stilessaveme

[stilessaveme]

Brace yourselves…

I just came up with a theory.

A while ago, someone came up with the theory that Dumbledore had a horcrux - Fawkes. The SuperCarlinBrothers talked about this theory before being bluntly shot down by J.K. Rowling.

But the joke’s on you, Jo. I was already torn apart by you when you said that all disabilities in your world would be “fixed” or “overridden.” You can’t hurt me anymore! Haha! I’m as immortal as Harry!

“Wait, as immortal as Harry?”

What do I mean?

Well, I’ll tell you!

I think that the original theory was onto something. I think that Fawkes was a horcrux. But I don’t think he was Dumbledore’s horcrux. No, no…

I think that Fawkes was Harry’s horcrux.

Now, before I begin, note that this is just a theory and that it’s midnight, I’m tired, and there’s a good chance that I might not get everything right. But I’m going to try. I await your many many many messages in my inbox to explain why certain things I bring up can or cannot work.

First of all, let’s get the shakiest part of this theory out of the way. The prophecy. The prophecy has always confused me but I’m pretty sure it can still fit into this theory. I’m just not exactly sure how. Again, I’m tired. So let’s just assume that the prophecy fits perfectly. 

And here we go…

To repeat: I think that Fawkes was Harry’s horcrux.

A horcrux, of course, being an object in which a person stores a minuscule piece of their soul which keeps them alive.

And I believe that Harry has unknowingly stored a piece of his soul in Fawkes.

And I know what you’re thinking.

“Ah, marauders4evr, you truly are tired. Don’t you know that you have to kill someone in order to create a horcrux?”

I do know that.

“Little tiny innocent Harry Potter is a pure cinnamon roll too good for this world. Surely he has never-”

Ahahahahahahaha.

Remember that time little tiny innocent Harry Potter stabbed a gigantic snake?

I do!

And I think that after he does this, a little piece of his soul jumped ship, merging with Fawkes’ soul. After all, Fawkes had landed on his arm in order to cry Harry back to life.

“No, wait, no. J.K. Rowling said it herself - in order to create a horcrux, you have to perform a ritual so disgusting that her editor nearly vomited when hearing about it.”

Clearly her editor has never read fanfiction but I digress.

It is true that usually some big dark ritual is performed in order to create a horcrux.

Except for one occasion.

It’s widely accepted that the reason why Harry became a horcrux is because Voldemort’s soul was so splintered (from the amount of horcruxes that he created) that a piece of it just broke off and went into this child.

“So, wait, Harry’s soul was splintered?”

Well it certainly wasn’t stable. You’ve got two souls that have been suddenly fused together faster than Ruby and Sapphire. And we know that Harry’s soul has always been unstable. That’s why the Dementors affected him more. That’s why he kept having weird dreams wherein he saw into Voldemort’s mind. That’s why his scar hurt whenever Voldemort was nearby or angry or existing or…you know that part was never clear. But the point is that we know that Harry’s soul is corrupted. So much so that I think it’s safe to say that it’s splintered, splintered enough that after murdering a snake in cold-blood, a part of it flies off and attaches to Fawkes.

“Okay, marauders4evr, take it easy. If Harry’s soul was so splintered that a piece of it could break off after he murdered someone without the need for the dark ritual, then why wasn’t a horcrux created when he burned Quirrell to death hmmm?”

Okay first of all…why doesn’t anyone ever talk about the fact that Harry straight up killed his professor? I mean it was in self-defense but still…you think anyone would talk about that but they don’t, not in canon or in the fandom. But I digress.

Who’s to say that Harry didn’t accidentally create a horcrux after killing Quirrell?

“Okay, now you’re full of it.”

Probably but hear me out.

What if a little tiny piece of Harry’s splintered soul did break off and go into an object in the room? Maybe an object he was holding like…

…oh snap.

Yep. If you want, you could also argue that the Philosopher’s Stone was briefly a horcrux. I say briefly because Albus Dumbledore states outright that Nicolas and Perenelle destroyed it. (Note: Not the Nicolas and Perenelle from my books, although wouldn’t that be an interesting twist?) 

So the Philosopher’s Stone is gone. Kaput. Which means so is that little tiny piece of Harry’s soul. Which stinks. But it’s not really relevant to this theory, it just provides a safety net for lingering questions. 

But I digress…

I think that Fawkes is Harry’s horcrux. Which explains why Harry seems to be drawn to him so many times in future books. The others seem comforted by his songs but Harry has always had a genuine connection with him which isn’t really explained. What if this is that connection? Two souls reaching out to one another, causing a subconscious connection?

“Okay so Fawkes is Harry’s horcrux. What does that mean?”

That means that if Harry were to say, walk into the Forbidden Forest to stare Voldemort straight in the eye and accept his fate…

He would come back.

Because really, it’s never explained how Harry comes back. There have been a few feeble guesses. This is mine.

The reason why Harry came back is because he couldn’t die because a piece of his soul was in Fawkes.

As long as Fawkes is alive, Harry cannot ever truly die.

“Wait a minute…Fawkes is always alive.”

And now you see the best part of the theory!

No matter how much Fawkes dies, he always comes back. Fascinating creatures, phoenixes.

Fawkes can never die. Which means, if you believe in this theory, that neither can Harry.

Which means that Harry can never die.

Which means that Harry Potter will always be The Boy Who Lived.

And really, what better way to symbolize his eternal life than a phoenix? It’s literally the representation of Harry - someone who ‘dies’ multiple times but always comes back. Harry and Fawkes. The Ones Who Lived.

[stilessaveme]

remember

[stilessaveme]

#rude

[stilessaveme]

[stilessaveme]

this is literally every youtuber… ever

[stilessaveme]

[stilessaveme]

[stilessaveme]

Shaving.

[stilessaveme]

#look dudes! Bae’s okay.

[stilessaveme]

Matthew Daddario for Regard Magazine

[stilessaveme]

like if you save

[stilessaveme]

[stilessaveme]

jokes on her he gon buy crack

[stilessaveme]

Finding someone who thinks you’re interesting enough to talk to you every day, whether they’re a friend or a lover, is one of the best feelings ever.

[stilessaveme]

oaky he’s a hottie <3

Matthew Daddario for Bello Magazine - Jan 2016

[stilessaveme]

“Whatever you want to do stay passionate stay fearless and don’t care what people think. I wanna be the best as I can. Being the best person. Grown up and being better will help me to be a better actor. I’m not perfect, I just want to be good.” (insp)

[stilessaveme]

Just would like my two cents to this.  I think its important to note that both Auggie’s lesson and the one on STEM coincided in the same episode. It has also a lot to say about the topic at hand. These children are too young to even make a full formed decision about what they like/do not like yet subconsciously girls assume that if they don’t like it at such a young age, its not for them. Just because something is hard (like Aggie’s passivity to soccer) doesn’t mean you should give up on learning more about the subject. They are all young and need to learn about many subjects before they can decided if it is a field they’d like to enter in. And then it is a fair judgement call to pick if you would like to go in different fields.  I don’t think the episodes intention was to say that you are less of a feminist if you don’t like science or math. It was trying to say that you are limiting yourself if you don’t explore more about these subjects and assume a role that has been carefully constructed for you within society. It’s an empowering way of saying by knowing more you aren’t limiting your own potential? At least thats what I got out of it!  I like how this episode has started a discussion though, its great when TV shows can really pick up on social problems and get children at a young age to start thinking about social norms/ casual sexism. 

STEM is more about /why/ girls lose interest in those subjects. Theres a very small percentage of girls going into those subjects. This episode talks about how we all experience sexism growing up and how that changes our interests throughout the years

yes, i understand that, but sexism isn’t the only reason girls don’t go into STEM fields; some of them just genuinely have no interest, and i feel like the episode kind of ignored that fact.  i personally felt as though gm stem was saying that not having an interest somehow made you less of a feminist, and that’s what bothered me.

 if i was younger and watching the show, i would start thinking “oh the reason i don’t like math is because i’ve been conditioned by society to feel that way,” when really it’s because i just don’t care that much for math. that doesn’t make me less of a feminist, and it doesn’t mean that i don’t understand that there is a stereotype that girls can’t do math and that that stereotype is harmful.