McGonagall a traitor?

[HarryLass]

Strange theory I thought up (sorry, it's long):
Okay, going with the “book six will echo book three” approach (see great thread here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=15705&page=1&pp=30)), someone is going to betray Harry next year. Since they will echo Wormtail, let’s look at his qualities, shall we?
• He was unremarkable before he was revealed, not doing anything noteworthy save for biting Goyle.
• He had no definite background, other than being Percy’s pet.
• He was also mostly in the background, used for comic relief more than anything.
• He was there since Harry was introduced to Hogwarts, in the first book.
• Only seen in the school community, with one exception ( in book three at the Magical Menagerie)
To summarize: unremarkable; seems to be a good guy, but had his own reasons for doing good things; without a history; not a huge, major character, but regularly seen; there since the first book; and seen only in school.
Does any other character fit with this description in the books so far? Let’s look for the characteristics found in Wormtail first, looking at those he’s with in his school life. (Sorry if you thought it was going to be Petunia)

Boring:
Non-Weasley Quidditch Team Members (or N-WQTM)
Professor Binns
Any supporting student character
Most of the teachers (except for Snape and Trelawney)

Seems Like a Close Ally
No Slytherins
Hufflepuffs
All of the teachers (except for Snape and Trelawney)
Nearly-Headless Nick

No History
First let’s examine those that do have histories and go back from there. Most of the students have histories, even if it’s just them saying “I’m a half-blood” or “I’m a muggle soccer fan.” As for the staff: Snape, Binns, Flitwick, Trelawney, Hagrid, Lupin, Filch, and the DADA teacher of the year all have limited histories. That leaves:
The Patil twins
Peeves
Bloody Baron
Grey Lady
Fat Friar
N-WQTM
Madam Pince,
Madam Pomfrey,
Madam Hooch,
Professor Vector,
Professor Sinistra,
Professor Sprout
Professor McGonagall

Introduced in the first book:
Since so many characters are introduced each year, and so many initially there, let’s just narrow down the remaining people to filter out those who are new. That leads us to:

Those That Show All of the Traits Above:
Patil twins
Hufflepuffs in Harry’s year
N-WQTM
Madam Pince
Madam Pomfrey
Madam Hooch
Professor Vector
Professor Sinistra
Professor Sprout
Professor McGonagall

Filtered (see above):
Patil twins
N-WQTM
Madam Pince
Madam Hooch
Madam Pomfrey
Professor Sprout
Professor McGonagall

Now, I know it would come as a shock to Harry if Parvati started chanting prayers to the Dark Lord under her breath, but would it be a great betrayal? No, someone whom Harry has implicitly trusted, whom he has shared with, would make a great betrayal.
That leads us to the culprit from the list above:
Professor McGonagall

You might be scratching your head now, and saying “What? McGonagall? How could she be a turncoat? She’s Dumbledore’s champion.” Ah, if only it were that simple. All we know about her past is that she’s been teaching for 39 years, or forty in Harry’s sixth year. Let’s examine what we do know about her, and how it fits with this theory.


Remember how the Sorting Hat said that the only way to beat LV is for the houses to band together? Hermione, as the mouthpeice for JK, said that the House Cup seems to be against the Houses coming together. McGonagall seems to be very gung-ho to win the house cup each year. She bends rules in book 1 to get Harry on the Quidditch team, so that Gyffindor wins the Cup, and does the same in Book 5. And don’t forget the generous points she gave to Harry and co. at the end of Book 5. She says that she doesn’t want Snape to brag about his House winning again. We’ve seen someone want to put Snape in his place before, but he was in the back of Quirell’s head.
She is also a new member of the Order, i.e. wasn’t in when the Potters were members. If she’s been teaching for so long, shouldn’t she have been part of the original Order, seeing as she is Dumbledore’s champion? Remember that Wormtail was in the first Order.
She has no past. A bit suspicious.
She’s never been particularly helpful. In OoP, all the advice she gives is to stop messing around with Umbridge, as if that wasn’t already obvious. She also stops by the Order’s headquarters only once. Since all of the others, even the crook Mundugus, stay for a long period of time, this definitely smacks of suspiciousness. The only times she defends Harry is in the presence of others, namely Umbridge. And just because she is the enemy of Harry’s enemy doesn’t make her an ally. The same can be said about her appearance in the Foe-Glass with Barty Crouch Jr. I’ll even use him as an example. He hated Death Eaters that walked free, but he wasn’t out to get evil, he wanted to show them how to truly serve their master. The same can apply here.
And how did the DEs know that Sirius was an Animagus? Only someone well acquainted with Sirius’ past or a member of the Order of the Phoenix would know. McGonagall fills both of these requirements. One might argue that McGonagall never saw Sirius as a dog, and therefore could not tell anyone that he was an Animagus. But she did-- at the end of the fourth book, she escorted him, as a dog, to Dumbledore’s office. I’m not sure about this, but since she is an Animagus herself, she could have probably noticed a fellow. Also, since she had him as a student for years, she could, feasibly, tell that the dog was Sirius.
She was also born in 1920, leading her to be in the same year as The Dark Lord himself at Hogwarts. Even if my math is off by a few years, this means she shared at least one year with him. What might that mean? Well, he seemed to be a very good-looking guy back in the day, so she could conceivably have had a crush on him. But that doesn’t mean that she knows she’s in cahoots with the Dark Lord. We don’t have any idea if she knows the connection between Tom Riddle and Voldemort, as she was in neither of the scenes where Tom and LV are said to be one and the same. She could simply be corresponding with an old flame via owl, and throwing in a few details about her knowledge from the Order to impress him. But if she isn’t, why would she do this willingly? Well, to her, it might be better to help the Devil than to be in his path. She might also be protecting someone or something in her past.
Look at the history of her namesake, Minerva. She fought against Greece, her own country, in the Trojan War for ten years because her pride was hurt. When she is angry, all hell breaks loose. She may be the goddess of wisdom, but she’s also the goddess of war, you know.

Does this mean that she will be the traitor? Only JK Rowling knows for sure. Does this mean the Patil twins can’t pray to the Devil in future books? No, but I’d keep a close eye on them anyway.

What do you think? Flames, comments, PMs, I’m game.

[FawkesBox]

Wow- That was extremely well thought out. I am very impressed. As I have said before, I would put nothing past JKR. However, perhaps these incidents are really innocent (I am going against my gut here.) Although we are seeing McGonagall go against other teachers or school rules, she seems only to have Harry's best interest at heart. With that being said, there was a time that I would have said that about "Mad-Eye Moody" during most of Book 4. :scared:

[Cat]

You've done a lot of detectoring and it all makes a lot of sense.

But you've included an essential flaw, and it's a big, hairy, smelly-footed flaw that many theory makers trip up on. It's the concept of 'if'. The whole theory relies on an 'if'. If the future traitor has the characteristics of Peter Pettigrew...

Well, I don't believe that they will. Traitors come in many guises. I don't think simply making Peter II will be an effective creation for the plot. Perhaps a traitor will share some things in common with Peter, but not everything.

I suppose it depends on how it's done, though, so you may turn out to be right.

PS: the Death Eaters knew Sirius was an Animagus either because of observation that summer or because of Peter Pettigrew, who knew the fact perfectly well.

[HarryLass]

PS: the Death Eaters knew Sirius was an Animagus either because of observation that summer or because of Peter Pettigrew, who knew the fact perfectly well.
Ah... I forgot that part. Well, can't blame me for trying.

But you've included an essential flaw, and it's a big, hairy, smelly-footed flaw that many theory makers trip up on. It's the concept of 'if'. The whole theory relies on an 'if'. If the future traitor has the characteristics of Peter Pettigrew...

Well, I don't believe that they will. Traitors come in many guises. I don't think simply making Peter II will be an effective creation for the plot. Perhaps a traitor will share some things in common with Peter, but not everything.

Would you also have said that a Lockheart clone would never be in the books? And strictly speaking, there isn't, but there is a dang good try--someone self-absorbed, talentless, and who uses Harry to further his/her personal agenda. That person would be Dolores Umbridge, an efective foil for Lockheart. (see the link to Book two and Book five for more indepth stuff). And, strictly speaking, there won't be a Peter II. But there will be a good foil for him.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I totally disagree. For one, I don't like at all the "mirroring" theory, or any permutations of it. Two, McGonagall is not boring or uninteresting at all - I loved her treatment of Umbridge. And there's a reason she was the first non-Dursley character we were introduced to.

But the real reason I don't like your theory is that there is no motive. Why in the world would she do such a thing. McGonagall seems to have succeeded Dumbledore at the Transfiguration post, she is the Deputy Headmistress - in other words, DD's second in command at Hogwarts . You can't call the fact that she only came to 12GP suspicious - for one we were only there for a little while, and for two we have no idea what she does for the Order, so we can't say "Oh, she should have come more often." Plus, DD came in the middle of the night - why not McGonagall? Obviously the way the DEs knew Sirius was an animagus is through Pettigrew. If there's going to be a traitor, I'm looking at Snape (only at the very end, not now), Ernie Macmillan, and maybe Grawp. McGonagall? - no way.

[HarryLass]

I totally disagree. For one, I don't like at all the "mirroring" theory, or any permutations of it. Two, McGonagall is not boring or uninteresting at all - I loved her treatment of Umbridge. And there's a reason she was the first non-Dursley character we were introduced to.

But the real reason I don't like your theory is that there is no motive. Why in the world would she do such a thing. McGonagall seems to have succeeded Dumbledore at the Transfiguration post, she is the Deputy Headmistress - in other words, DD's second in command at Hogwarts . You can't call the fact that she only came to 12GP suspicious - for one we were only there for a little while, and for two we have no idea what she does for the Order, so we can't say "Oh, she should have come more often." Plus, DD came in the middle of the night - why not McGonagall? Obviously the way the DEs knew Sirius was an animagus is through Pettigrew. If there's going to be a traitor, I'm looking at Snape (only at the very end, not now), Ernie Macmillan, and maybe Grawp. McGonagall? - no way.

But that doesn't explain away the fact that we know absolutely nothing about her past, save for her years teaching. And she is charismatic, but so was "Mad-Eye". Didn't you love the sweet justice given by the white ferret incident? But there were ultieror (sp?) motives behind that. She hates Umbridge.So what? Half the world hates her. If you want to tell me that because she hates Umbridge, she's a good guy, that's a lot to swallow.

[Cat]

Ah... I forgot that part. Well, can't blame me for trying.



Would you also have said that a Lockheart clone would never be in the books? And strictly speaking, there isn't, but there is a dang good try--someone self-absorbed, talentless, and who uses Harry to further his/her personal agenda. That person would be Dolores Umbridge, an efective foil for Lockheart. (see the link to Book two and Book five for more indepth stuff). And, strictly speaking, there won't be a Peter II. But there will be a good foil for him.

No, Umbridge is too different. She's equally talentless in the field, but so was Quirrel. But there was no glamour on her agenda and she didn't work for herself, she worked for her employers. She was obsessed with the desires of the Ministry, so much so that she became twisted in her attempts to preserve them. She was a pawn. One of those violent, magical pawns that might attack other chess pieces, but still a pawn. She was a governmental figure. Lockhart was completely different. He was a romantic and a coward. Umbridge, at least, was bold - and that's not a compliment in her case. Umbridge's path through the book didn't reflect Lockhart's, either. She caused much more damage and was never liked by anybody.

Oh, yeah, and we don't know the pasts of most of the rest of the characters, either. It's not suspicious not to know. To provide us with all the information, J. K. Rowling would have had to have made Harry even more nosy than he is. And I didn't know the pasts of any of my teachers, either. For all I knew, my physics teacher could have been a strange scientific experiment on a rampage.

[HarryLass]

No, Umbridge is too different. She's equally talentless in the field, but so was Quirrel. But there was no glamour on her agenda and she didn't work for herself, she worked for her employers. She was obsessed with the desires of the Ministry, so much so that she became twisted in her attempts to preserve them. She was a pawn. One of those violent, magical pawns that might attack other chess pieces, but still a pawn. She was a governmental figure. Lockhart was completely different. He was a romantic and a coward. Umbridge, at least, was bold - and that's not a compliment in her case. Umbridge's path through the book didn't reflect Lockhart's, either. She caused much more damage and was never liked by anybody.

Exactly my point. They have common traits and actions, but different personalities and effects on the books- therefore, they are foils. One example of this "mirroring" is with Dobby and Kreacher- they were introduced three books apart, they were both mistreated, and they both took revenge on their masters. Dobby had a postive effect for Harry and co., and Kreacher had a very negative one. That doesn't mean they don't foil each other-in fact, what I just described is the definition of a foil- two characters whose personalities and actions balance the books.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

But that doesn't explain away the fact that we know absolutely nothing about her past, save for her years teaching.

But that's nearly half of her life! And think about it, what do we know about any of the following besides their years teaching.

Trelawney
Binns
Sinistra
Flitwick (besides the dueling champion rumor)
Grubbly Plank
Hooch
Pince
Pomfrey
Sprout
Umbridge
Vector

And that's just the teachers! What about all the students? And even, all the students pets?

There are so many people that could turn, and I realize that you have weeded a few of them out through other means, but I for one don't believe that if there is a traitor s/he will be even a foil to Pettigrew and for two don't think it will be a teacher (except for Snape). As I said before, look at Snape, Ernie, and Grawp, in that order of most likely to turn. McGonagall? No way.

[Cat]

Dobby and Kreacher would work, but Umbridge and Lockhart do not. Their traits and actions weren't alike. They didn't share the same kind of role in the books (save being DATDA teachers) and they didn't have the same effects.

The only thing they mirrored between the two of them was that they both walked into their own traps and paid for it. But mirroring comeuppances are a different can of worms.

I don't see why J. K. Rowling would make a 'traitor formula'. That wouldn't be half as effective as keeping her plot elements nice and fresh.

Besides, I'm not a fan of this 'history repeating itself' malarkey, except in special circumstances. It's too neat and convient. I prefer variety. Subtle differences in character can make all the difference, even if the circumstances are identical.

[Zachary1993]

Strange theory I thought up (sorry, it's long):
Okay, going with the “book six will echo book three” approach (see great thread here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=15705&page=1&pp=30)), someone is going to betray Harry next year. Since they will echo Wormtail, let’s look at his qualities, shall we?
• He was unremarkable before he was revealed, not doing anything noteworthy save for biting Goyle.
• He had no definite background, other than being Percy’s pet.
• He was also mostly in the background, used for comic relief more than anything.
• He was there since Harry was introduced to Hogwarts, in the first book.
• Only seen in the school community, with one exception ( in book three at the Magical Menagerie)
To summarize: unremarkable; seems to be a good guy, but had his own reasons for doing good things; without a history; not a huge, major character, but regularly seen; there since the first book; and seen only in school.
Does any other character fit with this description in the books so far? Let’s look for the characteristics found in Wormtail first, looking at those he’s with in his school life. (Sorry if you thought it was going to be Petunia)

Boring:
Non-Weasley Quidditch Team Members (or N-WQTM)
Professor Binns
Any supporting student character
Most of the teachers (except for Snape and Trelawney)

Seems Like a Close Ally
No Slytherins
Hufflepuffs
All of the teachers (except for Snape and Trelawney)
Nearly-Headless Nick

No History
First let’s examine those that do have histories and go back from there. Most of the students have histories, even if it’s just them saying “I’m a half-blood” or “I’m a muggle soccer fan.” As for the staff: Snape, Binns, Flitwick, Trelawney, Hagrid, Lupin, Filch, and the DADA teacher of the year all have limited histories. That leaves:
The Patil twins
Peeves
Bloody Baron
Grey Lady
Fat Friar
N-WQTM
Madam Pince,
Madam Pomfrey,
Madam Hooch,
Professor Vector,
Professor Sinistra,
Professor Sprout
Professor McGonagall

Introduced in the first book:
Since so many characters are introduced each year, and so many initially there, let’s just narrow down the remaining people to filter out those who are new. That leads us to:

Those That Show All of the Traits Above:
Patil twins
Hufflepuffs in Harry’s year
N-WQTM
Madam Pince
Madam Pomfrey
Madam Hooch
Professor Vector
Professor Sinistra
Professor Sprout
Professor McGonagall

Filtered (see above):
Patil twins
N-WQTM
Madam Pince
Madam Hooch
Madam Pomfrey
Professor Sprout
Professor McGonagall

Now, I know it would come as a shock to Harry if Parvati started chanting prayers to the Dark Lord under her breath, but would it be a great betrayal? No, someone whom Harry has implicitly trusted, whom he has shared with, would make a great betrayal.
That leads us to the culprit from the list above:
Professor McGonagall

You might be scratching your head now, and saying “What? McGonagall? How could she be a turncoat? She’s Dumbledore’s champion.” Ah, if only it were that simple. All we know about her past is that she’s been teaching for 39 years, or forty in Harry’s sixth year. Let’s examine what we do know about her, and how it fits with this theory.


Remember how the Sorting Hat said that the only way to beat LV is for the houses to band together? Hermione, as the mouthpeice for JK, said that the House Cup seems to be against the Houses coming together. McGonagall seems to be very gung-ho to win the house cup each year. She bends rules in book 1 to get Harry on the Quidditch team, so that Gyffindor wins the Cup, and does the same in Book 5. And don’t forget the generous points she gave to Harry and co. at the end of Book 5. She says that she doesn’t want Snape to brag about his House winning again. We’ve seen someone want to put Snape in his place before, but he was in the back of Quirell’s head.
She is also a new member of the Order, i.e. wasn’t in when the Potters were members. If she’s been teaching for so long, shouldn’t she have been part of the original Order, seeing as she is Dumbledore’s champion? Remember that Wormtail was in the first Order.
She has no past. A bit suspicious.
She’s never been particularly helpful. In OoP, all the advice she gives is to stop messing around with Umbridge, as if that wasn’t already obvious. She also stops by the Order’s headquarters only once. Since all of the others, even the crook Mundugus, stay for a long period of time, this definitely smacks of suspiciousness. The only times she defends Harry is in the presence of others, namely Umbridge. And just because she is the enemy of Harry’s enemy doesn’t make her an ally. The same can be said about her appearance in the Foe-Glass with Barty Crouch Jr. I’ll even use him as an example. He hated Death Eaters that walked free, but he wasn’t out to get evil, he wanted to show them how to truly serve their master. The same can apply here.
And how did the DEs know that Sirius was an Animagus? Only someone well acquainted with Sirius’ past or a member of the Order of the Phoenix would know. McGonagall fills both of these requirements. One might argue that McGonagall never saw Sirius as a dog, and therefore could not tell anyone that he was an Animagus. But she did-- at the end of the fourth book, she escorted him, as a dog, to Dumbledore’s office. I’m not sure about this, but since she is an Animagus herself, she could have probably noticed a fellow. Also, since she had him as a student for years, she could, feasibly, tell that the dog was Sirius.
She was also born in 1920, leading her to be in the same year as The Dark Lord himself at Hogwarts. Even if my math is off by a few years, this means she shared at least one year with him. What might that mean? Well, he seemed to be a very good-looking guy back in the day, so she could conceivably have had a crush on him. But that doesn’t mean that she knows she’s in cahoots with the Dark Lord. We don’t have any idea if she knows the connection between Tom Riddle and Voldemort, as she was in neither of the scenes where Tom and LV are said to be one and the same. She could simply be corresponding with an old flame via owl, and throwing in a few details about her knowledge from the Order to impress him. But if she isn’t, why would she do this willingly? Well, to her, it might be better to help the Devil than to be in his path. She might also be protecting someone or something in her past.
Look at the history of her namesake, Minerva. She fought against Greece, her own country, in the Trojan War for ten years because her pride was hurt. When she is angry, all hell breaks loose. She may be the goddess of wisdom, but she’s also the goddess of war, you know.

Does this mean that she will be the traitor? Only JK Rowling knows for sure. Does this mean the Patil twins can’t pray to the Devil in future books? No, but I’d keep a close eye on them anyway.

What do you think? Flames, comments, PMs, I’m game.
I don't think that she will be a traitor. It does not seem her type. I hope that she does not become a traitor. I like her she is a nice charactor.

[HarryLass]

But that's nearly half of her life! And think about it, what do we know about any of the following besides their years teaching.
Alright, two can play at that game.

Trelawney
Great-grandaughter to Cassandra Trelawney

Binns
Got up one day and left his body behind

Sinistra
Got me there--but is she important or mentioned enough to be of interest?

Flitwick (besides the dueling champion rumor)
I thought that at least that proved that he had a life outside of what we know at Hogwarts.

Grubbly Plank
Don't know--but would her betrayal mean anything?

Hooch
Extensive knowledge of brooms, makes and models-suitable for a flying instructor

Pince
Got me there

Pomfrey
Sprout
Umbridge
Vector

And that's just the teachers! What about all the students? And even, all the students pets?

There are so many people that could turn, and I realize that you have weeded a few of them out through other means, but I for one don't believe that if there is a traitor s/he will be even a foil to Pettigrew and for two don't think it will be a teacher (except for Snape). As I said before, look at Snape, Ernie, and Grawp, in that order of most likely to turn. McGonagall? No way.

The main thing with this is that it must not only be a betrayal of the Order, Dumbledore, and the "good guys", but it must be a betrayal of Harry. Would any of the above matter that much to him if they switched sides? No, but someone with whom he had confided in, someone connected to him, would be a true betrayal. Remember Ron's reaction to Pettigrew--"I let you sleep in my bed"? If it had been, say, someone like a distant Death Eater, it would not have been so personal and so shocking.

By the way, I know I can't change your views on the "mirroring", so i'm not going to go to war with you about it.

Just respect, please, everyone's opinion.

[Cat]

I admit that I would like one of the Order of the Phoenix to be a rat, but not McGonagall. She wasn't used as a 'main' Order member in OOTP and is generally more associated with the role of teacher. I could be looking at this the wrong way, but I feel that a more effective spy, for the sake of narrative causality, would be one of the Order members that were active as Order members in OOTP.

Many people would suggest Tonks. She has intriguing but suspicious abilities, she's an Auror, which gives her some knowledge of Dark Magic and it would greatly surprise Harry.

For all these reasons, I'm going to point the finger at.... Kingsley Shacklebolt. Tonks really does have suspicious abilities that would be very useful in spying... now doesn't that make a great diversion? Besides, Kingsley would make a cool bad guy. He's tall, bald and has a deep voice. No offence meant to any tall, bald blokes with deep voices, I'm sure you're all lovely in reality. It's just that there is a niche for such a person in a the dark orders of fiction.

Sorry, I'm rambling here.

I do appreciate your views of formula-based theory. I just don't agree with them. Having said that, I don't think it would be impossible for McGonagall to turn ratty, I just don't think it would have anything to do with her having any circumstantial reflections to Peter.

[Enkidu]

Exactly my point. They have common traits and actions, but different personalities and effects on the books- therefore, they are foils. One example of this "mirroring" is with Dobby and Kreacher- they were introduced three books apart, they were both mistreated, and they both took revenge on their masters. Dobby had a postive effect for Harry and co., and Kreacher had a very negative one. That doesn't mean they don't foil each other-in fact, what I just described is the definition of a foil- two characters whose personalities and actions balance the books.

You touch on an interesting thing here - another instance of betrayal. One betrayal in Harry's favor, one not in his favor. Perhaps this is the mirroring we will see in book 6? Maybe it won't be someone betraying Harry (to Volde presumably), but someone betraying Volde to Harry's advantage? Who could it be? Malfoy? A random DE? Pettigrew himself? Maybe it will be book 6 that we find out why Wormtail is a Griffindor, and how the use of his hand (bearing a debt to Harry) has affected the resurrection of his master.

Hows that for a theory? Boo yah.

[rotsiepots]

She was also born in 1920, leading her to be in the same year as The Dark Lord himself at Hogwarts. Even if my math is off by a few years, this means she shared at least one year with him. What might that mean? Well, he seemed to be a very good-looking guy back in the day, so she could conceivably have had a crush on him. But that doesn’t mean that she knows she’s in cahoots with the Dark Lord. We don’t have any idea if she knows the connection between Tom Riddle and Voldemort, as she was in neither of the scenes where Tom and LV are said to be one and the same. She could simply be corresponding with an old flame via owl, and throwing in a few details about her knowledge from the Order to impress him. But if she isn’t, why would she do this willingly? Well, to her, it might be better to help the Devil than to be in his path. She might also be protecting someone or something in her past.

Technically speaking McGonagall could have gone through Hogwarts without encountering Tom Riddle. What we do know for certain is that Voldemort was born in 1927. McGonagall is described as being a "sprightly seventy" by JKR. If McGonagall was born in 1920 (the birth year isn't given by JKR, just an approximation of her age) then she would have attended Hogwarts from September, 1931 through to June, 1938. Tom Riddle started at Hogwarts in September, 1938. Besides, I can hardly imagine Professor McGonagall being interested in someone younger than her...especially seven years younger.

We do know some facts about McGonagall: she's an animagus, dresses in Muggle clothes, has a fondness for tartan dress, has a sense of justice and equality, was in Gryffindor when she attended Hogwarts, is an avid Quidditch fan, wears top hats at Christmas parties etc etc.

I hardly think it's fair to say that we don't know anything about her.

[Weatherby]

I agree with rotsiepots.
That would also mean any one of Riddle's classmates would/could/did turn evil.
But didn't Dumbledore say noone placed Voldemort as the charming Head boy? Why would she betray everyone so many years later for a school girl crush she may have had?

[lanifiel]

I dont see McGonagall being evil. There has been far to many times that she could of used her position to take control or do something to hurt Harry and Co. and has chosen not to. I agree there might be a case, but like my esteemed fellow mods above me, I find it very doubtful :)

[Loz]

I think it's actually a nicely thought out theory. But I can't see it happening, really. I believe McGonagall really showed potential in OotP that distinguished her as being a Valuable member of the good side as opposed to being a potential traitor. Plus, as others have said... this is if there is another one traitor, neatly revealed, and if that traitor bares any similarities to Peter.

[Magi]

HarryLass,

McGonagall has done too much to be a traitor. She's a very close friend of Dumbledore. So much so, that DD doesn't even suspect her, as far as we know. She is very concerned about Harry, and was apparently very fond of the Potter family. Too much evidence of loyalty, absolutely no evidence of betrayal.

Oh, and we do know something about her background: she's been teaching at Hogwarts for 39 years (if I recall correctly). Judging by the dubious quality of your answers in post #7, my answer is perfectly acceptable.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

About those teachers you said. We know just as much about McGonagall as we do about the others - she's an Animagus! That's pretty important, and she probably (but not necessarily) became when outside of teaching. Either way though, I still don't think that the whole "mirroring" deal makes sense - ask me after Book 6. If a lot of mirroring is still there, then maybe. But now - there's not nearly enough evidence.

[FreyaCrescent]

I think the theory is well thought out, even though I don't find it particularly true. I don't see McGonagall as someone who would be Dumbledore's ally for so many years only to turn against him right at the end, when she knows the kind of destruction he's caused to her friends and former students. Like others have pointed out, we really know quite a bit about McGonagall, through Harry's numerous meetings with her as Gryffindor Head of House. She's not a huge enigma like some of the other Professors, we don't even know the sex of some of them!

I would like to see someone from the Order as a spy for Voldemort, but I wouldn't like them to follow in exactly the same footsteps as Peter. It's just boring to have a traitor in this battle mirroring exactly the traitor of the last. I don't see that as JKR's style.

[Twinkly eyed]

I have to disagree, Wormtail could have easily told Voldy, he knew didn't he, as you remeber if you hadread the 5th book clearly Sirius states "They'll know about my dog disguise now, Wormtail will have told them long ago..." Which means that Wormtail told them.
And you mentioned McGonogall fancying the Dark Lord, i'm afraid i must disagree again, if the dark lord was in Slytherin(which he was as he states in COS) then she wouldn't have fancied him would she, becaus e there was a lot of rivalry between the houses!!!1 I rest my case

[sindatur]

Well, if we want to mirror Book 3, Peter Pettigrew being a traitor, what about if this is where he betrays Voldemort and joins the good side?

Or, a theory I hate to think about, but is all together possible, the Rat kills the cat (The cat tried to kill the rat, and was believed to have in book 3). What if Peter tries, or is successful in killing McGonagal in Book 6? I find this far more possible than McGonagal becoming a traitor.

[HannahStarr]

First, I have to say that I don't like the idea of book 3 being like book 6. Second, I doubt McGonagall is anything but good. She just doesn't seem the type.

She is also a new member of the Order, i.e. wasn’t in when the Potters were members. If she’s been teaching for so long, shouldn’t she have been part of the original Order, seeing as she is Dumbledore’s champion? Remember that Wormtail was in the first Order.

Not sure what "Dumbeldore's Champion" is supposed to mean, but McGonagall was probably not in the Order before because she wasn't close to DD as she is now, i.e. not Deputy Headmistress, which I belive is why she is always at DD's side.

She also stops by the Order’s headquarters only once. Since all of the others, even the crook Mundugus, stay for a long period of time, this definitely smacks of suspiciousness.

Right, but that's jsut the times Harry saw her. And don't forget: DD only stopped by a few times too, and never stayed for long.

Got me there--but is she important or mentioned enough to be of interest?

JKR mentiones NOTHING about Sinistra besides the fact that she teaches Astronomy. We don't even know what she looks like. This makes her a far more likely candidate for being on LV's side than than McGonagall. Same with Madam Pince and other very minor characters.

[Magi]

She is also a new member of the Order, i.e. wasn’t in when the Potters were members.We don't know that. The people Harry saw in the photo were only some of the original Order members, not all of them. Harry left as soon as he saw his parents, remember?

I think the first book is evidence enough that McGonagall was in the original order. She was mounting surveillance on the Dursley house, so DD must have told her that he was going to put Harry there. Why would he tell her that, unless she could be absolutely trusted - ie. a member of the Order?

[EndlessDreamer]

Well, if we want to mirror Book 3, Peter Pettigrew being a traitor, what about if this is where he betrays Voldemort and joins the good side?

Or, a theory I hate to think about, but is all together possible, the Rat kills the cat (The cat tried to kill the rat, and was believed to have in book 3). What if Peter tries, or is successful in killing McGonagal in Book 6? I find this far more possible than McGonagal becoming a traitor.


I think that sindatur has something with the Peter killing McGonagall. I find that a lot more plausible.

Also, I found your theory somewhat confusing, but that's just me.

[Katy Kedevra]

I have to say, I don't really like the idea of book 3 mirroring book six. I also don't agree with the different parts of the theory for the same reasons as others have mentioned (ex. She's hardly boring, she wasn't seen as often as others at the Headquarters only because Harry didn't see her, and she doesn't seem to have history outside teaching because she's very strict and seems like the last person who would go on a rant about what they did for ten years before teaching at Hogwarts).

[Death_Eater]

That's a very nice theory, but I just dont think it will come to pass.

As you said about some of the professors, we know one small thing about most of them. Like Binns: died by a fire, just woke up and started teaching next day.

We could say that McGonagall was waiting all day at the Durselys home for her background if we wanted. It is saying the same thing about Binns.

We only see McGonagall at the Order's headquarters. That doesn't mean she only came there once.

And if she was bad, why on Earth would she help Harry to become an Auror? She would want the bad guys to win wouldn't she? So she can't get in heaps of trouble if the bad guys lose? Im sure she all ready knows Harry is powerful right now, and wouldn't she shudder at what he could become?

And the Foe Glass thing. Foes of Moody. Who on Earth would be Moody's enemies, except for enemies of Voldemort and his followers? Im sure she wouldn't appear on there if she wasn't on the side of the good. The only enemies of Voldemort and co. are those who are well, not with them. The Order, and all those who they can convince. All those who have always been against him. Why would she be on there then?

Though, that's just me.

[HarryLass]

Ah, I'm glad to see that this thread is getting some attention, though most of it is negative. Please, wait until I can defend myself to attacks, please. it's hard when you only log on once per night.

What you all seem to forget is:
1. I know this theory is unlikely. But it stuck with me. I don't care if McGonagall saves and kisses all the babies in the world, she will still seem suspicious to me for the reasons I listed in my theory.

2. I like the "mirroring" theory. Some people don't. If you are one of those people, hey, whatever floats your boat. But don't attack me and my validity because you don't like what I branch out of. If you want more in-depth discussion of this, check out the "Book two and Book five" thread. Don't ask me for more parallels. They go into a lot more detail than I could. There's a link in my first post. Check it out--not liking the subject matter had not stopped you all from posting here, now has it?

3. I know McGonagall is a favorite teacher. That's one of the reasons I chose her as potential traitor. I think we should get out of the "Harry-thinks-they're-nice-so-we-should-too" rut. This will bite us in the butt, and it already has (Can you say Scabbers? Or James Potter is a jerk? Or Fourth-year moody?)

Other than that, bring it on.

EDIT: A lot of you have been mentioning that we know about McGonagall being an animagus. Well, that's not technically a history, but an ability. I concede that it does show a life outside of Hogwarts, but would she be that usefull a spy with it for the Order? Any average witch or wizard could walk into the MoM records and see that she was a cat with specific markings. If Hermione found this, don't you think the Merry Gang of Murderers would have noticed it, too? I don't know exactly where I'm going with this, but it's somthing to think about.

Hey, if anyone can find a better theory with better resons for what will happen in Book 6, feel free to PM or email it to me and gloat. Or you could do it the easy way and post it here. And yes, that is my chalenge to you all.

[Tirwen Lupin]

Well, even if I don't really agree with your theory, I have to give to you that it's extremely well thought out! You obviously put a lot of thinking into it. :)
You do have the point that McGonagall, if she turned out to be a traitor, would have some things in common with Pettigrew. But I just can't see her as being evil. She could have taken advantage of her position before this to do damage to Harry and the Order, but she hasn't. We know more about her than we know about quite a few of the other teachers, and nothing that we know about her points to her being bad. I don't think a theory based mostly on unknowns is very likely.

[silver ink pot]

HarryLass: You obviously cared about your theory and wrote a very convincing post! I love to float theories myself, so I really admire your bravery in stating something totally different.

However, my heart tells me that Minerva is not going to betray Harry. And I have quite a few reasons.

Number one - her name is Minerva. The goddess of Wisdom whose companion is an Owl. That is just so close to what Hogwarts is all about, that I can't imagine JKR letting a character with those 'credentials' do anything evil or out of character!

Number two - her name is Minerva, and the goddess Minerva "flung" a dragon called "Draco" into the heavens. There used to be a whole thread about this. I think Minerva will, indeed, have a run-in with Draco Malfoy.

Number three - her name is Minerva, and if you have ever read anything on the Perseus Evans/Severus Snape thread, then you know that in mythology, Minerva is a helper to Perseus and gives him a magic shield with which to defeat Medusa. Snape and Minerva are obviously friends! I find that a source of satisfaction, since it shows that a friendly rivalry can exist between these very different teachers, yet they work toward a common goal, and they are both extremely loyal to Dumbledore! That is the whole point of the Foe Glass scene! They aren't foes of Moody - they are foes of Barty Crouch!

Here is a great page about the Goddess Minerva as she is shown on Roman coins. Notice the one with a picture of Septimus Severus (hint,hint) on one side, and the Goddess Athena/Minerva on the other side!

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/feac67min.html

. . . see a few images of the Greco-Roman idea of the ultimate woman. Called Athena by the Greeks and Minerva by the Romans, this goddess personified the combination of masculine virtues in a female form that appealed to the people of this time. Born fully grown from the head of Zeus, Athena embodied wisdom and strength. As time progressed, the Romans increased the emphasis on the goddess as a warrior, Minerva Victrix. She was the feminine counterpart of the very masculine Mars adding her wisdom to that god's strength. The two served as an invincible pair of military role models.

Our last coin is a Greek Imperial of Septimius Severus showing either Minerva or Athena (depending on how you choose to view the matter) holding an owl in her right hand.

Now, as far as the photograph, we know that in magical photos, people can walk in and out of them! Minerva is not the only Order member not shown! Snape is not there either. And probably others. We don't know the occasion of that photo - I think it was probably taken at a wedding or something. I don't think it is a "group portrait" that shows ALL the order members! Some might not have wanted their picture made for security reasons - Snape, and maybe McGonagall, too! We just don't know.

Minerva was ultra strong against Umbridge! She was the only one who openly stood up to her, besides Dumbledore. And you can't forget the three stunners to the chest that she took trying to help Hagrid! My goodness - isn't that proof enough?

[Katy Kedevra]

Actually, now that you mention Snape, I doubt he was in the original Order. He's been teaching for 14 years, that makes him there since around the time of Voldemort's 'downfall'. I have a feeling that it's also when Snape left the DEs. Now that I'm on the amount of teaching years, McGonagall was teaching throughout the first war, and I think that it could show that she was in the first order as well. Of course, there are other teachers not in the Order who have been teaching for a while, but since McGonagall's so loyal to Dumbledore, I'm willing to bet she was in the original Order, just not in the picture.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Yeah, I think Snape left the DEs right before the Potters were killed. He wasn't in the Order the first time, or at least not for very long.

[EndlessDreamer]

Well DD said that Snape left before Voldie's downfall, maybe not a lot before but I would assume a fair bit, just because it wouldn't give Snape a good enough amount of time to actaully show that he had switched sides.

[HannahStarr]

Maybe Snape wasn't in the Order, but still working for DD as a spy. I think Sirius and James would've beat him up if he had joined the order :D

[EndlessDreamer]

LOL maybe HannahStarr but DD probably wouldnt have let them!

[HannahStarr]

Probably not, but ya never know what Sirius is capable of...

[dorcasderr]

WAS capable of, Hannah. Remember at the end of GOF when Dumbledore tells Snape and Sirius that they are on the same side now...that seems to me to indicate that Snape is new to the Order, even if he was working with/for Dumbledore previously.

[EndlessDreamer]

dorcasderr- your right in saying was because DD told them to get along, but I do think if everyone hadnt walked into the kitchen at Grimmauld place some serious damage would have been done

[dorcasderr]

No doubt and poor Harry in the middle of it...

[Wakkachuta]

Nice theory, but I don't see it happening.

Someone's already betrayed Voldemort's side *Snape* and someone's now betrayed Dumbledore's side *Wormtail* so I don't really think that anyone will be betraying anyone anymore.

And even if there was a chance that someone would betray Dumbledore's side, I don't think it would be McGonagall. Since Voldemort's return, you'd think that Dumbledore would be more suspicious of who he trusts, and he seems to really trust McGonagall. Besides, as hesdead-dealwithit has said, what motive does McGonagall have to betray Dumbledore?

[KatieLBell]

I don't think that McGonagall could hide being a traitor around Dumbledore. He is a sufficiently accomplished Legilimens and they eat three meals a day together, I think Dumbledore would know.
But if McGonagall does turn out to be a traitor it would shock Harry, in OOTP he said "but he had always expected Professor McGonagall to be there, irascible and inflexible, perhaps, but always dependably, solidly present. "

[sindatur]

Regarding there being no more traitors: I remember hearing from an interview right before OotP was released, that JKR said there is still gonna be someone who betrays HArry, sorry don't have the truth to back it up, it may have been something someone else claimed JKR had said.

I definitely cannot see it being McGonagall though, she was watching the Dursley household at the beginning of SS/PS before Baby HArry had been brought and could've done any number of things at that point in time, why would she turn now 15 or 16 years later? I think McGonagall is absolutely the very last person that would betray Dumbledore and HArry.

If there is gonna be a traitor in Book 6 or 7, that is in the Order, my money goes on Tonks (See the Tonks topics) or Kingsley.

[HannahStarr]

I don't think that McGonagall could hide being a traitor around Dumbledore. He is a sufficiently accomplished Legilimens and they eat three meals a day together, I think Dumbledore would know.

Yeah, but remember in PS/SS and GoF, DD never knew that Quirell or Moody were traitors (actually, he might have known about Quirell, but he definately didn't know about Moody). So we can't be too sure on that one.

However, I stick with my original statement: McGonagall isn't, nor ever was, a traitor.

[gryffindor g1rl]

Wow- That was extremely well thought out, but i totally disagree. I admit that I would like one of the Order of the Phoenix to be a rat, but not McGonagall. I dont see McGonagall being evil. I have to say, I don't really like the idea of book 3 mirroring book six. That's a very nice theory, but I just dont think it will come to pass.

[Eleanor12]

Ah...


Would you also have said that a Lockheart clone would never be in the books? And strictly speaking, there isn't, but there is a dang good try--someone self-absorbed, talentless, and who uses Harry to further his/her personal agenda. That person would be Dolores Umbridge, an efective foil for Lockheart. (see the link to Book two and Book five for more indepth stuff). And, strictly speaking, there won't be a Peter II. But there will be a good foil for him.

Except Lockhart wasn't a villain who had it in for Harry, or even a real threat to anyone. He had very little power. Umbridge, also, did not really use Harry to further her agenda so much as see him as a threat to her agenda. I don't see a lot of similarities. I mean, yes, she is self absorbed and talentless, and she did teach defense against the dark arts. but I think she's hardly his foil.

[HannahStarr]

On the Lockhart/Umbridge thing, I really don't see the connection. What you say, HarryLass, does show some similarities, but as other people have said, Umbridge wanted it in for Harry and Lockhart was just stuck-up.

[chop]

Regarding there being no more traitors: I remember hearing from an interview right before OotP was released, that JKR said there is still gonna be someone who betrays HArry, sorry don't have the truth to back it up, it may have been something someone else claimed JKR had said.

I definitely cannot see it being McGonagall though, she was watching the Dursley household at the beginning of SS/PS before Baby HArry had been brought and could've done any number of things at that point in time, why would she turn now 15 or 16 years later? I think McGonagall is absolutely the very last person that would betray Dumbledore and HArry.

If there is gonna be a traitor in Book 6 or 7, that is in the Order, my money goes on Tonks (See the Tonks topics) or Kingsley.
Don't know about Tonks, but I wouldn't bet on Kingsley, remember he modifyed Marietta's memory in front of Fudge and Umbridge and let DD escape.

[EndlessDreamer]

I dont see what your getting at with the Kingsley examples, wouldnt that show his loyalty to DD?


As for the Lockhart/Umbridge comparisons I dont see them. I mean Lockhart was just a git, Umbrige was horribly mean

[Neville's Army]

there seems to be way to much stuff pointing against mcgonnagal being a traitor to me. such as:

1. running out screaming trying to save hagrid.
2. being trusted by dumbledore.
3. hating umbridge with a passion, who i think is connected to voldemort.
4. not being very kind to malfoy, or any slytherins
5. being part of the order
6. helping dumbledore protect harry

[Eleanor12]

there seems to be way to much stuff pointing against mcgonnagal being a traitor to me. such as:

1. running out screaming trying to save hagrid.
2. being trusted by dumbledore.
3. hating umbridge with a passion, who i think is connected to voldemort.
4. not being very kind to malfoy, or any slytherins
5. being part of the order
6. helping dumbledore protect harry

I agree. I can't see her being a traitor.

[chop]

I dont see what your getting at with the Kingsley examples, wouldnt that show his loyalty to DD?

That was exactly my point, I wouldn't bet him being a traitor, I think he has shown great loyalty to DD.

[Sabine]

I think the very big difference between Umbridge and Lockhart is:

Lockhart is doing what he's doing for his own good. HE wants to be popular. He wants to be wellknown.

Umbridge thinks she owes some weird things to the ministry. The ministry seems (in her eyes) not to be able to handle this "Potter-thing" right, so she takes matters in her own hand and sends some dementiwhatsis to Little Whinging.

She didn't do this because she wanted to be rewarded for this. She thinks she has the full right to decide for herself what's right for the ministry and what not. So she is way more dangerous than Lockhart can ever be ....

Sabine

[Eleanor12]

I think the very big difference between Umbridge and Lockhart is:

Lockhart is doing what he's doing for his own good. HE wants to be popular. He wants to be wellknown.

Umbridge thinks she owes some weird things to the ministry. The ministry seems (in her eyes) not to be able to handle this "Potter-thing" right, so she takes matters in her own hand and sends some dementiwhatsis to Little Whinging.

She didn't do this because she wanted to be rewarded for this. She thinks she has the full right to decide for herself what's right for the ministry and what not. So she is way more dangerous than Lockhart can ever be ....

Sabine

OH, I agree. As I may have said before, Lockhart was not ever a villain. Umbridge could be perceived as a villain and as truly evil. She is very dangerous.

[Katy Kedevra]

I think the very big difference between Umbridge and Lockhart is:

Lockhart is doing what he's doing for his own good. HE wants to be popular. He wants to be wellknown.

Umbridge thinks she owes some weird things to the ministry. The ministry seems (in her eyes) not to be able to handle this "Potter-thing" right, so she takes matters in her own hand and sends some dementiwhatsis to Little Whinging.

She didn't do this because she wanted to be rewarded for this. She thinks she has the full right to decide for herself what's right for the ministry and what not. So she is way more dangerous than Lockhart can ever be ....

Sabine
I don't think they're alike at all, just as you said Sabine. Actually, though, I think that she might either like Fudge personally or his job. For either one though, I still think she's a creep. Next they'll be calling her She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. :evil:

[EndlessDreamer]

tehe that's what we call my friend lol anyways.

Lockhart was seriously just a jerk, but as someone pointed out Umbridge is totally the villian for the most part in OotP, and I thought she was connected to Voldie too!

[chop]

tehe that's what we call my friend lol anyways.

Lockhart was seriously just a jerk, but as someone pointed out Umbridge is totally the villian for the most part in OotP, and I thought she was connected to Voldie too!

I'm not sure, remember Sirius quote telling Harry the world isn't divided in good people and DEs. I think she is just mean an power hungry.

[HarryLass]

I think the very big difference between Umbridge and Lockhart is:

Lockhart is doing what he's doing for his own good. HE wants to be popular. He wants to be wellknown.

Umbridge thinks she owes some weird things to the ministry. The ministry seems (in her eyes) not to be able to handle this "Potter-thing" right, so she takes matters in her own hand and sends some dementiwhatsis to Little Whinging.

She didn't do this because she wanted to be rewarded for this. She thinks she has the full right to decide for herself what's right for the ministry and what not. So she is way more dangerous than Lockhart can ever be ....

Sabine


True. They are very different people. I never said that they weren't. They're on oppsite ends of the creepy spectrum. I never said that they weren't. In fact, that's exactly my point. They're different. They just have similarities that echo when you look at them. They also have different effects.
Another example: In book 2, Harry joins Dueling club as a hero in most people’s eyes and becomes a pariah because of Parseltounge. In book 5, Harry founds the D.A. and goes from a freak to being accepted.
Let me make a list so that it's clear. The stuff that is in parentheses is the differences between them.

Lockheart: Wants attention (so he can sell more books, get some more lovely ladies, etc.)
Umbridge: Wants attention (for the ministry and for her own power base)

L: Biased about Harry (Likes him too much, goes out of his way to make things easy)
U: Biased about Harry (Hates him too much, goes out of her way to make things hard)

L: Loved only in a certain community (Witches)
U: Loved only in a certain community (The MoM faithful, the Slytherin crowd)

L: Uses Hogwarts as a launch pad (for selling things and for his own beautiful self)
U: Uses Hogwarts as a launch pad (to throw anti-Harry, anti-half-blood and anti-Dumbledore propaganda at people)

L: Doesn't teach anything to his classes (because he's a selfish, stupid git)
U: Doesn't teach anything to her classes (because she wants to cripple them)

L: Appointed out of necessity, bottom of the barrel
U: Appointed out of necessity, bottom of the barrel

L: Talentless (except for memory spells)
U: Talentless (Except for the MoM )

L: Cruel, unusual detentions (Spending any time with him is cruel and unusual)
U: Cruel, unusual detentions (the little blood-drawing quill, anyone?)

L: Uses Harry (To further his own fame [to quote] “With you and me, Harry, we’ll make the front page!” )
U: Uses Harry (To further her own agenda in the Ministry)

L: Led to a forbidden area (1) by Harry and a friend (2) and stopped by his own stupidity (3), but they are hindered still (4) .
((1.) The Chamber of Secrets (2.)With Ron (3.)A backfiring Memory Spell (4.)The rockslide)
U: Led to a forbidden area (1) by Harry and a friend (2) and stopped by her own stupidity (3), but they are hindered still (4) .
((1.) The Forbidden Forest (2).with Hermione (3) Feels the need to rant about how Centaurs are slightly intelligent and Ministry rules and so on (4) The Centaurs attack them instead)

Are those enough similarities? Feel free to chip in.


HarryLass: You obviously cared about your theory and wrote a very convincing post! I love to float theories myself, so I really admire your bravery in stating something totally different.

However, my heart tells me that Minerva is not going to betray Harry. And I have quite a few reasons.

Number one - her name is Minerva. The goddess of Wisdom whose companion is an Owl. That is just so close to what Hogwarts is all about, that I can't imagine JKR letting a character with those 'credentials' do anything evil or out of character!

Number two - her name is Minerva, and the goddess Minerva "flung" a dragon called "Draco" into the heavens. There used to be a whole thread about this. I think Minerva will, indeed, have a run-in with Draco Malfoy.

Number three - her name is Minerva, and if you have ever read anything on the Perseus Evans/Severus Snape thread, then you know that in mythology, Minerva is a helper to Perseus and gives him a magic shield with which to defeat Medusa. Snape and Minerva are obviously friends! I find that a source of satisfaction, since it shows that a friendly rivalry can exist between these very different teachers, yet they work toward a common goal, and they are both extremely loyal to Dumbledore! That is the whole point of the Foe Glass scene! They aren't foes of Moody - they are foes of Barty Crouch!

True, Minerva is a just and wise goddess. But didn’t she nearly kill Arachne because she insulted her family? And didn’t she fight against her patron country during the Trojan War, for ten years, because she was not named the most beautiful goddess? And didn’t she promise to marry an ogre-thing to stop his murderous rampage and then savagely murdered him? She is just and wise, but she don’t play fair. And she ain’t nice when you insult her.

While I do think the Perseus Evans/Severus Snape theory is interesting, I don’t know if that justifies her being his friend, as it could simply be a coincidence and isn’t anywhere in cannon. As for her being in the Foe-Glass, well, look at Crouch Jr. He would certainly be in any of the Death Eaters’ Foe-Glasses (if they had one, of course) along with Dumbledore, but that does not make him a good guy. He was after them for a different reason: They had not done the right thing for their master like he did. The same can be said of McGonagall. She might have it in for DEs that didn’t hide out better. Or, she could simply pull a Snape and switch from good to bad during the war because of some conflict of interest. What really gets me about her, though, is that we have seen her throughout all of the books, she is the closest teacher to Harry still at Hogwarts, but we still have no idea of her background.

[Cish_hp92]

wow.....very neatly etched-out theory. however, i have reason to disagree...
Firstly, I don't think McGonagall is a traitor....look at it this way.....if she were, she would have had countless opportunities to hoodwink DD and co. but she didnt.
Even if we assume that she is a new member of the Order, we don't know for sure why she was not a member of the original OOTP. Perhaps becouse she and DD weren't close enough at that time?????
Going by mathematical calculations, she is about 7 years elder than Voldemort, so she couldn't possibly have a crush on him, if thats what you are assuming.
And obviously, i think most of the people will agree....the "mirroring" theory is just too tried and tested for JKR to use again. Mcgonagall just doesn't seem the type...we have known her to be on the good side since the very first few pages of Book I. Though we did get a shock when we found out that PEttigrew was scabbers.....i don't know, i'm just rambling. I think if we can't trust Mcgonagall to be on the good side, we can't trust anyone, if u know what i mean.

[HannahStarr]

Cish, I think you have it backwards. McGonagall would have been about 7 years younger, not older :)

L: Uses Hogwarts as a launch pad (for selling things and for his own beautiful self)
U: Uses Hogwarts as a launch pad (to throw anti-Harry, anti-half-blood and anti-Dumbledore propaganda at people)]

I disagree that Lockhart used Hogwarts as a "launch pad" for anything. He was already quite popular before his teacher career began (and ended).

L: Cruel, unusual detentions (Spending any time with him is cruel and unusual)
U: Cruel, unusual detentions (the little blood-drawing quill, anyone?)

Lockhart's detentions weren't cruel, just very boring. It wasn't so unusual either, considering that he had to keep up with his fan mail.

[Eleanor12]

I totally disagree. For one, I don't like at all the "mirroring" theory, or any permutations of it. Two, McGonagall is not boring or uninteresting at all - I loved her treatment of Umbridge. And there's a reason she was the first non-Dursley character we were introduced to.

But the real reason I don't like your theory is that there is no motive. Why in the world would she do such a thing. McGonagall seems to have succeeded Dumbledore at the Transfiguration post, she is the Deputy Headmistress - in other words, DD's second in command at Hogwarts . You can't call the fact that she only came to 12GP suspicious - for one we were only there for a little while, and for two we have no idea what she does for the Order, so we can't say "Oh, she should have come more often." Plus, DD came in the middle of the night - why not McGonagall? Obviously the way the DEs knew Sirius was an animagus is through Pettigrew. If there's going to be a traitor, I'm looking at Snape (only at the very end, not now), Ernie Macmillan, and maybe Grawp. McGonagall? - no way.

I agree with everything you said. EXCEPT I refuse to believe that Snape might be a traitor. I must believe that he is truly good.

[Eleanor12]

JKR mentiones NOTHING about Sinistra besides the fact that she teaches Astronomy. We don't even know what she looks like. This makes her a far more likely candidate for being on LV's side than than McGonagall. Same with Madam Pince and other very minor characters.

besides, with a name like Sinistra... I don't know. I have no idea what will happen. I hope McGonagall isn't a traitor. I don't accept this theory of why she would be a traitor. But I think it's interesting to think about.

[Eleanor12]

Ah, I'm glad to see that this thread is getting some attention, though most of it is negative. Please, wait until I can defend myself to attacks, please. it's hard when you only log on once per night.

What you all seem to forget is:
1. I know this theory is unlikely. But it stuck with me. I don't care if McGonagall saves and kisses all the babies in the world, she will still seem suspicious to me for the reasons I listed in my theory.

2. I like the "mirroring" theory. Some people don't. If you are one of those people, hey, whatever floats your boat. But don't attack me and my validity because you don't like what I branch out of. If you want more in-depth discussion of this, check out the "Book two and Book five" thread. Don't ask me for more parallels. They go into a lot more detail than I could. There's a link in my first post. Check it out--not liking the subject matter had not stopped you all from posting here, now has it?

3. I know McGonagall is a favorite teacher. That's one of the reasons I chose her as potential traitor. I think we should get out of the "Harry-thinks-they're-nice-so-we-should-too" rut. This will bite us in the butt, and it already has (Can you say Scabbers? Or James Potter is a jerk? Or Fourth-year moody?)

Other than that, bring it on.

EDIT: A lot of you have been mentioning that we know about McGonagall being an animagus. Well, that's not technically a history, but an ability. I concede that it does show a life outside of Hogwarts, but would she be that usefull a spy with it for the Order? Any average witch or wizard could walk into the MoM records and see that she was a cat with specific markings. If Hermione found this, don't you think the Merry Gang of Murderers would have noticed it, too? I don't know exactly where I'm going with this, but it's somthing to think about.

Hey, if anyone can find a better theory with better resons for what will happen in Book 6, feel free to PM or email it to me and gloat. Or you could do it the easy way and post it here. And yes, that is my chalenge to you all.

Well I can't deny you the credit that you obviously deserve. After all, I wouldn't EVER in a million years post one of my own theories as a new thread here. Good for you for taking that risk.

[KatieLBell]

there seems to be way to much stuff pointing against mcgonnagal being a traitor to me. such as:

1. running out screaming trying to save hagrid.
2. being trusted by dumbledore.
3. hating umbridge with a passion, who i think is connected to voldemort.
4. not being very kind to malfoy, or any slytherins
5. being part of the order
6. helping dumbledore protect harry

Couldn't agree more! # 2 being most important, he would know if his deputy headmistress and friend for 39 years were a traitor:)

[hermione_fan]

A little farfetched but definently could be taken into account. It was a nice theory and very wll thought out though I can't see it happening. Though she always has Harry's best interests at heart and is always trying to help him. See any connection between her and Moody?

[HarryLass]

A little farfetched but definently could be taken into account. It was a nice theory and very wll thought out though I can't see it happening. Though she always has Harry's best interests at heart and is always trying to help him. See any connection between her and Moody?

Well, for most of this, I used Fourth-Year Moody as a template. He's nice, but he's evil. I mean to say, there's a difference between likeability and trustworthiness. Some of the worst serial killers and violent criminals have been very likeable, nice, polite people. That's how they get victims. And if the Dark side has a traitor that still seems like he's better off on their side (Snape and how cruel and mean he is), why not have a traitor that seems to belong on the Good side?

[BellatrixLeS]

Professor McGonagall has repeatedly shown her loyalty to Hogwarts, and especially Dumbledore. I think the possibility of her being a traitor is akin to the possibility of Hagrid growing to hate animals!

[HarryLass]

Professor McGonagall has repeatedly shown her loyalty to Hogwarts, and especially Dumbledore. I think the possibility of her being a traitor is akin to the possibility of Hagrid growing to hate animals!

I hate to be nitpicky (well, no, I don't, I'm a perfectionist, sue me), but Hagrid loving animals is a personality trait, and someone can change their subconcious personality traits just as much as they can change their head shape. You can, but it takes effort, fortitude, and, in the case of my example, a good plastic surgeon. :huh: Being a traitor just requires fear, motivation and oportunity.

[Eleanor12]

I hate to be nitpicky (well, no, I don't, I'm a perfectionist, sue me), but Hagrid loving animals is a personality trait, and someone can change their subconcious personality traits just as much as they can change their head shape. You can, but it takes effort, fortitude, and, in the case of my example, a good plastic surgeon. :huh: Being a traitor just requires fear, motivation and oportunity.


Wait, loving animals is a personality trait but loyalty can't be? Love of doing the right thing can't be part of one's personality, but loving animals can?

[HarryLass]

Wait, loving animals is a personality trait but loyalty can't be? Love of doing the right thing can't be part of one's personality, but loving animals can?

Yes, and I'll clarify before I'm flamed to pieces. Hagrid's love of scary, weird things is universal. It doesn't take him any effort to say, "Oh, what a cute thestral you are! Oh yes you are!" He can't help it. It's subconcious part of him, and he can no more change or remove it than to remove his arm. And he will always do it, no matter if it's sensible or not.
But to be truly loyal to a person or a cause takes effort, time, energy and dedication. You must consciously make an effort to be loyal, and it's hard sometimes, especially if your life is thrown into the fray. Some people, like Pettigrew, find and found that hard to deal with and quit their loyalties. They found the easy way out. It usually isn't subconcious, and if it is, the world is better for it.
I like the romantic notion that "doing the right thing" is hard-wired into us, but I'm a realist. I don't think that happens as often as it should.

[Eleanor12]

I like the romantic notion that "doing the right thing" is hard-wired into us, but I'm a realist. I don't think that happens as often as it should.

okay. but doing "wrong" isn't as easy for some people as it may be for others, either.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

Being a traitor just requires fear, motivation and oportunity.

But which of these does McGonagall have? The opportunity, perhaps. But she's been in positions where she could take advantage of Dumbledore's absence several times before, and hasn't done so. And it takes a lot to scare her. She's not intimidated by Dumbledore, or, despite her initial warnings to Harry that he should be careful, Umbridge. Heck, she probably remembers a fair number of the Death Eaters from when they couldn't figure out how to do simple Transfiguration spells.

If anyone other than Dumbledore believes in doing what is right over what is easy, I think it's McGonagall. Personally, I'll keep an eye on Kingsley Shacklebolt with Cat. Something about him just doesn't sit well with me.

[HarryLass]

But which of these does McGonagall have? The opportunity, perhaps. But she's been in positions where she could take advantage of Dumbledore's absence several times before, and hasn't done so. And it takes a lot to scare her. She's not intimidated by Dumbledore, or, despite her initial warnings to Harry that he should be careful, Umbridge. Heck, she probably remembers a fair number of the Death Eaters from when they couldn't figure out how to do simple Transfiguration spells.

I don't know, but that scare with the Stunners in the last book may have made her a bit too aware of her own mortality. It hits people earlier or later than others, but eventually, everyone realizes that they only have a short while here. Some people take it harder than others. Some people do crazy things to make sure that they live on. Some guy blew up one of the seven wonders of the world just to make sure his name lived on in record books. And some people start to reverse their ways, like rich, corrupt people stat donating heavily to charities when they realize their time is almost up.

McGonagall might have gotten really scared by that incident and now she wants to "flee from death" (Vol De Mort).

[HarryLass]

Simply to recap:

If you like branching out on this theory, here's a recap:

-McGonagall might have been scared enough by her near-death experience to turn to the dark side and flee from death

-She might pull a Snape

-The thing with the apearance in Foe-Glass is sort of like Crouch, Jr.--the enemy of my enemy is not nescessarily my friend.

If you don't like this theory, look out for:

-Kingsley Shacklebolt

-Professor Sinistra

[Eleanor12]

Simply to recap:

If you like branching out on this theory, here's a recap:

-McGonagall might have been scared enough by her near-death experience to turn to the dark side and flee from death

-She might pull a Snape

-The thing with the apearance in Foe-Glass is sort of like Crouch, Jr.--the enemy of my enemy is not nescessarily my friend.

If you don't like this theory, look out for:

-Kingsley Shacklebolt

-Professor Sinistra

Has Tonks been mentioned here? I know she has somewhere, and I've been thinking about it since I read it first, and it makes more and more sense to me the more I think about it. I mean, she seems really hip and Harry seems to really like her, and we don't know enough about her to have developed trust. I hope she's not a traitor. But I wouldn't rule it out either, I guess.

[viktorija_hp]

I don't think McGonnagal's traitor, she has done too much for Harry!
p.s. I agree with Neville's Army, too.

[SnowyOwl]

Yeah, Eleanor12, Tonks was mentioned. She also has me slightly uneasy. While being one of my favorite newcomers, I can't get past the info that Sirius gave: Kreacher will not obey Tonks. Why? It can't be because she is not on the tapestry, Kreacher even calls Fred and George "Young Masters." That said, I really, really want her to be squeaky clean. I thought she played off Moody beautifully.

Perhaps JKR's betrayal reference is Percy. In effect, he has betrayed Harry.

[Eleanor12]

Yeah, Eleanor12, Tonks was mentioned. She also has me slightly uneasy. While being one of my favorite newcomers, I can't get past the info that Sirius gave: Kreacher will not obey Tonks. Why? It can't be because she is not on the tapestry, Kreacher even calls Fred and George "Young Masters." That said, I really, really want her to be squeaky clean. I thought she played off Moody beautifully.

Perhaps JKR's betrayal reference is Percy. In effect, he has betrayed Harry.


Oh, that's a really good point about Percy. I'd like it if that were it, as much as I want to see a reconciliation. Because I don't want McGonagall to be a traitor, and I don't want Tonks to be a traitor either. She did seem pretty cool. I hadn't noticed that about Kreacher- unfortunately, it only supports the idea that Tonks may be a traitor (although now that I think about it more it might not- after all, Kreacher was a traitor, wasn't he? Would he have a problem with somebody who was working for his side just because she was going against the one he begrudgingly called "master"- just a thought- this is all very complicated isn't it?)
Anyway, I like your thinking.

[HannahStarr]

Yeah, but didn't Kreacher refuse to obey Mrs. Weasley, too? So we can't really say that him not obeying Tonks is a sign of traitor-ness. (Sorry if I'm wrong on that one - my brain is fried a tthe moment.)

[Magi]

If Kreacher doesn't obey Tonks, I think that is a strong indication she ISN'T a traitor. After all, Kreacher agrees with Voldemort's views, so if he knew Tonks was in the Dark Side, then he would at least respect and obey her (especially considering she's a Black relative).

Of course, Tonks might have told Kreacher to ignore her, but I think that's unlikely. I also think that Dumbledore has suffered enough traitors to be extra wary of moles. Tonks is a new addition to the Order, so she would have been thoroughly checked out by Dumbledore (if Moody hadn't given her an interrogation in the first place :p ).

[NIrvanaFreak]

The DEs found out about Sirius being an animagi because of Peter Pettigrew, not McGonigal.

[HarryLass]

The DEs found out about Sirius being an animagi because of Peter Pettigrew, not McGonigal.

Thank you for correcting me, but that was mentioned on the first page of this thread. Kindly read over some of the previous posts and then criticize me.



there seems to be way to much stuff pointing against mcgonnagal being a traitor to me. such as:

1. running out screaming trying to save hagrid.
2. being trusted by dumbledore.
3. hating umbridge with a passion, who i think is connected to voldemort.
4. not being very kind to malfoy, or any slytherins
5. being part of the order
6. helping dumbledore protect harry

All right. I'll play that game. :cool:

1. She likes Hagrid. Okay. And Snape likes Draco Malfoy. And Pettigrew still likes Lupin and Sirius and all of them. But that doesn't mean that their loyalties are on the side of their friends. They have both proven themselves to their side.

2. Dumbeldore trusted "Moody", too. Wait, wasn't he a Transfiguration teacher? And he's a Legillimens too. Well, then can't another teacher with a similar background become a Legillimens too?

3. "Moody" hated Snape with a firey passion. But he wasn't a good guy, now was he? As for Umbridge being evil, I'm reminded of Crouch, Sr. He hunted down Dark wizards, but he wasn't a likeable or kind man. And he was a good guy.

4. Remember the ferret incident? Need I say more?

5. Peter Pettigrew was part of the Order as well. Obviously, simply belonging to an organization doesn't mean that its interests are yours as well.

6. When has she ever helped concretely? Sure, in the first book, she meets Dumbledore on Privet Drive, but there she criticizes his choice of guardians and grills him for info. That isn't helping much. And she also shows her dislike of Hagrid there, too. If you give me an example of her helping Dumbledore, I'll be satisfied.

[Spirit]

I don't think McGonagall is a traitor. You're theory was very well thought out, better than I could've done it anyway, but McGonagall is one of the friends in the books. She was upset when she heard that Voldemort killed Lily and James in book 1, and she is terrified by Voldemort's name. And Dumbledore trusts her too. She's far too smart to go evil.

[HarryLass]

I don't think McGonagall is a traitor. You're theory was very well thought out, better than I could've done it anyway, but McGonagall is one of the friends in the books. She was upset when she heard that Voldemort killed Lily and James in book 1, and she is terrified by Voldemort's name. And Dumbledore trusts her too. She's far too smart to go evil.

None of the Death Eaters say Voldemort's name, either.

Remember, I don't mean to say she's evil from the very beginning, or that she planned this out all along, but she might switch sides because of irreconcilable differences with the Order or Dumbledore.

[hippogriff]

phew that was long... and very well thought out, but i dont think magonnagal will turn on harry... "I WILL MAKE SURE NO MATTER WHAT THIS BOY BECOMES A AUROR!" I believe it went something like that , and I remember when I read it that I knew magonnagal would be more to harry then a transfiguration teacher and head of house.

[chop]

None of the Death Eaters say Voldemort's name, either.

Remember, I don't mean to say she's evil from the very beginning, or that she planned this out all along, but she might switch sides because of irreconcilable differences with the Order or Dumbledore.

Yes, but they DE call him The Dark Lord, even Snape. And what may be IYO this irreconcilable differences?

[sindatur]

Hi HarryLass, you seem to accept that McGonagall hasn't been on Voldemort's side all along, but, you theorize she may be now due to Irreconcilable differences or something to that effect.

Do you have an event in mind that would have changed her loyalties?

[HannahStarr]

Thanks, sindatur, I was just about the ask the same thing. HarryLass, do you think McGonagall switched sides before or after the downfall of the Potters? Any reasons why?

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

Remember the ferret incident? Need I say more?

Enforcing the rules doesn't mean she's going out of her way to be nice to Malfoy. And it's easy to counter that example with others; for instance, she deducted points from Slytherin after he'd alerted her to Harry and Hermione being out of bed in PS/SS.

When has she ever helped concretely? Sure, in the first book, she meets Dumbledore on Privet Drive, but there she criticizes his choice of guardians and grills him for info. That isn't helping much.

I imagine Dumbledore doesn't have a lot of people who feel comfortable enough with him to directly question his judgment. Even the wisest wizard needs a second opinion occasionally. The fact McGonagall can do that, and Dumbledore answers her concerns thoroughly, suggests a close working relationship. Besides, if anything, that incident reveals how deeply she cares about Harry: she's worried about Hagrid doing something reckless with him, she's worried about leaving him to the Dursleys' mercy...why, fifteen years later, would she suddenly turn around and do something to harm him?

[HarryLass]

Thanks, sindatur, I was just about the ask the same thing. HarryLass, do you think McGonagall switched sides before or after the downfall of the Potters? Any reasons why?

I was thinking more along the lines of her changing sides in this coming school year. I'll get to the event that changed her at the end of my post.

Enforcing the rules doesn't mean she's going out of her way to be nice to Malfoy. And it's easy to counter that example with others; for instance, she deducted points from Slytherin after he'd alerted her to Harry and Hermione being out of bed in PS/SS.

What are you talking about? I was giving a counter-example to the fact that she doesn't like Malfoy. My point was that "Moody" didn't like him either. I 'm not understanding you.

I imagine Dumbledore doesn't have a lot of people who feel comfortable enough with him to directly question his judgment. Even the wisest wizard needs a second opinion occasionally. The fact McGonagall can do that, and Dumbledore answers her concerns thoroughly, suggests a close working relationship. Besides, if anything, that incident reveals how deeply she cares about Harry: she's worried about Hagrid doing something reckless with him, she's worried about leaving him to the Dursleys' mercy...why, fifteen years later, would she suddenly turn around and do something to harm him?

As per my response to your earlier post, I think the incident with the Stunners may have affected her deeply. Remember how everyone was scared that she was going to die afterwards? And how she was not a "spring chicken" and couldn't recover as easily or quickly anymore? I think that was a bit of foreshadowing.

When people realize that they are mortal, or have had a death scare, sometimes they change, for the better or for the worse. Many middle-aged men in the U.S. go through a "mid-life crisis," where they try to recapture their youth by buying a new car or getting a young girlfriend or something flippant of that nature. Many of yesterday's millionares in the U.S. have donated heavily to charity and set up scholarships and such when they realize they are getting older. And some general blew up the Parthenon (or something like it) simply to make sure he would be mentioned in all of the record books. Our own Tom Riddle decided that he doesn't want to die. He sees it as the worst end of all. Maybe McGonagall agrees with him. Maybe she can't consider being allies with a man who sees death as "the next great adventure."

[Magi]

When people realize that they are mortal, or have had a death scare, sometimes they change, for the better or for the worse. Many middle-aged men in the U.S. go through a "mid-life crisis," where they try to recapture their youth by buying a new car or getting a young girlfriend or something flippant of that nature. Many of yesterday's millionares in the U.S. have donated heavily to charity and set up scholarships and such when they realize they are getting older. And some general blew up the Parthenon (or something like it) simply to make sure he would be mentioned in all of the record books. Our own Tom Riddle decided that he doesn't want to die. He sees it as the worst end of all. Maybe McGonagall agrees with him. Maybe she can't consider being allies with a man who sees death as "the next great adventure."McGonagall doesn't seem to fear being old, or dying. She was quite willing to punch it out with four Ministry representatives in Dumbledore's office. She rushed out to defend Hagrid, despite the obvious danger to her life/health. When she came back from St Mungos, she says to Snape, "......I'm quite as good as new." That's definitely not what a person fearful of death would say. Not to mention she gave 50 points to Harry and co., for alerting the world to the return of Voldemort.

She might not be a "spring chicken", as you put it. She is probably wise enough to recognise that fact. But at the same time, she has enough sense of justice, and rights and wrongs, to not join Voldemort.

As for mid-life crisis, we've yet to see any witch or wizard in Harry Potter series who goes through mid-life crisis. Also keep in mind that most people aren't drastically effected by it. McGonagall is 70-something.... probably past menopause, and I daresay, well past mid-life crisis. She's been a stout individual so far, and I just don't see any really solid evidence to suggest she might change.

[Marina]

HarryLass: And you can't forget the three stunners to the chest that she took trying to help Hagrid! My goodness - isn't that proof enough? Ouch! That made me think of my operation on my chest a few years ago :whistle: Really hurt.

Anyway, hem hem :). I agree with those whom say that McGonagall's very, very unlikely to be a traitor. Not impossible but extremely unlikely.

[Bilbo]

You've done a lot of detectoring and it all makes a lot of sense.

But you've included an essential flaw, and it's a big, hairy, smelly-footed flaw that many theory makers trip up on. It's the concept of 'if'. The whole theory relies on an 'if'. If the future traitor has the characteristics of Peter Pettigrew....


I agree. It was well-thought out. However, there is another "if" forgotten. What if Book 3 and 6 don't mirror each other? I don't really think JKR follows a formula for these books.

Keep up the great detective work.

[Drusilla]

McGonagall a traitor?I REALLY don't think so.For one thing,she isn't Pettigrew and she has nothing in common with him as far as character goes.She isn't the type to give up on a battle and switch to the other side if it looks like she's losing.She never fails to stand up for what she believes is right,no matter how hard that is.Doesn't look like a potential traitor.not to me,anyway-she's far too loyal to Dumbledore.

[HarryLass]

McGonagall doesn't seem to fear being old, or dying. She was quite willing to punch it out with four Ministry representatives in Dumbledore's office. She rushed out to defend Hagrid, despite the obvious danger to her life/health. When she came back from St Mungos, she says to Snape, "......I'm quite as good as new." That's definitely not what a person fearful of death would say. Not to mention she gave 50 points to Harry and co., for alerting the world to the return of Voldemort.

She might not be a "spring chicken", as you put it. She is probably wise enough to recognise that fact. But at the same time, she has enough sense of justice, and rights and wrongs, to not join Voldemort.

As for mid-life crisis, we've yet to see any witch or wizard in Harry Potter series who goes through mid-life crisis. Also keep in mind that most people aren't drastically effected by it. McGonagall is 70-something.... probably past menopause, and I daresay, well past mid-life crisis. She's been a stout individual so far, and I just don't see any really solid evidence to suggest she might change.

I wasn't exactly meaning that she would have a mid-life crisis, I meant more to give examples of weirdness in the face of mortality, but while we're on the subject, didn't JKR say that wizards live much longer than Muggles? She also said that Dumbledore was at the ripe old age of 150. Now, according to my math, McGonagall's age is about half that of Dumbledore's---would that be mid-life enough?

As for her morals, I don't want to talk about how she "must" have a sense of right and wrong. I don't think we can definitively say what a character is or isn't, just from looking through Harry's perspective, which is the perspctive of the books. They aren't neutral. I mean, if you had a biography of Hitler written by his best friend, it would certainly differ from one written by an outside observer, who had no connections or emotions tied to World War II.The same would apply to a book on the same subject written by an Allied soldier. All of the writers would bring their own worldviews to the book. And Harry, our narrator, has his own and right now sees McGonagall as a good guy.

As for the Hagrid incident--I never said she wasn't a good friend. But you can have friends that aren't your allies (Pettigrew) and allies that aren't your friends (Snape). And you can't really tell what will happen beforehand. Ever heard of grace under pressure? Some have it, some don't.

As for "...quite good as new," can we really trust what a person says to their professional rival? Haven't you ever heard of people who lie about what they do or feel to look better than the competion? Just this morning, I read a Dilberty cartoon. The manager was questioned about his proposed tunnel form Europe to Denver. He flashed back to a manager's meeting where a man said "I just installed a new sprinkler system in my lawn." The manager thinks, "Must Compete." I don't know. She certainly seemed far more partisan after the Stunners. And Hermione said that we sould come together, not apart...and if we can't trust Hermione, who can we trust?

[Magi]

She also said that Dumbledore was at the ripe old age of 150. Now, according to my math, McGonagall's age is about half that of Dumbledore's---would that be mid-life enough?Nope. If that was mid-life, then Madam Pompfrey wouldn't have made the "... she's not exactly young, is she?" comment. Taken in context, that would mean McGonnagall is considered old, even by wizarding standards.

Would you call a 40 year old person old? I wouldn't. So I can't fairly say McGonagall is young enough to be in mid-life crisis.

As for her morals, I don't want to talk about how she "must" have a sense of right and wrong.Where did I say she must have a sense of right and wrong?

I don't think we can definitively say what a character is or isn't, just from looking through Harry's perspective, which is the perspctive of the books.Nothing is definite in fiction. But you can still read between the lines and see through slanted narrations.

As I said, there is no solid evidence that McGonagall will be a traitor. The only evidence that has been spouted for it, are vague, unspecific, and at best, wildly speculative.

But you can have friends that aren't your allies (Pettigrew) and allies that aren't your friends (Snape). And you can't really tell what will happen beforehand.So then, what's a good reason for McGonagall being an enemy disguised as a friend? Surely, there must be some convincing reason why you believe that.

As for "...quite good as new," can we really trust what a person says to their professional rival?How can she be a rival to Snape? She's Deputy Headmistress. I see no way how Snape can threaten McGonagall's professional status.

Haven't you ever heard of people who lie about what they do or feel to look better than the competion?McGonagall is obviously not good as new. She's leaning on a walking stick, and that's so bloody obvious, even Crabbe and Goyle wouldn't have missed it. She's definitely clever enough to know this. So if she tried to retort against Snape by claiming she's as good as new, then she must be as naive as a primary-school kid. No smart adult would make such a stupid claim - especially a 70-something deputy headmistress of high standing.

McGonagall said, "I'm quite as good as new", out of good humour. She can take her injury and physical difficulty with good humour. That was what I was getting at: she's not fazed by her injuries as much as you're suggesting.

She certainly seemed far more partisan after the Stunners.Partisan? I didn't see that at all.

The only person to whom she showed any enemity was against Umbridge. And I don't recall her being specially favourable to anyone.

[HarryLass]

Nope. If that was mid-life, then Madam Pompfrey wouldn't have made the "... she's not exactly young, is she?" comment. Taken in context, that would mean McGonnagall is considered old, even by wizarding standards.
Would you call a 40 year old person old? I wouldn't. So I can't fairly say McGonagall is young enough to be in mid-life crisis.

Would you call a fifty-year old person young? That's when some people have their mid-life crises. And some are old before they reach a certain defining age. But, as I said in my former post, it was originally a reference to realization of death, and not an inference that she would have a mid-life crisis. I hope that you will not take ME out of context.

Where did I say she must have a sense of right and wrong?

Let me see:

But at the same time, she has enough sense of justice, and rights and wrongs, to not join Voldemort.

Well? Am I lying through my crooked teeth?

Nothing is definite in fiction. But you can still read between the lines and see through slanted narrations.

I'm sorry. Then you must have known immediately that the Grim we saw in Book Three was not a Grim. Or that Scabbers was no innocent rat. Or that Snape was not the Devil incarnate in Book one. Or the Pettigrew was not some hapless victim of Sirius Black.

Apologies for my sarcasm, but what I mean is just what you said. Nothing is definite in fiction. And sometimes you must remove your emotions from a story to see just what will happen.

As I said, there is no solid evidence that McGonagall will be a traitor. The only evidence that has been spouted for it, are vague, unspecific, and at best, wildly speculative.

So then, what's a good reason for McGonagall being an enemy disguised as a friend? Surely, there must be some convincing reason why you believe that.

Well, do you want me to ask JKR herself about her methods? Will that be solid enough proof? Are the Perseus Evans/Severus Snape theories or the Mark Evans theories, both of which have gigantic threads dedicated to them on this site, speculative and and vauge? Yes, and wonderfully so. If you dislike speculation, you shouldn't be on this site, as most of this is fans speculating. I doubt, however, that this is your problem with my theory. I know that you don't like it. You don't have to attack my form of expresion because of it, though.

And for the convincing reason: It's unlikely, unexepected and unpopular. And without this thread, would you have even suspected it? It would be a perfect plot twist. So much goes to Snape: he'll be a bad guy, he'll blow Harry up, etc. But that would be expected, boring even. What would you think of a great ally becoming a greater threat? That sounds creative.

How can she be a rival to Snape? She's Deputy Headmistress. I see no way how Snape can threaten McGonagall's professional status.

I'm not saying that Snape is a threat to her profession, but that he is a professional rival. He and McGonagall compete with their houses for the Quidditch and House Cups. They are rivals in that field. Their Houses constantly compete for House points. They are rivals in that way. The same can apply to sports coaches from different schools--they do not threaten each other's jobs (directly) but they do not let down their guard on the sports arena, otherwise they would lose.

Partisan? I didn't see that at all.

The only person to whom she showed any enemity was against Umbridge. And I don't recall her being specially favourable to anyone.

Please. You said it yourself. She awarded fifty points to each of Harry friends for doing something that everyone but the Ministry of Magic already recognised them as doing: alerting the world about the return of Voldemort. There would be no adverse affects of her not doing so, other than her House losing the House Cup for the first time in 4 years. She also made a show of showing Snape up. That's pretty dang partisan to me.

[Eleanor12]

She also made a show of showing Snape up. That's pretty dang partisan to me.


could you remind me when she made a show of showing Snape up? I believe you when you say that it happened, but I don't remember it and am curious. I don't have access to the books at the moment and won't for a while, unfortunate though that is.
I think people should be nicer in this thread. that's not directed at anybody, but I do think people should be nicer. People in general seem kind of...angry

[rotsiepots]

I'm closing this thread, as people can't seem to control their tempers and communicate in an amicable way. Pro-social communication is the key, my friends.

Read the Forum Rules (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=16174).

*lock*