[HPforGrownups] Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux)

[Peggy Wilkins]

No: HPFGUIDX 155086

On 7/8/06, justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Carol:
> Okay, I still think that Nagini is an entirely different snake from
> the boa constrictor, which is IMO just a plot device to show that
> Harry can talk to snakes, and that Nagini is a Horcrux (and has been
> one for a long time, as indicated by the effects of her venom on LV)

Peggy W:
I think it's a pretty big leap of an assumption that Nagini must be
one of Voldemort's Horcruxes *because* of how Voldemort used her
venom.  Actually, we don't even know that he took her venom directly:
it may have been used to make some magical potion that sustained him,
in which case its poisonous nature would have been altered.  The
unlucky task of "milking" her fell to Wormtail, which must mean that
Voldemort could not directly partake of it.  If he were capable of
doing that himself, I think he would have done so.  I think that
Wormtail must be doing something that Voldemort cannot do at this
point (we know he prefers to work alone when he can), and to me that
suggests that Voldemort is not drinking snake venom directly.
Therefore, it seems more likely that he is consuming a potion made out
of it by Wormtail.  This neither supports nor refutes that Nagini may
be a Horcrux.

> but I'm more confused than ever about her whereabouts when he was
> vaporized, how he found her again (or vice versa)...

Again, I think the assumption that Voldemort and Nagini were
acquainted before Godric's Hollow is a large leap that is unfounded.
I think that someone somewhere made the assumption that they knew each
other before GOF, and that assumption has carried on as if it were
fact, but there is no evidence in the books that Nagini and Voldemort
were acquainted before GOF.  Maybe they were, maybe not; we don't know
either way.  Perhaps this is why you are confused about it.

I'm sorry to lean on this point yet again, but to me this whole line
of questioning is based on assumptions that have a poor foundation.
That means the line of questions and any conclusions reached from it
are suspect.  I just wanted to register my objections.  I'll keep out
of further parts of this thread since I don't want to become too
tiresome about this.  I'm just saying I think the whole line of
questioning doesn't make sense to me because the assumptions behind it
are unfounded.  If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'd be
happy to read it; it's possible I've forgotten some detail.

-- 
Peggy Wilkins
enlil65 at gmail.com