Minerva McGonagall: Character Analysis

[MinervasCat]

1 As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress.
- Is she impartial or does she show favouritism.
- Other

I think she really tries to be impartial. It's difficult at Quidditch Matches, of course. But, even then she's always onto Lee Jordan for being totally pro-Gryffindor in his commentary.

When she metes out her punishments, she is as fair as possible. Even when Harry wants to go to Hogsmeade, she won't break the rules to let him go (we know partly because of Sirius Black, partly because of the rules).

It's hard to belong to a House for seven years and then not show a tad of partiality. But, I think she works very hard to be impartial.

2 Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Why?

Yes. She has been Dumbledore's "right hand," as far as running the school, and, filled in for him many, many times when he was away. As Deputy Headmistress, it's only fitting that she be promoted, since is most capable of doing the job.

3 Where do you think her main loyalty lies?
- The school
- The Order
- Other

I think she would see that what was good for the Order was good for the school, in that, if there was no Order to protect it, the school would fall quickly. So, I think her loyalty was to both -- one through the work of the other.

4 Has her character changed through the series? How?

No. She was the one, to me, who stayed the same through the entire series. She was pretty much the same at the end, other than her health being affected by getting hit by a curse.

5 What, if any, has her impact on Harry been?

I see her impact as showing fairness and the value of loyalty to your friends and to a cause.

6 What do you think of her role in DH? Do you think she was effective in protecting students from the Carrows?

She did everything she could under the circumstances. There wasn't a lot anyone could do once Voldemort took over Hogwarts and put in his own regime.

[MissGranger1979]

1. As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress, is she impartial or does she show favouritism?

As a Head of House she does, of course, show favouritism towards Gryffindor, for example, she wants them to beat Slytherin at Quidditch, however, she treats all pupils the same, which makes her a better teacher than Snape, IMO. She deducts points from Gryffindor, even when they're in danger of losing the Cup and she disciplines Gryffindor students as much as any other pupils.

2. Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Why?

She is definately the right person to become Headmistress. She has always shown immense loyalty to the school, she is a very powerful witch and she is a strict, but fair teacher which would make her an effective leader of the school.

3. Where do you think her main loyalty lies?
- The school
- The Order
- Other

I think her main loyalties lay in Albus Dumbledore and so because he was Headmaster of Hogwarts and founder of the Order, she showed both institutions equal amounts of loyalty.

4.Has her character changed through the series? How?

I think as the series goes on she becomes more protective of the school. She defends the students and staff against Umbridge, she goes to help Hagrid when the Aurors come for him and she goes into Ravenclaw Tower to protect the students against the Carrows.

5. What, if any, has her impact on Harry been?

She encouraged him in his dream to become an Auror, she enforced how much Dumbledore cared for him and she grew to be quite close to him - she defended him personally against Umbridge, she took Hermione's concerns about the Firebolt seriously and she was horrified and devastated when she thought he was dead. In return, Harry was disgusted when Carrow spat on her and jumped to take revenge.

6. What do you think of her role in DH? Do you think she was effective in protecting students from the Carrows?

I think she did all she could to defend the students against the Carrows and I think she played an important role in the final battle.

[bellatrix93]

Brought over from discussion on Snape: character analysis thread:

Originally Posted by FurryDice

McGonagall wants to see Gryffindor win, but not at the cost of letting people get away with things. I seem to recall it was McGonagall who took 150 points from her own House. We never see Snape taking points from Slytherin. I don't see why not, as the House Cup wouldn't have mattered a jot to Voldemort

Originally Posted by iluvseverus

, Severus didnt figure that out( neither did Proff Mcgonagall, for that matter). Gifted teachers like Remus are very very rare.

I'd like to point out the fact that McGonagall never punished a student for their school work. She never took points, shouted at a child because he/she failed to answer a question or manage to perform a spell. WHen Harry and Ron failed to perform a certain spell in class, they were only given extra homework (which, I think was to help them improve their level at the subject). The only case where we were told that she had punished a student for school work, was when Draco failed to hand his homework multiple times.
The only incident when McGonagall was hard on Neville (at least what I remember), is when he lost the password to the Gryffindor tower, which resulted in allowing mad murderer into their common room. I think she punished him, then, because he needed to be more careful in regards to his friends' and his own safety. Also, I now remember, when she punished him for being out of bed in their first year, that was for his safety, as well. And he learnt a good lesson there, judging with how he stood up to the trio, when they tried to get out of the common room.

I don't recall any incident when Neville was trembling or even worried in a Transfiguration class. He may have struggled with the subject, but that wasn't because McGonagall was scary, or harsh with him, as far as I remember she never punished for school work.

Thus, I don't see where the impression that McGonagall is harsh teacher comes from. To me she is as good as Lupin. She rewards her students for their achievments and doesn't punish them if they struggled. She is strict, and doesn't like lazy students, but she isn't at all cruel, imo.

Actually, some students (like myself) like McGonagall-type teachers more than those like Lupin (that's not saying he's a bad teacher). I think Hermione liked her too much. And those who didn't like her, always had some respect for her. Even Draco never made fun of her, the way he did of other teachers.

[MC2456]

^ I agree. I quite like McGonagall, she's a very strict, no-nonsense type who tries to be fair and encourages her students. You know you can depend on her when there's trouble, and she'll go all out to protect her charges. I feel that Remus based his style of teaching on her (since he's an ex-student), but he's more approachable and friendly. Out of the two, I prefer Remus.

[exl2398]

1 As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress.
- Is she impartial or does she show favouritism.
- Other
She is decidedly impartial. Very much so. When Harry does well, or ron or hermione, she rewards them as other teachers, except snape, do. But when they do something wrong she is all over them with almost a righteous indignation.

2 Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Why?
Yes, I would say so, and precisely for this ability to look at students in an objective manor, with the appropriate distance, thus making it easier for her to be just, not show favoritism. Plus she has a healthy level of disgust with breaking rules.

3 Where do you think her main loyalty lies?
- The school
- The Order
- Other
Othere. The students.

4 Has her character changed through the series? How?
I don't really think so, though in OOTP she, like other profs, turned a blind eye to the weasley twins attempts to **** off umbridge.

5 What, if any, has her impact on Harry been?
I don't know.

6 What do you think of her role in DH? Do you think she was effective in protecting students from the Carrows?
I'll have to come back to this after I reread the book next week.

[gelowo93]

1 As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress.
- Is she impartial or does she show favouritism.
- Other

I don't think she's exactly impartial because although she doesn't tend to show favouritism, she does seem to be harsher on the Gryffindor's because I'm assuming she expects the best from them. In GoF, she tells Neville not to try to show how inept at transfiguration in front of the students from Durmstrang and Beauxbatons which is too harsh IMO, and she is unlikely to do it to any other student from a different house. Apart from that, there is a bit of favouritism when it comes to Quidditch - she didn't really need to get Harry the best broom on the market in PS but there is no outright favouritism the rest of the time.

2 Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Why?

She must have been appointed Dumbledore's deputy for a reason, so I think she would be a good headmistress. She was for a while in CoS and the end of HBP and we see her working with the other heads of houses and that's good.

3 Where do you think her main loyalty lies?
- The school
- The Order
- Other

This is a hard question. I think that because her work for both sort of intertwined then her loyalty would be the same for both.

4 Has her character changed through the series? How?

Probably not, we don't really see her much apart from as a teacher at the beginning of the series - it's only in OotP that she really shows her personality. From what we see of her I don't think she changes.

5 What, if any, has her impact on Harry been?

I think she did have an impact because Harry felt so strongly about sticking up for her in DH, but he'd probably do that for most of the teachers that he knows (apart from Snape maybe ). Heck, he even offers to take Trelawney to Dumbledore's office in HBP.

She's probably the teacher Harry's closest to except for Dumbledore and Hagrid (and Lupin in PoA). I think he respects her a lot and she gave him a chance in PS letting him on the Quidditch team - that certainly had an impact on him.

6 What do you think of her role in DH? Do you think she was effective in protecting students from the Carrows?

I'm sure she did the best she could, there would have been a fine line between protecting the students and making sure the Carrows didn't find out and have her sacked, or killed.

[HeadLikeAHole]

1 As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress.
- Is she impartial or does she show favouritism?
She's definitely more fair than say, Snape, but she is prone to occasional bias (such as when she gives Ron and Harry the night off homework before Quidditch games). Nothing major and it's perfectly natural, but she's not wholly unbiased.

2 Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Why?
I think so - she's clearly proven herself to be a leader and a competent teacher who cares about her students without getting too close.

3 Where do you think her main loyalty lies?
- The school
- The Order
I think her loyalty to the school and the Order is one and the same. Yeah she continued to teach while the school was under Voldemort's control - however I'm sure she did all she could in secret to help the dissidents.

4 Has her character changed through the series? How?
I think we're definitely seeing a lot more of her lighter side these days, especially in her dealings with Umbridge in OoTP. I love her snarky sense of humour - "he has achieved high marks in all Defence Against the Dark Arts exams set by a competent teacher."

5 What, if any, has her impact on Harry been?
I think she's definitely had an impact - not to the extent of Dumbledore and Snape, but as Harry pointed out, she's always "dependably, solidly present". I think that constancy was something Harry valued.

6 What do you think of her role in DH? Do you think she was effective in protecting students from the Carrows?
I think she was as effective as she could be, especially since Snape had to keep up the facade of working with the Carrows.

[padfootmarauder]

To me, she hasnt changed, we've just other aspects of her as the books have come by. She has always been constant , with her set of beliefs and firm loyalty to Dumbledore and understanding of Harry.

Her role on Harry was wonderfully shown in the 7th book when Harry uses the Cruciatus curse because Carrow spat at her. It just showed that despite the fact that she wasnt a major character, and that she never favoured Harry in the way say Snape favoured Malfoy and that Dumbledore or Remus Lupin and other teachers had a more direct influence on her, there was an understanding and a subtle bond between them. She was a constant and she genuinely cared about Harry just like he did about her, only it wasnt obvious

[bellatrix93]

Originally Posted by padfootmarauder

She was a constant and she genuinely cared about Harry just like he did about her, only it wasnt obvious

I agree with this. I think McGonagall was always fond of Harry and always valued his bravery. It first showed, when she told him about his father being a Quidditch player when at Hogwarts, and that he would've been proud of Harry. The way I read that remark, she wasn't just complimenting Harry's Quidditch abilities but also his bravery in standing up to Malfoy.

I also like that she was sympathising with him a lot of times; in PoA when he had to stay at the school when all the kids went to Hogsmeade, she showed that she was sorry for him. Same thing when he had to compete in the Triwizard Tournament, she sympathising when he faced difficulties, proud and encouraging when he achieved something.

In OotP, I think it was the first time that she didn't make an effort to hide her support for him (Career Advice), I think she was risking her position by standing up to him and defying Umbridge like that.

IMO, this treatment was very likely to trigger Harry's respect and the admiration/pride he felt in DH, when Carrow humilated her.

[JohnnyBeGood]

Minerva McGonagall: Character Analysis

1 As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress.
- Is she impartial or does she show favouritism.
- Other
She may have her preferences - she obviously likes Hermione and Harry and doesn't care a lot for Draco, but as a teacher, head of house and deputy headmistress, she shows the utmost impartiality.

She defended Draco when he was turned into a ferret (great scene, that) though she must have laughed inside.

She's also very supportive Neville. Unlike his grandma, she sees his potential.

I guess once she got to be headmistress, she still retains a special affection for Gryffindor, but she wouldn't let it show or affect her decisions.

2 Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Why?
Yes, because of the traits listed above, and because she's smart. She's kind but can be stern, she has all the makings of a good headmistress.

3 Where do you think her main loyalty lies?
- The school
- The Order
- Other
IMO the side of good in general. Doing what's right, moral and ethical.

4 Has her character changed through the series? How?
She may have come more sympathetic to muggleborns. Not that she had anything against them before, but seeing Hermione may have dissolved any reservations she may have had before.

She's probably gotten a lot tougher too.

5 What, if any, has her impact on Harry been?
Given him more confidence in the Hogwarts staff. She counterbalances Snape's impact. She also got him onto the Quidditch team in his first year.

6 What do you think of her role in DH? Do you think she was effective in protecting students from the Carrows?
There wasn't much she could do, but what little she could, I think she did. The way, in fact, Snape himself did, like sending Ginny, Neville and Luna to the Forest as "punishment". Definitely better than leaving them to the tender mercies of the Carrows.

She's obviously very brave - but she's also very smart. The Sorting Hat may have had trouble deciding whether to put her in Gryffindor or in Ravenclaw, IMO.

[Guyzzzer]

I'm not going to answer every single question, because I'm' rather tired right now, but I will say that I believe that she is most loyal to Dumbledore. I think someone up there said it but I'm not sure... Of course her main priority is Hogwarts, but Dumbledore resided at Hogwarts. When Dumbledore had to leave because of Umbridge, McGonnagal was ready to leave with him, but decided to stay at Hogwarts. Moreover, she is her own individual person, which makes her that much more amazing. She is 130% loyal to Dumbledore, but she isn't a shadow trailing after him, waiting for his instructions like Peter Pettigrew - like during the battle at Hogwarts, she knew what to do, and she did things herself also, which makes her her own self... As to Bellatrix, which is more of a shadow like Peter, and whom is scared of Voldemort, and listening to his every instruction.
You could say that Minerva and Bellatrix are a lot alike in some ways, but then again, you could also say the opposite.

[Leslie33]

1 As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress.
- Is she impartial or does she show favouritism.
I think Minerva is as impartial as she can be. In P.S, she handed out detention time to Draco andthe Trio. It didn't matter whether they were from her House or if they had done something to "protect' the welfare of another Student, all three were caught outside the school and had broken the same rule.

2 Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Yes, because she's strict but fair. She also has somewhat of a domineering presence and because of that, I don't see any Student trying to over power her or questioning her. I kind of see her being like Judge Judy. The more a Student questioned or argued with her,the angrier she'd become and I see the Students knowing this and not messing with her.

3 Where do you think her main loyalty lies? Her main loyalty lies with Dumbledore and the School and Students. She'd lay her life on the line to protect them and become very aggressive if anyone laid a hand on them. I think she regarded The Order more as a necessity.


4 Has her character changed through the series? How?

5 What, if any, has her impact on Harry been? She probably was the first Maternal figure he ever had. Maternal in that she wasn't afraid to lay down the law and make him accountable for any misdeeds he committed. She didn't have that "Oh, the poor boy, we have to make exceptions for him.

6 What do you think of her role in DH? Do you think she was effective in protecting students from the Carrows? She was as effective as she could be under the circumstances. If she took on that Mother Bear "Like heck you will" "Don't fuss with me" attitude, she knew they'd probably fatally wound her and have no second thoughts. Most of all, she adored those Kids and wouldn't do anything to put their lives on the line.

[sassygryffindor]

1 As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress.
- Is she impartial or does she show favouritism.
- Other

I think she was a fair, just and brave person and those characteristics transferred over into all of her positions.

2 Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Why?

Of course she is. She is wise, fair, loyal, brave, sympathetic, intelligent woman. IN my opinion, her and Dumbledore were almost on the same level (Dumbledore being slightly better - of course)

3 Where do you think her main loyalty lies?
- The school
- The Order
- Other

I think her loyalty lies with the school and the students. She always has their best interests at heart.

4 Has her character changed through the series? How?

I think as time goes by she becomes easier on Harry - perhaps growing more affectionate towards him? But she is ready to push him back in line if he goes too far.

5 What, if any, has her impact on Harry been?

Hmmm, I know she has quite the influence, but I just can't word it right, so I'm not even going to bother trying to avoid confusing you.

6 What do you think of her role in DH? Do you think she was effective in protecting students from the Carrows?

I think her role in DH shows how much she believed and cared for Harry. The shreik after Voldemort announces Harrys' "death" proves that.
On the Carrow front, I think she was caught between a rock and a hard place. If she stood up to the Carrows, she'd be fired, and nobody would be there to protect the school, its reputation and the students. But if she didn't then the students would continue to be abused and tossed around. But I think she did a good job.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by exl2398

2 Do you think she is the right person to become Headmistress? Why?
Yes, I would say so, and precisely for this ability to look at students in an objective manor, with the appropriate distance, thus making it easier for her to be just, not show favoritism. Plus she has a healthy level of disgust with breaking rules.

I think she has a respect for rules, and holds them as important. An important quality in a teacher, and moreso in a Headteacher/Deputy Head. However, as she showed in OotP and DH, she will not blindly follow rules, just because they are rules. She can see the difference between "rules" and "right and wrong".

Originally Posted by HeadLikeAHole

1 As a teacher, head of house and Deputy Headmistress.
- Is she impartial or does she show favouritism?
She's definitely more fair than say, Snape, but she is prone to occasional bias (such as when she gives Ron and Harry the night off homework before Quidditch games). Nothing major and it's perfectly natural, but she's not wholly unbiased.

We see other heads of house giving leeway coming up to a Quidditch match, so it's nothing out of the ordinary. She would, IMO, be putting her Gryffindor team at a disadvantage if she had not given them the exemptions other team members got.

Originally Posted by padfootmarauder

To me, she hasnt changed, we've just other aspects of her as the books have come by. She has always been constant , with her set of beliefs and firm loyalty to Dumbledore and understanding of Harry.

I really like this interpretation of McGonagall -Harry and the reader come to see more of her over time and get to know her better.

Originally Posted by JohnnyBeGood

She defended Draco when he was turned into a ferret (great scene, that) though she must have laughed inside.

I don't think there's any canon to say she found it at all amusing. Her reaction was immediate, instinctive, IMO - she dropped the books she was holding in surprise, and went directly to stop "Moody".

4 Has her character changed through the series? How?
She may have come more sympathetic to muggleborns. Not that she had anything against them before, but seeing Hermione may have dissolved any reservations she may have had before.

I think McGonagall would have seen many Muggleborn students pass through Hogwarts. There's no indication that she was surprised that a Muggleborn could be so skilled or that she had reservations about them. In any case, she held Lily Evans Potter, another Muggleborn student, in high regard, and was visibly shaken by both the Potters' deaths.

Originally Posted by Leslie33

5 What, if any, has her impact on Harry been? She probably was the first Maternal figure he ever had. Maternal in that she wasn't afraid to lay down the law and make him accountable for any misdeeds he committed. She didn't have that "Oh, the poor boy, we have to make exceptions for him.

I didn't see any of the other teachers taking on an attitude of making exceptions of that kind for Harry, either.

Originally Posted by sassygryffindor

I think her role in DH shows how much she believed and cared for Harry. The shreik after Voldemort announces Harrys' "death" proves that.
On the Carrow front, I think she was caught between a rock and a hard place. If she stood up to the Carrows, she'd be fired, and nobody would be there to protect the school, its reputation and the students. But if she didn't then the students would continue to be abused and tossed around. But I think she did a good job.

I think she was in a very difficult situation, yes. I think she turned a blind eye to whatever she knew about the newly reformed DA. I imagine she also kept quiet where she could, rather than turning punishments over to the Carrows. Given what we see of her interactions with the Carrows and Snape (whom she still believed to be a DE at that time) I think she was politely unhelpful when she could be. She couldn't be openly defiant, but nor was she going to make life easy for any of them, nor would she jump on command.

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by iluvseverus

I dont think Mcgonagall alienated them. When she said, "if the rest of your house coud follow you, Miss Parkinson..", she probably was referring to those of them who were underage or those who wanted to leave. By no means did she separate or discriminate against Slytherin House.
Canon shows how McG has always been fair to Slyth House.

I would like to preface my remarks by noting that Minerva McGonagall is one of my favorite adult characters; I like only Dumbledore and Snape better. However, I don't agree that canon shows much about Minerva's fairness towards Slytherin. I'd say all we can say is that we never see her being unfair to them. (Erm, with the possible exception of the scene I discuss below, discussion carried over from the Slytherin thread).

Minerva is shown, in my opinion, to have something of a temper. We can see this, for example, in her decision to take on four Aurors in defense of Hagrid in OotP, in contradiction to her own advice to Harry in the same book. And I think she found it very hard to continue on at Hogwarts under Voldemort's administration and keep that temper in check. So that when she finally had a reason to fight and targets on which to vent her pent-up feelings, I can totally understand why she would. And it does not bother me, because the things that made her angry, injustices and cruelty to her students, are things that should make her angry, as far as I am concerned. They are things that make her angry because she is a good person.

However, it was not the Slytherin students as a group who did these things. She could not even know that they all approved (though certain examples certainly did, and I presume she knew this as well). Yet she speaks to Slughorn of his students as a collective who must decide what to do (and who she seems to suspect might choose to take up arms against her side), and allows the other students to associate them all with Pansy's words, though none of them stands with Pansy. I understand why she acted as she did, but I do not agree with her handling of the situation. I think she should have asked Pansy to leave just as she did. Then, she should have asked the students who had their wands pointed at the Slytherins to stand down, as the Slytherins, still sitting at their table, had made no threatening mtions or indicated any objectionable intentions. This would have made it clear that the commander of the school's defenses, anyway, would welcome the contribution of any Slytherins who chose to stay. I think she did not, both because she was so angry at Snape, the Carrows, and Pansy that she was not thinking as logically as is usual for her, and because she entertained a suspicion that any Slytherin she allowed to stay would attempt to sabotage the school's defenses and so was happier with them gone.

[OldMotherCrow]

I disagree with your statement that the school was pointing their wands at all members of Slytherin House. I am copying my post fromt the Slytherin thread:

As I read the passage, the students who are defending Harry face Slytherin's table because that is where Pansy is. She is described as a figure who arose from the Slytherin table, which is the opposite side of the Hall from where Harry sits. I read it as a direction, like North or East. The passage does not say at all that the students point their wands at Slytherins in general. It says they are expressly looking at Pansy:

Originally Posted by DH

Before Harry could speak, there was a massive movement. The Gryffindors in front of him stood facing, not Harry, but the Slytherins. Then the Hufflepuffs stood, and almost at the same moment the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking at Pansy instead, and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves.

So I am not getting from that passage that the Slytherins were attacked or run out of the school at wandpoint.

[iluvseverus]

Well...u could be right about that
But i still maintain that when she asked them to leave she didnt mean it that way. All she said was " if the rest of your house could follow you..".
I'm repeating this, but i think she was referring to those students who wanted to get away. She probably asssumed that most Slyths would not want to stay and thats why she said what she did, not realising that the ENTIRE SLYTH HOUSE took her words at face value.

(uh....this is in reply to arithmancer's post.)

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

So I am not getting from that passage that the Slytherins were attacked or run out of the school at wandpoint.

If McG had acted as I propose, this would have been clear to the students of Slytherin House. Heck, if all those student were all worried just about Pansy, they might have even lowered their wands voluntarily, or moved them to track her movements, once she headed for the exit, which would have been even better (though as Minerva cannot control the voluntary, unprompted actions of other students, she could not count on this happening.) This is why I propose she ought to have acted differently.

[iluvseverus]

Originally Posted by arithmancer

I would like to preface my remarks by noting that Minerva McGonagall is one of my favorite adult characters; I like only Dumbledore and Snape better.

mine too.

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by iluvseverus

All she said was " if the rest of your house could follow you..".
I'm repeating this, but i think she was referring to those students who wanted to get away. She probably asssumed that most Slyths would not want to stay and thats why she said what she did, not realising that the ENTIRE SLYTH HOUSE took her words at face value.

(uh....this is in reply to arithmancer's post.)

Yes, I think if someone had pointed this out to her she would have agreed Slytherin students could stay if they chose. But I also think you are right, and she was not expecting any to stay.