Whenever someone commits cold-blooded murder their soul is ripped in two, even if the torn piece is not placed into a Horcrux. Not many people know this, but after speaking with Dumbledore Harry does. Therefore, all they have to do is force Hermione to attempt to create a Horcrux,or use some other form of test. If she cannot, then her soul is unharmed and she is innocent. This seems like exactly the sort of practical solution that would occur to Harry but go unnoticed by the Wizarding World for centuries, like using dying people to seal unbreakable vows.
Problems with this solution:
Dumbledore claims to know “all too little, of the methods of Voldemort’s immortality.”
Counter: In canon Dumbledore actually did have Horcux books, but kept them hidden in his study. It would be prudent not to tell the immortality-obsessed first-year about these books. Also, if he were telling the truth they could have the Dementor almost steal her soul, as in PoA, and see if it is in one piece.
In Deathly Hallows, it’s said that the soul could be repaired by true remorse, and thus if Hermione was found to have a whole soul Lucius would say that just because she is sorry does not mean she is innocent.
Counter: I believe it was also stated that this was an extremely painful process, which Hermione does not seem to have undergone. Furthermore I don’t believe Eliezer has even read Deathly Hallows, and thus might be unaware of this fact. More importantly, Harry doesn’t know, so it wouldn’t stop him from using this plan if it occurred to him. Finally, even if Lucius did know enough to tell everyone that Hermione could have healed her soul, the fact that she is truly and provably sorry ought to bring her some leniency, and perhaps spare her Azkaban.
Harry doesn’t believe in souls, and in fact they may not exist in MoR.
Counter: This could be a problem, as we still don’t know whether or not Eliezer’s done away with Rowling’s after-life. But regardless of what Harry thinks, the Wizengamot does believe in souls. So if he can prove that Hermione’s is undamaged, and that the Ancient Books of Evil Horcruxing say it should be, it ought to be convincing whether or not those books are mistaking brain-copying for soul-splitting.
Whenever someone commits cold-blooded murder their soul is ripped in two, even if the torn piece is not placed into a Horcrux. Not many people know this, but after speaking with Dumbledore Harry does.
No, Harry knows that Dumbledore said that he thinks this.
“I think, Harry—though you will call it only inference—that the act of murder splits the soul.
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.
Yes, but she supposedly left Draco in the trophy room to die slowly. From her perspective, allegedly, it was murder.
No, it’s attempted murder. It can be considered morally equivalent to murder and given the same punishment as murder but if nobody dies it is not murder. Because murder is when you kill someone.
Even if it goes by “if you think you’ve witnessed death” there’s still the matter that Hermione at no point thought that she witnessed Draco’s death; it would have happened hours after she left.
Furthermore I don’t believe Eliezer has even read Deathly Hallows
Curious, I’ve heard other people say this as well, but I don’t know why. The story has had discussion about the Deathly Hallows all the way back since at least chapter 39⁄40, and probably before that. Also, the Snape-loves-Lily revelation occurs there as well.
Did Eliezer state somewhere that he hasn’t read the 7th book?
Yes, he stated very early on (at least a year ago, I think?) that he had only read up to book 3 or 4, tried to pick up the later books, couldn’t get into them, and so relies on the wiki and other references to know how the plot develops.
This is actually weird.
How can he write such a good fic if he didn’t read all the books, relying only in definitions in the wiki? If so, he gain two more points of respect.
Whenever someone commits cold-blooded murder their soul is ripped in two, even if the torn piece is not placed into a Horcrux. Not many people know this, but after speaking with Dumbledore Harry does. Therefore, all they have to do is force Hermione to attempt to create a Horcrux,or use some other form of test. If she cannot, then her soul is unharmed and she is innocent. This seems like exactly the sort of practical solution that would occur to Harry but go unnoticed by the Wizarding World for centuries, like using dying people to seal unbreakable vows.
Problems with this solution:
Dumbledore claims to know “all too little, of the methods of Voldemort’s immortality.”
Counter: In canon Dumbledore actually did have Horcux books, but kept them hidden in his study. It would be prudent not to tell the immortality-obsessed first-year about these books. Also, if he were telling the truth they could have the Dementor almost steal her soul, as in PoA, and see if it is in one piece.
In Deathly Hallows, it’s said that the soul could be repaired by true remorse, and thus if Hermione was found to have a whole soul Lucius would say that just because she is sorry does not mean she is innocent.
Counter: I believe it was also stated that this was an extremely painful process, which Hermione does not seem to have undergone. Furthermore I don’t believe Eliezer has even read Deathly Hallows, and thus might be unaware of this fact. More importantly, Harry doesn’t know, so it wouldn’t stop him from using this plan if it occurred to him. Finally, even if Lucius did know enough to tell everyone that Hermione could have healed her soul, the fact that she is truly and provably sorry ought to bring her some leniency, and perhaps spare her Azkaban.
Harry doesn’t believe in souls, and in fact they may not exist in MoR.
Counter: This could be a problem, as we still don’t know whether or not Eliezer’s done away with Rowling’s after-life. But regardless of what Harry thinks, the Wizengamot does believe in souls. So if he can prove that Hermione’s is undamaged, and that the Ancient Books of Evil Horcruxing say it should be, it ought to be convincing whether or not those books are mistaking brain-copying for soul-splitting.
I see what you did there.
No, Harry knows that Dumbledore said that he thinks this.
But nobody thinks Hermoine actually committed murder; the charge is attempted murder.
Yes, but she supposedly left Draco in the trophy room to die slowly. From her perspective, allegedly, it was murder.
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.
No, it’s attempted murder. It can be considered morally equivalent to murder and given the same punishment as murder but if nobody dies it is not murder. Because murder is when you kill someone.
Would probably count for soul-splitting though.
I’d have expected it not to. There seems to be power released with murders and I wouldn’t expect that to come from wishful thinking.
Wouldn’t “ability to see a Thestral” be a simpler test?
Even if it goes by “if you think you’ve witnessed death” there’s still the matter that Hermione at no point thought that she witnessed Draco’s death; it would have happened hours after she left.
No, in this case it does matter that Draco didn’t actually die.
Curious, I’ve heard other people say this as well, but I don’t know why. The story has had discussion about the Deathly Hallows all the way back since at least chapter 39⁄40, and probably before that. Also, the Snape-loves-Lily revelation occurs there as well.
Did Eliezer state somewhere that he hasn’t read the 7th book?
Yes, he stated very early on (at least a year ago, I think?) that he had only read up to book 3 or 4, tried to pick up the later books, couldn’t get into them, and so relies on the wiki and other references to know how the plot develops.
I do not know if this has since changed.
This is actually weird. How can he write such a good fic if he didn’t read all the books, relying only in definitions in the wiki? If so, he gain two more points of respect.
Also, he has read alot of Harry Potter fanfic.