McGonagall.
Yesterday I was linked to a very interesting essay on Kia/serraasuka's journal theorising Minerva McGonagall as a Death Eater. I sort of instantly dismissed it in my mind - said something like 'the word useless is relative, rah rah rah' which I STILL do believe. I mean, almost anything is relative is it not?
Anyway, I read it again, much more closely, last night and while I think a lot of the evidence is based strongly on the authors own opinions of who or what McGonagall is... I still find it an extremely interesting perspective. I'm not sure if I can say I agree with it; but I remember thinking that when the truth about Scabbers/Pettigrew was revealed. If nothing else it makes for an interesting read. And I advise you to read it carefully, because otherwise you'd dismiss it like I did the first time around.
I'm not sold on it. But this particular statement alone was so cogent that I can't stop thinking about it, even now:
The HPLexicon says “what Snape does and what he says are two different things”.... In fact, Snape and McGonagall (Dumbledore’s right-hand and left-hand men) are inverse mirrors. To really know Minerva, you have to compare her frequently to Snape. In the words of Elizabeth Bennett of Pride and Prejudice, one has all the goodness, and the other has all the appearance of it.
Look at the above quote from Agatha Christie. That just makes sense. I mean, if I were Voldemort’s loyal and devoted servant through and through, I’d look like I cared about Harry, I’d shout devotions to Dumbledore. But I wouldn’t actually help them.
I’d look less like Snape and much more like McGonagall.
While it doesn't sell me on the fact that McGonagall is evil incarnate, it's still a very interesting concept. It would be just like Rowling, whose favourite author is, by the way, Jane Austen, to have that sort of juxtaposition between Snape and McGonagall.
But I guess, to me, THIS point in particular is not so much about McGonagall being a Death Eater as it is about Snape being good. But as for the essay topic itself, McGonagall alone makes for an interesting discussion. A part me wishes it were true... the other parts of the essay that don't concern the comparison between Snape and McGonagall (because, really, there is no arguement for McGonagall being a Death Eater there - you may as well compare Snape to a meringue) are actually... rather plausible, albeit circumstantial.
Go read the essay for yourselves you lazy bastards, and come back to me.
(Thanks for the link Kia ;P)
Anyway, I read it again, much more closely, last night and while I think a lot of the evidence is based strongly on the authors own opinions of who or what McGonagall is... I still find it an extremely interesting perspective. I'm not sure if I can say I agree with it; but I remember thinking that when the truth about Scabbers/Pettigrew was revealed. If nothing else it makes for an interesting read. And I advise you to read it carefully, because otherwise you'd dismiss it like I did the first time around.
I'm not sold on it. But this particular statement alone was so cogent that I can't stop thinking about it, even now:
The HPLexicon says “what Snape does and what he says are two different things”.... In fact, Snape and McGonagall (Dumbledore’s right-hand and left-hand men) are inverse mirrors. To really know Minerva, you have to compare her frequently to Snape. In the words of Elizabeth Bennett of Pride and Prejudice, one has all the goodness, and the other has all the appearance of it.
Look at the above quote from Agatha Christie. That just makes sense. I mean, if I were Voldemort’s loyal and devoted servant through and through, I’d look like I cared about Harry, I’d shout devotions to Dumbledore. But I wouldn’t actually help them.
I’d look less like Snape and much more like McGonagall.
While it doesn't sell me on the fact that McGonagall is evil incarnate, it's still a very interesting concept. It would be just like Rowling, whose favourite author is, by the way, Jane Austen, to have that sort of juxtaposition between Snape and McGonagall.
But I guess, to me, THIS point in particular is not so much about McGonagall being a Death Eater as it is about Snape being good. But as for the essay topic itself, McGonagall alone makes for an interesting discussion. A part me wishes it were true... the other parts of the essay that don't concern the comparison between Snape and McGonagall (because, really, there is no arguement for McGonagall being a Death Eater there - you may as well compare Snape to a meringue) are actually... rather plausible, albeit circumstantial.
Go read the essay for yourselves you lazy bastards, and come back to me.
(Thanks for the link Kia ;P)