I want to say the answer is "no", because Voldemort probably killed way more people than the amount of horcruxes he has and not every evil murderer wants to make horcruxes.

Also it seems to be a complex process, given that Tom Riddle asks Slughorn about it. It requires an evil act (like murder), but it seems to be more to it.

But, Harry was a horcrux Voldemort never wanted and not really knew about.

Can one accidentally make a horcrux?

marked as duplicate by Rand al'Thor Jan 10 at 22:11

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.


No, a horcrux cannot be made accidentally, and Harry was not a horcrux

“By an act of evil — the supreme act of evil. By commiting 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 —” “Encase? But how —?” “There is a spell, do not ask me, I don’t know!” said Slughorn shaking his head like an old elephant bothered by mosquitoes. “Do I look as though I have tried it — do I look like a killer?”

-Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

Voldemort clearly didn't kill Harry successfully. He might have intended to make a horcrux, but he didn't succeed. JKR has confirmed that Harry was not a horcrux.

"Here is the thing: for convenience, I had Dumbledore say to Harry, "You were the Horcrux he never meant to make," but I think, by definition, a Horcrux has to be made intentionally. So because Voldemort never went through the grotesque process that I imagine creates a Horcrux with Harry, (SU: Mm-hm.) it was just that he had destabilized his soul so much that it split when he was hit by the backfiring curse. And so this part of it flies off, and attaches to the only living thing in the room. A part of it flees in the very-close-to-death limbo state that Voldemort then goes on and exists in. I suppose it's very close to being a Horcrux, but Harry did not become an evil object. He didn't have curses upon him that the other Horcruxes had. He himself was not contaminated by carrying this bit of parasitic soul."

-JKR's interview

  • 17
    So I've seen this before, and still never really understood why Harry isn't a horcrux. I mean he isn't an "evil object," but the point of a horcrux isn't to be an evil object. It's to house a piece of a shattered soul, thereby protecting the soul's owner from death. Harry does this, just as a horcrux should. JRR saying he isn't really a horcrux because he isn't evil is like saying that a truck isn't really a truck because it isn't yellow. She says she had Dumbledore call him that for convenience. My guess is she meant it when she wrote it, and changed her mind later. – Misha R Jan 10 at 14:45
  • 6
    @Misha I too felt that it was flimsy logic, especially when Dumbledore himself says that he was a horcrux... But then again, JKR has done this sort of thing in many areas in the series. – Simpleton Jan 10 at 15:00
  • 4
    @Dúthomhas You could argue that, but that seems in no way necessary for the story, and the story doesn't describe horcruxes that way. And when Dumbledore says what he says, it actually works. It makes complete sense within the narrative, and is an interesting point. What doesn't make sense is JKR later saying "oh, yeah, that part of my story, don't take that as legitimate, it's just for convenience." And, I mean, it's fine - as Simpleton said, JKR does that sort of thing - but it's weird. – Misha R Jan 10 at 15:23
  • 10
    I think you're getting hung up on the naming, when I think J. K. Rowling's point was that prior to Harry, all horcruxes were created the same way, and followed the same rules due to the way they were created, and so that was previously understood to be the nature of horcruxes. But, as it turns out, Harry the "horcrux" was created a different way, and so had a different nature than the others. What they understood about the nature of horcruxes did not apply to him, and therefore, you could interpret this as either, he is not a horcrux, or you can expand the definition of horcrux. – Kai Jan 10 at 16:26
  • 5
    Personally, I don't see any contradiction. The books made it perfectly clear that a horcrux was something specific and difficult to make. The problem is we're arguing unimportant semantics. I can keep my tissues in a tissue box, or I can use any old box to keep my tissues in. Either way it is not entirely incorrect to call the box used for holding my tissues a tissue box, even it it is technically an apple crate. It only makes a difference if we must distinguish between an actual tissue box and a crate, as JK has done in interview. – Dúthomhas Jan 10 at 19:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.