harry potter. can we get jkr on the phone about this?. so if basilisk poison destroys the part ofa soul in horcruxes, then howcome it didn' t kill the part of v
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

harry potter

can we get jkr on the phone about this?

so if basilisk poison destroys the
part ofa soul in horcruxes, then
howcome it didn' t kill the part of
valdemort in harry when the
basilisk bit him in book two?
...
+4
Views: 1306
Favorited: 1
Submitted: 07/30/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to hitlerwillrapejew E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#6 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/30/2013) [-]
A. It doesn't destroy the soul in the object. It destroys the object that houses the soul, no house = no soul. Since Harry wasn't destroyed, his soul was still intact and then so was Voldemortes.
User avatar #3 - maela (07/30/2013) [+] (2 replies)
Because it didn't injure Harry's scar. Harry was bitten in the thigh and wasn't technically killed because of Fawks the Pheonix's tear. If the basilisk had bitten Harry on the forehead it would have killed the horcrux that lived within the scar.
User avatar #12 to #11 - maela (07/30/2013) [-]
If you'd read the book more thoroughly, the scar itself was the horcrux. Harry loses the scar when Voldemort dies. The fact that he could speak parseltongue, had a link with Voldemort, and used a twin wand to Voldemort's, are all repercussions of the fact that he was hit with the Avada Kedavra which was deflected partially because of a link stronger than death which was love from his mother, Lily. Once they discover that Harry's scar is the horcrux they devise different ways to destroy the scar without killing Harry, but come to the conclusion the only way to do so is to kill Harry. Lending itself to the sacrificial acts of Harry in the final battle between himself and Voldemort.
#13 - atrumaliger (07/30/2013) [-]
The only way for that to have worked is if Fawks wasn't around to heal Harry before he died. What makes a Horcrux a horcrux is its excessively hard to end lifespand - You need something without a cure to 'kill' it.    
   
It worked on the snake because, let's face it, beheading isn't going to be healed with a few tears from a Phoenix, and not on Harry, because Flame-feathers got to him before he could die.   
   
If Fawks hadn't been there, or wasn't feeling properly sympathetic at the time... Yeah. That'd have ended two Horcruxes.
The only way for that to have worked is if Fawks wasn't around to heal Harry before he died. What makes a Horcrux a horcrux is its excessively hard to end lifespand - You need something without a cure to 'kill' it.

It worked on the snake because, let's face it, beheading isn't going to be healed with a few tears from a Phoenix, and not on Harry, because Flame-feathers got to him before he could die.

If Fawks hadn't been there, or wasn't feeling properly sympathetic at the time... Yeah. That'd have ended two Horcruxes.
#9 - impulsechallenges ONLINE (07/30/2013) [+] (1 reply)
The only way that the horcruxe in harry would disappear is if harry died. Harry did not die by the basilisk and there for his horcruxe did not vanish.
#8 - feelgoodinc (07/30/2013) [-]
of course because of magic
of course because of magic
User avatar #4 - TehGirman (07/30/2013) [+] (1 reply)
My guess is because Harry was still alive, and he hadn't actually died. After all, when he died without the use of venom, that killed the Horcrux in him.
0
#2 - fitemeirlbro has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)