ESE!McGonagall (not what you think)

[caspenzoe]

No: HPFGUIDX 164622

Snip!
> Caspen wrote:
> > And, as Julie asks, if she's so loyal, why doesn't Albus trust her
> more, and why doesn't he confide in her? It really doesn't make 
sense
> to me, regardless whether she's secretly a hot-head or not.
> > 
> Debbie responded:
> > That trust issue looms large, doesn't it?  The reason I continue 
to
> be enamored of ESE! McGonagall is that the only other reason I can
> come up with for McGonagall to be so out of the loop is very
> unpleasant -- it's that McGonagall (like most of the other women in
> the story) doesn't really have a narrative function except to serve 
as
> a stereotype spinster schoolteacher. And it does fit -- she's stern,
> no-nonsense, competent and efficient, but underneath has a soft spot
> for her 'children'.  She's a stock character in fiction, the type 
who
> provides atmosphere -- she gets no action, no mystery, and no 
growth.
>  <snip>
> 
> Carol chimes in:
> I think her usually concealed softness or emotionalism is the reason
> that DD doesn't trust her with every detail of his anti-Voldemort
> plan, that and her already heavy workload and his need-to-know 
policy.
> She doesn't need to know about the blood protection, for example,
> because she's not involved. McGonagall is quite competent as a
> teacher, disciplinarian, HoH, and assistant headmistress, but 
that's a
> heavy workload for a woman of her age, "sprightly" or not, witch or
> not. He only uses her, at least until OoP, for matters directly
> related to Hogwarts and its students, and even there it's not clear
> what she does for the Order during the summer holidays. something 
not
> too strenuous, probably, involving a disguise as a Muggle. 
Snip!

Caspen: 

I may be keeping this thread going past it's natural expiration date, 
but I have to come to the defense of my favorite (albeit possibly 
ESE/enchanted) Hogwarts teacher here. Plus I am just now getting back 
to this thread - it's so hard to keep up here. 

I've no wish to offend, but I have one huge problem with every part 
of Carol's theory as to why Dumbledore doesn't trust Minerva (above), 
except her proposition that he distributes all information on a need-
to-know only basis. In fact, my huge problem may not even be 
primarily Carol's, but, (and I am very sorry to say this, as I admire 
her work so deeply) Jo's -- harking back to the famous interview in 
which she was aked why there weren't more strong female characters in 
her HP saga. She responded that she felt both Hermione and Minerva 
are those characters. BTW, this interview is referenced and, I 
believe, even linked, in another (and excellent) post in this thread 
where all JKR's interview comments on Minerva are listed.

Unfortunately Carol, and, I doubt this is conscious on your part, 
every one of the reasons you offer above for Dumbledore's lack of 
trust in McGonagall, with the exception of "need-to-know," which may 
be the correct answer for all I know, is just frankly extremely 
sexist. I fail to see how Minerva's "usually concealed softness or 
emotionalism," for instance, exceeds Dumbledore's in any way; in 
fact, it seems to me that we see a lot more teary eyes from him 
throughout the books. As for "her already heavy workload," how's 
it any heavier than his? I don't see McGonagall, who actively enabled 
Hermione to carry an extra-heavy work load in POA, shrinking from any 
extra work. And what on earth is the justification of these (oft 
repeated in this thread) words, Carol? "For a woman of her age?" 
Haven't I just read in this thread that it's generally accepted that 
Dumbledore is considerably older than Minerva? Didn't she fully 
recover from the effects of multiple stunnings in OOTP? 

In the muggle world, statistically, women far outlive men. Is there 
some canon source for your supposing it to be so different in the 
magical world as between witches and wizards? If not, I certainly 
hope you'll reconsider this opinion. I myself am reconsidering 
the "hot-head" explanation offered by another poster as well. For 
example, how is Minerva's occasional snippiness even comparable in 
terms of sheer peeve to Severus' discontinuing of occlumency lessons 
with Harry? 

In fact, I'm reconsidering a lot. Again I am sorry to say it, but I 
have to question the accuracy, if not honesty (given that her own 
sexism may be unconsious as well) of Jo's response in that interview. 
Whom, of all the female characters in the books, but Hermione, after 
all, and after all that time and all those pages since JKR gave that 
interview, consistantly gets any significant page space in the books? 
None. In fact, no other female characters in JKR's supposedly (and 
self-proclaimed -- again see the summarized interviews post) 50/50 
Hogwarts environment get any significant page space. 

As I wrote, Minerva is one of my favorite characters, but other than 
ESE/enchanted Minerva there is certainly no denying (so far) that JKR 
does seem content to leave her undevelopped. Maybe I just find the 
idea of a deliberate disguise more palatible than (in Debbies's 
words) "that McGonagall (like most of the other women in the story) 
doesn't really have a narrative function except to serve as a 
stereotype spinster schoolteacher.... She's a stock character in 
fiction, the type who provides atmosphere -- she gets no action, no 
mystery, and no growth." I don't know about anyone else's motives for 
entertainig an ESE McGonagall or enchanted McGonagall theory, but I'm 
beginning to suspect that one of mine is a powerful desire to repress 
my own consciousness of deep and blatant (whether she, herself, is  
conscious of it or not) sexism on JKR's part.

And, I'm feeling in a bit of a peeve toward JKR about now. The more I 
think about it, the more outrageous it seems; so I think I'll just go 
away and try to cool off.

CaspenPeeved