IIRC, in cannon Voldemort’s soul was split when he cast Abracadabera on Infant Harry, even though Harry didn’t die. Is there any reason this should be different in MoR?
So, if Hermione actually was guilty, do you think her soul would wait to split until it sensed Draco’s death? I know magic is weird, but that seems especially ridiculous. I think it’s the user’s actions that matter, regardless of their success or failure. That’s why Snape could kill Dumbldore and not have his soul split.
That’s possible, but unnecessary. There’s no need sacrifice your victim to anything, as you aren’t actually gaining something. It’s not a magical ritual, simply the fact that human souls are torn by trying to kill someone in cold blood. The intent to murder, the decision to murder, is just as malicious whether or not the victim manages to escape. It make sense for that evil to tear the soul, but it does not make sense for there to be some invisible soul-ripping demon who demands human sacrifices.
It’s not only the intent behind attempted murder, but the successful execution of that intention:
“But how do you [create a Horcrux]?”
“By an act of evil — the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion —” (HBP Ch 23)
It’s possible that Snape’s soul did split. When Snape and Dumbledore are discussing the plot to have Dumbledore killed, there’s this exchange:
“If you don’t mind dying,” said Snape roughly, “why not let Draco do it?”
“That boy’s soul is not yet so damaged,” said Dumbledore. “I would not have it ripped apart on my account.
“And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?”
“You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation.” (DH Ch 33)
“You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation.” (DH Ch 33)
That’s exactly the point—whether an act is a “murder” or a “mercy” depends on the intent of the person performing the act. Murder splits the soul, mercy doesn’t. And only Snape alone knows which one he would do.
You’re right. I was thinking in terms of the difference between murder and attempted murder, when the important difference here is between murderous killing and non-murderous killing.
It still seems true that one’s soul will only split in the case of successful murder.
I don’t believe the soul is split every single time one kills. Dumbledore’s telling Harry that Voldie’s soul accidentally split during that night suggests that it was an unusual event, not something that happened several times per week. I believe Rowling also specifies that it was just one extra piece of Voldemort’s soul that had to find something to latch onto, not hundreds.
So if the accidental split was due to the murder of one of the Potters, I think it was probably the innocent child, the killing of which woudl probably have more powerful soul-ripping powers.
Pretty sure it’s not a valid sacrifice if the human doesn’t die.
IIRC, in cannon Voldemort’s soul was split when he cast Abracadabera on Infant Harry, even though Harry didn’t die. Is there any reason this should be different in MoR?
I assumed Voldemort’s soul was split because the Killing Curse hit him. How that caused his soul to split is a bit mysterious, I’ll admit.
I’m pretty sure the latest Word of Rowling on the matter is “mumble mumble his soul was unstable or something, stop asking questions” (paraphrased).
So, if Hermione actually was guilty, do you think her soul would wait to split until it sensed Draco’s death? I know magic is weird, but that seems especially ridiculous. I think it’s the user’s actions that matter, regardless of their success or failure. That’s why Snape could kill Dumbldore and not have his soul split.
Well, why not? Maybe it’s the departing soul of the victim yanking on the murderer’s that causes the split. Do you know something I don’t?
That’s possible, but unnecessary. There’s no need sacrifice your victim to anything, as you aren’t actually gaining something. It’s not a magical ritual, simply the fact that human souls are torn by trying to kill someone in cold blood. The intent to murder, the decision to murder, is just as malicious whether or not the victim manages to escape. It make sense for that evil to tear the soul, but it does not make sense for there to be some invisible soul-ripping demon who demands human sacrifices.
edited in response to the below
It’s not only the intent behind attempted murder, but the successful execution of that intention:
It’s possible that Snape’s soul did split. When Snape and Dumbledore are discussing the plot to have Dumbledore killed, there’s this exchange:
That’s exactly the point—whether an act is a “murder” or a “mercy” depends on the intent of the person performing the act. Murder splits the soul, mercy doesn’t. And only Snape alone knows which one he would do.
You’re right. I was thinking in terms of the difference between murder and attempted murder, when the important difference here is between murderous killing and non-murderous killing.
It still seems true that one’s soul will only split in the case of successful murder.
I thought his soul was split by killing Lily, and that fragment was drawn into Harry.
I don’t believe the soul is split every single time one kills. Dumbledore’s telling Harry that Voldie’s soul accidentally split during that night suggests that it was an unusual event, not something that happened several times per week. I believe Rowling also specifies that it was just one extra piece of Voldemort’s soul that had to find something to latch onto, not hundreds.
So if the accidental split was due to the murder of one of the Potters, I think it was probably the innocent child, the killing of which woudl probably have more powerful soul-ripping powers.