I don't think I'm as big a fan of the Jocks Gryffindors as you are--as you recall, I don't much like Lupin, for instance - at all. But I always did like McGonagall. Not love--certainly not fierce--but like. I think my favorite moment in all of OotP is when Peeves is unscrewing some fixture and McGonagall under her breath directs him to unscrew it "to the right."
Truly, I'd think McGonagall's behavior throughout OotP wouldn't make sense if she was some traitor. She seemed to me to be fiercely protective of Harry and Dumbledore both. With the Snape-didn't-do-murder theories, I like them because for me it makes sense of so many things throughout HBP like Snape finally getting the DADA job, the cursed hand, that way he acted in Spinner's End, the argument with AD in the forest, his instructing Harry to the end while not allowing him to be hurt and captured, that "Please Severus" - so much else.
I don't think Minerva's actions need explanation in the same way. But as ginny_weasley31 said above, what's so delicious about this theory is its potential as a "big reveal" and I think JKR needs something like that--and Snape proving exonerated isn't going to do it.
(And, for the record, I am not a "fan" of Gryffindors. I don't particularly give a damn about houses, really. But as for Minerva, well, she just holds a special place in my heart. Maybe even just for the "to the right" comment.)
Speaking of McGonagall's behavior in OoTP, wouldn't she have been more supportive of axing Trelawney if she were a servant of Voldy? I seem to recall her as protecting the nutty professor, despite her dislike of her and her subject.
Speaking of McGonagall's behavior in OoTP, wouldn't she have been more supportive of axing Trelawney if she were a servant of Voldy? I seem to recall her as protecting the nutty professor, despite her dislike of her and her subject.
That's what I remember too. Mind you, if I were trying to defend the McGonagall's a traitor theory I could go for the obverse of part of why I think Snape's behavior doens't make sense if he's evil.
Basically, if Snape truly were a spy, I'd think he would act more like Slughorn. Cultivate the famous and powerful and up and coming--seem to be friendly to all Houses rather than champion his own--seek to be beloved rather than hated. Even Crouch as Moody *acted* kind to Neville as well as Harry--it better fit his purpose.
And there's the argument in the essay that just because one's a Nazi one can still be a good parent so to speak. So that one isn't 100 percent evil all the time.
Or simply that though McGonagall would want to discredit Trelawney, she would still want her at Hogwarts where she can see her and control her.
I think what we're left with is that the evidence *for* Snape is such that it makes sense of things, but that the only reason to buy the McGonagall theory is that it can't be disproven--and it would be cool.
I know this from writing, and reading about writing. You want to kill a character, or have a character be the betrayer--it needs to be one you care about--or should be for maximum effect. So that Minerva's beloved doesn't argue against her being the traitor. In fact she's in the perfect and most effective position for her betrayal to have maximum impact.
You know, at one point there was a quote from JKR that was circulating that seemed to imply *someone* would "betray" Harry and I remember bringing it up in WIKTT Chat. All sorts of possibilities were mentioned--even wild ones we didn't want to see: Percy, Ron, Lupin, Neville, even Molly.
No one thought of McGonagall--no one. Which is part of what makes me wonder if JKR just might do it.
I do admit, it would definitely be cool if McG were the big baddy. And have maximum effect. And the question of "who will betray Harry" has been pricking at me since I heard about it. Hmmmm...
Truly, I'd think McGonagall's behavior throughout OotP wouldn't make sense if she was some traitor. She seemed to me to be fiercely protective of Harry and Dumbledore both. With the Snape-didn't-do-murder theories, I like them because for me it makes sense of so many things throughout HBP like Snape finally getting the DADA job, the cursed hand, that way he acted in Spinner's End, the argument with AD in the forest, his instructing Harry to the end while not allowing him to be hurt and captured, that "Please Severus" - so much else.
I don't think Minerva's actions need explanation in the same way. But as ginny_weasley31 said above, what's so delicious about this theory is its potential as a "big reveal" and I think JKR needs something like that--and Snape proving exonerated isn't going to do it.
And, as I said, the possibilities for fanfic...
Reply
(And, for the record, I am not a "fan" of Gryffindors. I don't particularly give a damn about houses, really. But as for Minerva, well, she just holds a special place in my heart. Maybe even just for the "to the right" comment.)
Speaking of McGonagall's behavior in OoTP, wouldn't she have been more supportive of axing Trelawney if she were a servant of Voldy? I seem to recall her as protecting the nutty professor, despite her dislike of her and her subject.
Reply
That's what I remember too. Mind you, if I were trying to defend the McGonagall's a traitor theory I could go for the obverse of part of why I think Snape's behavior doens't make sense if he's evil.
Basically, if Snape truly were a spy, I'd think he would act more like Slughorn. Cultivate the famous and powerful and up and coming--seem to be friendly to all Houses rather than champion his own--seek to be beloved rather than hated. Even Crouch as Moody *acted* kind to Neville as well as Harry--it better fit his purpose.
And there's the argument in the essay that just because one's a Nazi one can still be a good parent so to speak. So that one isn't 100 percent evil all the time.
Or simply that though McGonagall would want to discredit Trelawney, she would still want her at Hogwarts where she can see her and control her.
I think what we're left with is that the evidence *for* Snape is such that it makes sense of things, but that the only reason to buy the McGonagall theory is that it can't be disproven--and it would be cool.
I know this from writing, and reading about writing. You want to kill a character, or have a character be the betrayer--it needs to be one you care about--or should be for maximum effect. So that Minerva's beloved doesn't argue against her being the traitor. In fact she's in the perfect and most effective position for her betrayal to have maximum impact.
You know, at one point there was a quote from JKR that was circulating that seemed to imply *someone* would "betray" Harry and I remember bringing it up in WIKTT Chat. All sorts of possibilities were mentioned--even wild ones we didn't want to see: Percy, Ron, Lupin, Neville, even Molly.
No one thought of McGonagall--no one. Which is part of what makes me wonder if JKR just might do it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment