Varför förstörde Basilisk bit inte Horcrux?

11

I slutet av den andra filmen blir Harry Potter bitad av Basilisk i hemlighetskammaren, innan den läker av Fawkes tårar.

Eftersom giftet förstörde Riddles bok, varför förstörde det först inte den sista Horcrux, inom Harry?

    
uppsättning EisenHeim 03.03.2016 08:56

2 svar

14

JK Rowling har faktiskt tagit upp detta ämne på Carnegie Hall 2007:

Question: When Harry was stabbed by a basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, since he was a Horcrux shouldn’t it have been destroyed then?

JK Rowling: I have been asked that a lot. Harry was exceptionally fortunate in that he had Fawkes. So before he could be destroyed without repair, which is what is necessary to destroy a horcrux, he was mended. However, I made sure that Fawkes wasn’t around the second time a Horcrux got stabbed by a basilisk fang, so the poison did its work and it was irreparable within a short period of time…. I established early in the book, Hermione says that you destroy a Horcrux by using something so powerful that there’s no remedy. But she does say there is a remedy for basilisk poison but of course it has to be administered immediately and when they stab the cup later – boy I’m really blowing this for anyone who hasn’t finished the book – there’s Fawkes, is my answer. And thank you for giving me a chance to say that because people have argued that quite a lot.

    
svaret ges 03.03.2016 09:02
-2

Låter som en cop-out till mig. Fången förstörde bägaren omedelbart som svärdet gjorde till låsningen och orm. Sanningen är Rowling planerade inte att Harry var en Horucrux när hon skrev den andra boken.

    
svaret ges 22.01.2017 09:49