, the horcrux in him would have dies as well.
Yeah I thought the same thing but turns out J.K.Rowling answered that question- Harry would have died but Fawkes' tears saved him, therefore saving the Horcrux as well. He would have to have been damaged BEYOND REPAIR. Or, you know, sacrifice himself and wind up at King's Cross limbo
@Alaina, I've read the series 7 times. How about YOU re-read it???
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
