Minerva McGonagall

[Jenett]

No: HPFGUIDX 30362

I've been thinking about her a bit over the last couple of days, and got
curious about a few things. Unless I'm being very forgetful (and yes, I
have checked the FAQ and the Lexicon, but as my fiance's in the middle of
reading the books for the first time, I don't want to make off with the
books right now.) none of this is mentioned in the books, but I'm curious
about thoughts on the following.

(If you do know of places I might look, though, please let me know.)

1) We never hear about her having been active either in the fight against 
Grindelwald or against Voldemort - even though she'd be of an age to be 
around for both of the above (25 or so in the first case, and in her 50s 
in the latter case, assuming that she is, in fact, around 70 in the books) 

As she's Gryffindor now, it seems rather unlikely that she'd have become
head of the house if she'd *not* behaved bravely in either situation (i.e.  
if she'd run and hid, or something of the kind.) There are, of course,
many varieties of bravery and courage, and it might be that she was
involved in something that didn't get her much recognition, but which
involved a great deal of courage and danger on her part.

But it's not even mentioned casually, that I recall. Which I do find a bit 
curious. 

2) The question of the apparent inconsistencies on her part (letting Harry 
get away with things, her strictness as contrasted with her teary eyes at 
various times)

One of the things that got me thinking about this is that she reminds me 
quite a bit of my father (who was born in England in 1931) - a lot of his 
'I can't openly show emotion, because that's not what I'm supposed to do' 
background seems to also be a part of her. While they do seem a bit weird 
given the way many people express emotions, I've never particularly found 
it odd, because it's what I grew up with. 

(Ok, that wasn't a question, more a comment)

3) What part her past might play in future books. We know that Dumbledore 
was very active against Voldemort. We're not given *details*, yet, but we 
know that that happened. Likewise, we know at least the barest outlines of 
what Snape did. Why don't we know about McGonagall, and why does she 
appear to be somewhat out of the loop on information at times, even though 
she's obviously trustworthy and capable in many other ways? 

Now, I do realise that an obvious answer to this is: "There's lots of 
other stuff that had to fit into the books, and this stuff just didn't 
make it in there for some reason, either because it doesn't matter to the 
current story, or because it could be cut without interfering with the 
current story." But it's still, IMHO, an interesting question. 

-Jenett
gwynyth at drizzle.com