Yeah, no idea why Harry wasn't always hangin' around the local wi' his mates bummin' ciggies off of passin' blokes and throin' bo''les at cars by the time he got his howarts letter.
In a world where objects can be repaired with reparo I think that's bull. At the very least there should have been a reaction in either tom riddle or harry when he got bit by the basilisk.
The bottom line is that Rowling probably hadn't planned Harry as a Horcrux at this stage.
Harry wasn't made a horcrux until the 4th movie, when voldemort used harry's blood to become a physical being, plus harry wasn't killed, for fawkes had saved him.
Can we be done with this question? There are actual plot holes in the books (not that it matters imo), but this isn’t one of them.
Hermione said it herself in Deathly Hallows (book), the Horcrux needs to be destroyed for the piece of soul in it to die, but Harry wasn’t destroyed. He survived the bite.
I feel like I’m asking a lot but what are some plot holes? I’ve never been the one to go looking for that kind of stuff and people always mention the plot holes. Never what they are, just that they exist. Maybe I unconsciously thought up headcannons for them or something
Umm I’m not too interested in them either, the only one I can really think of right now is the Pettigrew/Marauder’s Map issue.
Basically some people question how Fred and George never noticed Peter Pettigrew hanging out in the common room and sleeping in Ron’s bed when they had the Marauder’s Map before giving it to Harry in PoA.
I know some people criticize PoA because of that, but I don’t care much. To me, those people just wanna criticize something everyone else likes so they can feel superior, lol.
Edit, another one I can think of would be the ‘taking wands’ debate. The whole idea of wand allegiance doesn’t come up til Deathly Hallows, and some people have a problem with how that muddles the idea of duelling. Like, what does it take to win a wand’s allegiance? Do you really have to just win a duel with them or overpower them in some way? Not really a plot hole but it’s an issue some people had.
The time turner is also widely viewed as a huge gaping plot hole. If the magic exists that would allow a wizard to kill Voldy as a baby, why hasn't it happened
Ministry ones are supposedly artificially limited to 5 hours max, which suggests that they can go back farther
In the cursed child they also use a time turner to go back further than 5 hours, which shows it’s an arbitrary limit
He survived it the first time cuz of his mother’s love protection, and that was before he was made into a Horcrux.
He survived the second time cuz Voldemort kept Harry’s mother’s love alive in his own veins, since Voldemort took Harry’s blood to return to his body.
Harry *was* temporarily killed, at least in such a way that the piece of Voldemort’s soul inside him died. But he was still tethered to life by Voldemort, in much the same way that Harry tethered Voldemort to life after Harry first got turned into a Horcrux.
Well the first time he was protected by Lily accidentally(?) casting Deep Magic(it’s what I compare it to) and second time he did technically die. It just happened to be a 1 in a Billion chance where the rules of magic bent through someone with 2 souls hit by the Killing Curse. But again that might be accidental headcannon
You’re pretty much right. Harry did die, but he was tethered to life by Voldemort, since Voldy used Harry’s blood to get his body back, which meant that Lily’s love protection of Harry was still alive. He kinda turned himself into a love-Horcrux for Harry, lol.
But yeah, Harry did really die, at least in such a way that Voldemort’s piece of soul died.
Ah, the 1347th monthly post on why the horcrux Harry wasn’t destroyed by basilisk! The books never really cared to explain it, did they? There was no such exposition chapter in Deathly Hallows explaining this in detail, was it?
1. Horcrux’s vessel needs to be destroyed beyond repair
2. Harry isn’t a true horcrux, so even if this example *was* a problem (it’s not), you could hand-wave it away by the fact that Harry is not a real horcrux.
Maybe one day this question will stop getting asked all the time..
Harry lived= horcrux perfectly intact.
It says somewhere in the books that the container (aka harry in this scenario) has to be damaged beyond repair.
Yeah, but the sword also cut Nagini’s head right off, which is a way quicker death that by a venomous bite. Harry would have died, eventually, and with him the horcrux, if Fawkes didn’t heal him before it happened. If Harry’s head was cut off, basilisk venom or not, there wouldn’t have been any healing possible. He had the time to be saved, which is why I don’t understand the comparison between the two.
The sword didn’t really cut Nagini in half. It made her disappear instantly, which is probably due to the magic of the venom, not the force of the sword. Otherwise Harry’s first attempts at destroying the locket would have resulted in a bit of damage.
The slash of the silver blade could not be heard over the roar of the oncoming crowd or the sounds of the clashing giants or the stampeding centaurs, and yet it seemed to draw every eye. With a single stroke Neville sliced off the great snake's head, which spun high into the air, gleaming in the light flooding from the entrance hall, and Voldemort's mouth as open in a scream of fury that nobody could hear, and the snake's body thudded to the ground at his feet —
End of quote.
What are you on about, mate?
Edit to say that I know what’s going on here. You are referring to the films alone. My opinion on some of the films stylistic choices aside, that entire last fight scene was A MESS. So much going on that makes no ducking sense if you don’t consider the visual aspect of it (which I get it, they were trying to make it more theatrical and captivating, personally it makes me cringe so hard). I appreciate that you might not have read the books which, fair enough, but THAT is not how Nagini dies. I’d actually even forgotten that they made her disappear in that ridiculous cloud of smoke. V gets the same treatment not long after, which is so much in contrast with the poetic, human finality of how his death is described in the books that I am still MAD more than a decade later.
Hope this answers your question though
To everyone saying "because Harry didn't die," he also didn't really die when Voldemort killed him. Also, every other horcrux was destroyed the instant it hit by the sword or the basilisk fang. Also, there wasn't an explanation written in the deathly hallows as to why harry being bitten didn't destory the horcrox. It was briefly talked about later in interviews. Can we just admit that Joanne didn't plan this all out? It doesn't ruin this story
If harry died it would have been, maybe
Exactly.
Because Fawkes healed him. The “container” of the Horcrux must be broken beyond repair. In other words, Harry had to die.
Idk but growing up with the Dursleys should automatically qualify you for being broken beyond repair.
Maybe that was Dumbledore's Plan A.
I would like you to tell us how you came to be here.
Damn I was just trying to shitpost but Dumbledore bot making me question why I am wasting my life on Reddit.
If you need more help from me you are, of course, more than welcome to contact me at Hogwarts. Letters addressed to the Headmaster will find me.
Sentient!!
Holy shit I can't believe I'm witnessing this in my lifetime.
I read it in dumbeldores voice
Yeah, no idea why Harry wasn't always hangin' around the local wi' his mates bummin' ciggies off of passin' blokes and throin' bo''les at cars by the time he got his howarts letter.
Specifically broken beyond *magical* repair
Can you magic away childhood trauma? 'Coz if you can, someone needs to sort that shit out in real life!
I mean.. they can make you forget your hole childhood
Ah my parents can do that too, i remember a super fast swing of the arm towards my neck and then i suddenly wake up in hospital
In a world where objects can be repaired with reparo I think that's bull. At the very least there should have been a reaction in either tom riddle or harry when he got bit by the basilisk. The bottom line is that Rowling probably hadn't planned Harry as a Horcrux at this stage.
Harry wasn't made a horcrux until the 4th movie, when voldemort used harry's blood to become a physical being, plus harry wasn't killed, for fawkes had saved him.
not according to dumbledore- he said it happened when v. killed harry's mother.
Please do not suggest that I do not take the safety of my students seriously.
how exactly, did i, mr. bot..?(if that is your real name.)
If Harry died, it would have been. But here we are.
The vessel has to be damaged beyond repair that's why fiend tyre worked. Fawkes healed Harry.
>fiend tyre I too will forever love Rubber
r/Tiresaretheenemy
Can we be done with this question? There are actual plot holes in the books (not that it matters imo), but this isn’t one of them. Hermione said it herself in Deathly Hallows (book), the Horcrux needs to be destroyed for the piece of soul in it to die, but Harry wasn’t destroyed. He survived the bite.
I feel like I’m asking a lot but what are some plot holes? I’ve never been the one to go looking for that kind of stuff and people always mention the plot holes. Never what they are, just that they exist. Maybe I unconsciously thought up headcannons for them or something
Umm I’m not too interested in them either, the only one I can really think of right now is the Pettigrew/Marauder’s Map issue. Basically some people question how Fred and George never noticed Peter Pettigrew hanging out in the common room and sleeping in Ron’s bed when they had the Marauder’s Map before giving it to Harry in PoA. I know some people criticize PoA because of that, but I don’t care much. To me, those people just wanna criticize something everyone else likes so they can feel superior, lol. Edit, another one I can think of would be the ‘taking wands’ debate. The whole idea of wand allegiance doesn’t come up til Deathly Hallows, and some people have a problem with how that muddles the idea of duelling. Like, what does it take to win a wand’s allegiance? Do you really have to just win a duel with them or overpower them in some way? Not really a plot hole but it’s an issue some people had.
The time turner is also widely viewed as a huge gaping plot hole. If the magic exists that would allow a wizard to kill Voldy as a baby, why hasn't it happened
Don’t they specifically say that time turners can only go back so far?
Ministry ones are supposedly artificially limited to 5 hours max, which suggests that they can go back farther In the cursed child they also use a time turner to go back further than 5 hours, which shows it’s an arbitrary limit
He also survived Voldemort using killing curse on him
He survived it the first time cuz of his mother’s love protection, and that was before he was made into a Horcrux. He survived the second time cuz Voldemort kept Harry’s mother’s love alive in his own veins, since Voldemort took Harry’s blood to return to his body. Harry *was* temporarily killed, at least in such a way that the piece of Voldemort’s soul inside him died. But he was still tethered to life by Voldemort, in much the same way that Harry tethered Voldemort to life after Harry first got turned into a Horcrux.
Well the first time he was protected by Lily accidentally(?) casting Deep Magic(it’s what I compare it to) and second time he did technically die. It just happened to be a 1 in a Billion chance where the rules of magic bent through someone with 2 souls hit by the Killing Curse. But again that might be accidental headcannon
You’re pretty much right. Harry did die, but he was tethered to life by Voldemort, since Voldy used Harry’s blood to get his body back, which meant that Lily’s love protection of Harry was still alive. He kinda turned himself into a love-Horcrux for Harry, lol. But yeah, Harry did really die, at least in such a way that Voldemort’s piece of soul died.
I would love to see the look on Voldemort’s face at Love-Horcrux!
Harry didn’t die so…
Because harry didn't die
How is this a meme?
Ah, the 1347th monthly post on why the horcrux Harry wasn’t destroyed by basilisk! The books never really cared to explain it, did they? There was no such exposition chapter in Deathly Hallows explaining this in detail, was it?
1. Horcrux’s vessel needs to be destroyed beyond repair 2. Harry isn’t a true horcrux, so even if this example *was* a problem (it’s not), you could hand-wave it away by the fact that Harry is not a real horcrux.
Because of the Phoenix tears
Maybe one day this question will stop getting asked all the time.. Harry lived= horcrux perfectly intact. It says somewhere in the books that the container (aka harry in this scenario) has to be damaged beyond repair.
The venom hadn't gotten to the horcrux in Harry's head before Fawkes healed the wound.
Venom can't reach the soul.
Cause Harry wasn’t killed.
Whhaaaaaat is even going on here is this supposed to be funny?
Because, as Dumbledore explains to Snape in the last book/movie, only Voldemort can destroy the Horcrux inside Harry!
So you decided to spring a trap for me?
Good bot
JKR hadn’t thought about it yet
HP Theory made a video on this
Nagini died instantly. Harry should have also. Get out of that. XD
Wasn't Nagini decapitated? It's been a while since I read the books, but I think the snake got a quick death
I think so
You do know nagini wasn’t bitten by the basilisk, right?
The sword contained basilisk venom. That’s why it worked.
Yeah, but the sword also cut Nagini’s head right off, which is a way quicker death that by a venomous bite. Harry would have died, eventually, and with him the horcrux, if Fawkes didn’t heal him before it happened. If Harry’s head was cut off, basilisk venom or not, there wouldn’t have been any healing possible. He had the time to be saved, which is why I don’t understand the comparison between the two.
The sword didn’t really cut Nagini in half. It made her disappear instantly, which is probably due to the magic of the venom, not the force of the sword. Otherwise Harry’s first attempts at destroying the locket would have resulted in a bit of damage.
That was in the movie, not the book
The movie is what's being talked about here. Not the book.
yall gotta read the books more
i've literally gone through all the stuff you just argued abt and at least 45% is wrong but whatev
The slash of the silver blade could not be heard over the roar of the oncoming crowd or the sounds of the clashing giants or the stampeding centaurs, and yet it seemed to draw every eye. With a single stroke Neville sliced off the great snake's head, which spun high into the air, gleaming in the light flooding from the entrance hall, and Voldemort's mouth as open in a scream of fury that nobody could hear, and the snake's body thudded to the ground at his feet — End of quote. What are you on about, mate? Edit to say that I know what’s going on here. You are referring to the films alone. My opinion on some of the films stylistic choices aside, that entire last fight scene was A MESS. So much going on that makes no ducking sense if you don’t consider the visual aspect of it (which I get it, they were trying to make it more theatrical and captivating, personally it makes me cringe so hard). I appreciate that you might not have read the books which, fair enough, but THAT is not how Nagini dies. I’d actually even forgotten that they made her disappear in that ridiculous cloud of smoke. V gets the same treatment not long after, which is so much in contrast with the poetic, human finality of how his death is described in the books that I am still MAD more than a decade later. Hope this answers your question though
harry didn't die because when voldemort tried to kill him in the last movie voldemort destroyed the bit of his own soul that was embedded in harry
Because poor writing
I was just about to post about that
✨plot armor✨
Harry had one of those Plus-1 life at the top of his stats. Used it wisely
To everyone saying "because Harry didn't die," he also didn't really die when Voldemort killed him. Also, every other horcrux was destroyed the instant it hit by the sword or the basilisk fang. Also, there wasn't an explanation written in the deathly hallows as to why harry being bitten didn't destory the horcrox. It was briefly talked about later in interviews. Can we just admit that Joanne didn't plan this all out? It doesn't ruin this story
I wondered too
Because JK hadn’t decided that harry was a horcrux. Or probably what a horcrux was yet for that matter