Well, I'm sure you can go and read the considerably comprehensive write-up yourself, but what I am for? Providing my exceedingly subjective analysis, of course, though I am not going to summarize the arguments that the author of the linked article has mentioned because they are interesting and you should go read them yourself.
First of all, I was impressed. Performing an encyclopaedic study of all the six Harry Potter books is an arduous task and one that I am not going to undertake any time soon. However, reading all the books keeping a single character in perspective is an even more gruelling task that I dare not ever undertake. Yet, I am glad that someone else has.
Now, McGonagall is a character that I - and I suspect many others as well - have simply never thought about. I mean, the question, "What about McGonagall then?" never really came up after reading the books. But, as we all know, it is always these people that we choose to suspect the least - in fact going so far as to not even suspect at all to the limit that we can't even imagine a circumstance in which they would be capable of performing a villanous act - are the people who always turn out to be the wrong-doers in books like Agatha Christie and that Dan-Brown-slash-other-action-mystery-detective novel you just finished (well, actually, as far as the Dan Brown novels go, if you've read one, you've read them all - so it's a surprise only in the first one, and not a surprise at all even then if you just read closely enough). So, is it feasible then?
Yes, it is quite feasible and true, McGonagall does have a lot of screen time - enough to justify such a role… perhaps - but then she only has a fraction of the screen time that Snape and Dumbledore enjoy. It is plausible then, but the real question is: Is it really probable?
Quite the question there. For all we know, Parvati Patil could turn out to be allied with Tom and the Riddles, but who the hell gives a tiny rat's backside about her? because Parvati is just not important enough in the story line. But McGonagall, she is on the borderline. And that is what makes this discussion interesting. You see, the more important Rowling thinks McGonagall is in the story line, the greater the chance that she is a Death Eater (the "she" there - I know, I'm sorry about the ambiguous text but I assume everyone here - except you, Googlebot, no offence to you - can read in context). Now, Snape is very important in the story line, and going by that alone, I can see him turning out as the good guy and not the bad guy (though I do have seven magical reasons to support my theory). But, if McGonagall drops below the critical line of importantness (sic), then she won't be a Death Eater. It would not be that the evidence in the aforementioned write-up isn't convincing, it would just be a matter of her not being important enough. And since we don't know where this line of importantness is drawn, the question remains open for the guessing. What's your take?
First of all, I was impressed. Performing an encyclopaedic study of all the six Harry Potter books is an arduous task and one that I am not going to undertake any time soon. However, reading all the books keeping a single character in perspective is an even more gruelling task that I dare not ever undertake. Yet, I am glad that someone else has.
Now, McGonagall is a character that I - and I suspect many others as well - have simply never thought about. I mean, the question, "What about McGonagall then?" never really came up after reading the books. But, as we all know, it is always these people that we choose to suspect the least - in fact going so far as to not even suspect at all to the limit that we can't even imagine a circumstance in which they would be capable of performing a villanous act - are the people who always turn out to be the wrong-doers in books like Agatha Christie and that Dan-Brown-slash-other-action-mystery-detective novel you just finished (well, actually, as far as the Dan Brown novels go, if you've read one, you've read them all - so it's a surprise only in the first one, and not a surprise at all even then if you just read closely enough). So, is it feasible then?
Yes, it is quite feasible and true, McGonagall does have a lot of screen time - enough to justify such a role… perhaps - but then she only has a fraction of the screen time that Snape and Dumbledore enjoy. It is plausible then, but the real question is: Is it really probable?
Quite the question there. For all we know, Parvati Patil could turn out to be allied with Tom and the Riddles, but who the hell gives a tiny rat's backside about her? because Parvati is just not important enough in the story line. But McGonagall, she is on the borderline. And that is what makes this discussion interesting. You see, the more important Rowling thinks McGonagall is in the story line, the greater the chance that she is a Death Eater (the "she" there - I know, I'm sorry about the ambiguous text but I assume everyone here - except you, Googlebot, no offence to you - can read in context). Now, Snape is very important in the story line, and going by that alone, I can see him turning out as the good guy and not the bad guy (though I do have seven magical reasons to support my theory). But, if McGonagall drops below the critical line of importantness (sic), then she won't be a Death Eater. It would not be that the evidence in the aforementioned write-up isn't convincing, it would just be a matter of her not being important enough. And since we don't know where this line of importantness is drawn, the question remains open for the guessing. What's your take?
Labels: English
0 comments
