Nagini: If she's not a Horcrux, what the heck is she?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 172031

"k12listmomma" wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> I think it simply means to "manipulate the circumstances to appear
as if the snake is "approaching" Dudley", so that Dudley would be
scared out of his pants. 
 
Lisa replied:
> 
> That's just it -- "manipulating the circumstances" implies intent,
and  there was none on Harry's part, as I said, malicious or
otherwise.  It just happened -- much like the regrowth of the hair. 
Harry didn't  control the snake at all -- he simply watched the
events.  And yes,  that is canon, because we saw the actual event
unfold.  How Harry views  it in hindsight is irrelevant -- I'm sure
we've all done things in the  past that we could look back on and
describe differently.

Carol responds:
Can we compromise here? Harry certainly didn't *intend* to "set a boa
constrictor on Dudley" any more than he *intended* to "blow up" Aunt
Marge. But neither of them "just happened" any more than his hair
growing back "just happened." In all cases, the accidental magic
fulfilled a half-conscious or subconscious desire--to save himself
from humiliation in the case of the hair, to scare or punish Dudley,
to punish and hurt Aunt Marge. In no case did he act deliberately, but
he "set" the snake on Dudley (subconsciously and accidentally and
without realizing he had any such power) in much the same way that he
subconsciously and accidentally (but with less naivete regarding his
own powers) "blew up" his obnoxious aunt. Note that when the brandy
glass explodes in Marge's hand, she blames her "very firm grip," but
Harry realizes that his anger has manifested itself as accidental
magic. I think, in retrospect, he recognizes a similar if milder
subconcious desire for retribution with regard to Dudley.

Carol, who sees no contradiction between (accidentally) "setting a
snake on Dudley" (to terrify rather than attack him) and
(accidentally) melting the glass that set the snake free