Well Mr. Master of Canon, do explain why this statue is the one thing in Harry Potter that can just take the killing curse like nothing. Or does it not matter because it's canon and logic does not apply according to you?

While you're at it, explain why Bella can cast a nonverbal killing curse yet Voldemort still insists upon yelling it, even with the battle with Dumbledore.

I called it a typo by the way in the sense of bad writing on Rowling's part.

 

In book 5, near the bottom of page 813, Voldemort casts a killing curse while talking.

On the next page, Voldemort casts the Killing curse silently. Or I think it's silent. It just says that the Killing curse came from behind the silver shield while Dumbledore was talking. It had no mentions of Voldemort saying the incantation during that portion.

 

I read that, however it's not implied that he said it nonverbally. It's just not written down that he said it. She also put beforehand that he cast the spell again, burning a desk. I assumed she was not wanting to yell the spell 10 times in 2 pages as to not be repeating herself. I could be wrong though but it is never said anywhere that he said it silently.

 

Because, as I said above, clearly the Killing Curse has variable effect when it hits something not alive (it has variable effect when it hits alive things too).

1. What evantide said.

2. I don't see a problem here at all. Even if we never see Voldemort use the Killing Curse non-verbally (and I think we do), this is clearly (from the fact that Bellatrix can do it non-verbally, and Voldemort is better at magic than Bellatrix) a personal choice rather than an inability.

To me it seems clear. Voldemort said the incantation when dealing with someone he was clearly superior to (Harry) and when taking a cheap shot at Dumbledore, but once he entered a serious fight he switched to non-verbal.

 

The only time we see it not destroying an object is the statue in OOTP. The only person who survived the AK was Harry but those reasons have already been listed. It's not a variable as to special exceptions. Though still doesn't really explain why the statue had no effect to it.

Also, care to answer what I said in Post #33 since nobody has?

 

For this, I'm thinking that Volde-Diary was sending a portion of his soul fragment into Ginny while keeping a link to it because that smaller fragment wasn't self-sustaining. Probably the destruction of the Diary also caused whatever piece of soul Ginny had to die off too.

I have no proof of this, but it seems to fit, especially with us knowing that Voldemort's soul was unstable when he had 2/7 of it left in him when he tried to kill Harry.

 

I think he means possessing her. But if not, then I'd say that whatever vestiges of Tom Riddle made it into reality, they were destroyed when the diary was, as it was the only thing anchoring his existence. He was possessing and influencing her from within the diary, which means that when that was over, he was too. Presumable, this is why Ginny recovered almost the instant the diary was stabbed, IIRC.

EDIT: evantide beat me to it, but that's pretty much the gist of it, IMO.

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer evantide. However, I might disagree with that. If only because what happened to Harry the night at Godric's Hallow. Despite not even meaning to, Harry became the 7th Horocrux. (I believe he meant to make Harry's death a Horocrux though that just might be fanon popping in).

If the soul fragment wasn't in Harry, I would probably be prone to agree with you completely though.

Which raises another question that already has been answered probably, if Harry was a horocrux, why didn't the fang eliminate the soul piece in Harry like it did with the Diary?

 

And? We might see an AK hit a solid object and it be described maybe 5 times in the whole series. 1/5 is nowhere near a small enough ratio to dismiss it.

Whining about it doesn't change the fact that it happened. Even if we had seen 1000 Killing Curses destroy objects and 1 of them not, that would still mean that the Killing Curse has variable effects.

And when I said it has variable effects when it hits people I was talking about the way sometimes it makes them fly backwards and sometimes they just drop dead.

Because Harry didn't die.

 

Book 6, page 506, Dumbledore says that Voldemort wanted to save Harry's death for the last Horcrux. That probably explains the Scar-crux. Voldemort was already prepareing to make a final horcrux, so the soul fragment probably broke off because of Voldemort's earlier prepping for it.

 

Harry didn't need to die did he? It just needed to interact with the soul piece. The horocruxes were still in existence (except Nagini) after Voldemort's soul piece was taken out of them. The cup was still a cup, etc. So I don't think Harry has to necessary die for the soul fragment to be gone, but thats just my opinion. Could be wrong.

Also, the AK is said to be unblockable. Which makes it odd when the statues are able to protect Harry with no harm to themselves. It seems to break the set rules if something can block the Killing Curse such as the statues did when they weren't destroyed.

As so I was right, it wasn't fanon that Harry's death was going to be the last Horcrux. I agree that such a thing could happen. I assume it was because of the AK that soul fragment went into Harry instead of something else in the room.

I thought going into Book 7 that Harry was a horcrux. Though I thought maybe either James or Lily's remains were going to be one too.

 

Unblockable by magic. Obviously they're going to be blocked by physical things, or they would just keep passing through things until they killed someone.

Well, we're explicitly told that the only way to destroy a Horcrux is to destroy the receptacle, apparently beyond repair, but given that some Horcruxes were destroyed in DH that could still be conceivably be repaired, it seems to be the case that "beyond repair" simply means "damage it a lot".

 

So apparently, 'destroy' means different things based on the object hit and the target. In the same two pages of OotP I've been quoting from, a desk catches on fire from the killing curse, it bounces off of a statue, and it demolishes another statue into bits.

 

And don't forget that it leaves people's clothes completely unaffected. It just acts as if they aren't there (or that they're part of the person).

 

Spells often seem to have variable effects. Snape knocks Lockhart down in CoS with Expelliarmus, but that spell usually just disarms people. Haven't read the sequence in question for ages, but I suspect some anger management problems on Voldemort's part when the AK destroyed the statue.

As for the original topic, I agree that the Blood Protection didn't burn the diary because it wasn't recognisable as future Voldemort.

And the Protection expired on Harry's seventeenth birthday, so Nagini could safely touch Harry despite not having his blood in her wains.

One could probably argue that the Privet Drive Protection that fell in DH was unrelated to whatever burned Quirrell, but we don't see any evidence for that in canon.

 

So Harry survived at the end of DH partly because Voldemort had "unexpired" love protection or what ?
And this protection seems useless. It only helped Harry in PS and only Dumbledore said so. Could it not be accidental magic ? The protection does not help against Horcruxes, Death Eaters (he certainly touched rat) or evil creatures ( I am not sure but I think HP was touched by Dementors at the end of PoA)

 

Because he went as a willing sacrifice rather than fought, because Voldemort had his blood within him, acting as an anchor to life, and because Voldemort used the Elder wand to cast the Killing Curse on Harry - the Elder wand which Harry was the true master of.

Seems to me like this is a contradiction. "The protection is useless, it only saved Harry's life".

If the reason people in this thread are suggesting the protection did not work against Tom Riddle Horcrux et al. is true, then the protection would work against Horcruxes - just not Horcruxes created prior to the creation of the protection.

 

I don't know, was there anything to suggest his protection would work on anything but a biological vessel containing Voldemort himself? I couldn't imagine it extending to horcruxes in any way.

 

Well, due to the nature of Horcruxes (only be destroyed by attacking the physical shell, not the soul directly) it would seem that the protection would not be able to destroy a Horcrux. But I would imagine that it would protect against any offensive action from the Horcrux (if the Horcrux were made after 1981).

 

I meant it that love and its protection should be most powerful forms of magic (reason why HP survived AK) but they affect only one part of Voldemort's soul and against his "proxies" (DE, Horcruxes) it is useless.

Then why protection did not banish part of Voldemort' soul in scar ? It was made seconds/minutes after onset of love protection.