[ SECRET POST #4292 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4292 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #614.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Was it ever said Nagini was only a snake?

[(Anonymous)]

It was not explicitly said, in the same sense that I have not explicitly said that I am not a horse

[philstar22]

There was never any suggestion that Nagini was anything else, and retroactively changing her makes her appearance in the books more confusing. It doesn't make sense.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. Dumbledore being gay was at least sort of there in the subtext that it was believable that she always intended him to be that way (I still think that by book 7 she had definitely enough clout to make it more explicit).

This Nagini thing feels like an idea she might have had at some point while writing but then discarded just to pull it out now and going "Teheeee it was always 100% planned like that!".

[(Anonymous)]

That's not what retconning means, and that's also ridiculous. It's perfectly acceptable for authors to dig into pieces of their plots and expand it later. Nothing was changed at all. She never said that Nagini was only a snake and did not have to in order for it to be false.

[philstar22]

But Nagini acted like a snake. No one mentioned she was a human originally, including good guy Dumbledore, who was around to know.

[(Anonymous)]

That's really not a great argument. Maybe she's trapped in snake form, and lost her mind. Dumbledore keeping secrets is on par with canon.

[(Anonymous)]

While I do think that plot is a bit superfluous, I agree that Dumbledore not opening his mouth even though it might be vital information isn't exactly out of character for him.

[(Anonymous)]

would it be vital information? if anything, it might make the person more hesistant to kill nagini, even though she needed to die because she was a horocrux.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. He doesn't even always disclose vital information, so something like this? Why would he say it even if he knew?

[(Anonymous)]

Pretty sure the curse she has eventually permanently transforms her into a beast, so it's unknown how much of her humanity she still had left at the time of the books.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, and Peter acted like a rat after spending a decade permanently transfigured as one. And it's not like Voldemort is the type to brainwash or curse people.

In the world of magic where witches and wizards can easily transfigure into animals... why is THIS the thing that surprises people?

[(Anonymous)]

You know how, in book 3, the book where we find out Peter is a rat, JKR spends the whole book laying out a trail of breadcrumbs that leads up to the revelation that Pettigrew is Scabbers? And doesn't just announce it's so in a book trailer 10 years after the character's last appearance, which had no conceivable signs of anything like it

[osidiano]

I don't want to start a fight, and I haven't actually read the Rowling's side about this, but in the first chapter of book 1 Harry talked to a snake in a zoo who had been born into captivity and it acted like a (polite) person, so I'm not sure "she acted like a snake" is a very good argument or makes sense in that context.