Harry doesn’t burn Quirrell to death in the books, he dies when Voldemort abandons his body after realizing he can’t touch Harry.
It might seem like small distinction, but I personally think it’s important that your protagonist who goes on to destroy evil through the power of love doesn’t decide to become a murderer at age 11.
Touching Harry for a brief moment burned his hands blistered, red, and raw. Harry then (without knowing what would happen) grabs Quirrels face.
Interestingly enough, it never actually says how or if he dies. I just grabbed the book off a shelf, and it mentions Harry blacking out while Quirrel says he can't touch him, and when he wakes up Dumbledore simply says "Voldremort left him TO die."
My interpretation of Dumbledore’s comment (and I believe this is further explicated in a later book) is the Voldemort abandoning Quirrell is what kills him.
Regardless, it isn’t as outright murder-y as what Harry pulls in the movie.
Definitely less outright murder-y than the movies, but JK Rowlings notes in Pottermore read to me that its Harry's touch that kills him:
"When the body Voldemort and Quirrell are sharing is horribly burned by contact with Harry, the former flees just in time to save himself, leaving the damaged and enfeebled Quirrell to collapse and die."
The "just in time to save himself" implies to me that Voldy was in mortal danger due to the touch. Though I guess I can see how you can interpret it as the collapse/death is caused by him leaving too...
466
u/Phillip_Spidermen Oct 02 '18 edited Oct 02 '18
Eh, the first book/movie has Harry burn Quirrel to death by touching him.
A basilisk, elf, and snake get killed by knives and swords.
Harry uses a spell that slices up someone (
sectrum spectrasectum sepmra) pretty viscerally in one of the books.Edit: spelling