Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Greatest Harry Potter Theory Ever?

Egged on by Galley Brother B.J.'s conjecture about the impending death of Mrs. Weasely, Galley Friend and Harry Potter Super Fan K.S. sends in this giant, super-crazy, and oddly persuasive theory: That Professor Minerva McGonagall is a traitor!

Read on, if you dare:

Here's where I dork out on HP and my McGonagall theory. Throughout the books, Dumbledore says that he trust Snape. But Minerva slides under our radar: She's just present enough to be likeable (a crotchety old maid, so to speak) and there are things that could be clues scattered throughout the series. I'll start at the beginning. Page cites are to softcover U.S. for Books 1-3, hardcover U.S. for books 4-6.

* In Book 1, before we even meet Harry for the first time, she is waiting--as a cat--at the Dursleys. She is surprised, ruffled, to see Dumbledore at the Dursleys, and did not know he'd recognize her as a cat. So, why was she there? How did she, of all people, know that Harry was going to his uncle's, and she questions Dumbledore about whether Voldemort is really gone. P. 9-11.

Remember also her reaction to the celebrations of Voldemort's death: she's cold, sharp, and angry. These are odd reactions, no? And she finds it "astounding" that Voldemort couldn't kill a little boy and wants to know how. P. 12.

Was she there to intercept Hagrid? Did she know about--and seek to stop--the protection of Harry's mother's family? Another thought: How old is McGonagall? We know she's quite old--older than Sirius/Snape/the Potters/Lupin. In a 2000 interview, J.K. Rowling says that McGonagall "is a sprightly 70" and that Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than Muggles. (2000 scholastic chat). Doesn't that put her at school about the same time as Riddle? (Wikipedia says she was born in 1925). And couldn't we see her as the Gryffindor Prefect at the same time he was the Slytherin Prefect?

Also, recall that she is the one who makes Harry a Seeker--and directly puts him into the line of danger when Quirrel tries to jinx his broom. Isn't it interesting that one of the most rigid and rule-following characters in the book (she won't let him go to Hogwarts w/o a permission slip in Book 5, for example), is so quick to break the rules to set up Harry in what could be seen as an "accident"? Recall her reaction when Harry and Ron tell her about the Philosopher's Stone? She reacts with "suspicion and shock". Also, why would she be the one to send him the broomstick? Isn't that kind of weird--she would have known that he had money from his parents, no?

Also, also, recall that the chess game--McGonagall's protection for the stone--was intact when they got to it--and they left it shambles. How did Quirrell get past it? Finally, I'm fascinated by Quirrell's reaction when Harry confronts him. He says "Yes, Severus does seem the type, doesn't he? So useful to have him swooping around like an overgrown bat." Is that JRK's way of telling us that Snape is a red herring?

In Book 2, she's the one who finds the final message that says Ginny was taken into the Chamber, and tries to close the school. P. 293. Then, she says "weakly" that they'd all like to know how Harry and Ginny get out of the chamber and probes repeatedly for the answer. P. 327-328.

* In Book 3, McGonagall is mysteriously absent from the scene after Peter Pettigrew escapes. And she "goes white" when she says she "never speaks ill of her colleagues"--is she talking just about Trelawney there? (or even if she is, does she recall the prophecy)? P. 109. Moreover, doesn't she call Voldemort "the Dark Lord" when she takes Harry's new broom (a gift from Sirius) away from him? Harry later notes that only the Death Eaters call him that.

In Book 4, who is with Barty Crouch Jr. when the Dementor administers the kiss? McGonagall (and Cornelius Fudge). We know Dumbledore didn't want this to happen - why wouldn't his second in command, McGonagall, stop it? Also, recall that Voldemort says his "most faithful servant" was at Hogwart's. Is that Crouch? Too easy, I think. Sure, he's important in Book 4, but the story arc for him is short. Perhaps I'm too quick to dismiss the obvious, but I don't think it's him. Snape? I don't think so, because there are references in Book 6 to him having to go back to Voldemort after the hubbub dies down to sort out his role--he tells Narcissa and Bellatrix about this at Spinner's End. So at the point Voldemort says this, he didn't know Snape was coming back to him. So there must be another spy at Hogwarts. (At that point, Wormtail has already returned.) Note also that when Harry returns from the graveyard, McGonagall is one of the people trying to yank Harry away to the hospital wing. We know that it turns out badly when Crouch/Moody takes him away. Is it important that McGonagall has tried to do the same thing?

*In Book 5, McGonagall tells Harry about the importance of "keeping your head down and your temper under control". P. 249, 319.

When she's stunned by the ministry, which side is she on? P. 723-24. Note, however, that this is a hole in the McGonagall-as-spy theory: getting yourself stunned is not likely to be a stellar moment for a spy. And she's nowhere near the Ministry during the fight. Note also her response to Umbridge on how long she's been teaching at Howarts--doesn't that track fairly closely with the number of years since Riddle was there? I think that might (though I've not run the numbers exactly) help confirm she was at Hogwarts during the time Riddle was a student. Also, I feel like I remember that Madam Pomfrey somewhere in here comments on McGonagall's dueling prowess back during the day, but can't find the cite to it.

*In Book 6, Mcgonagall also digs for info when Katie Bell is cursed, and immediately dismisses Harry's Malfoy theory. P. 253-55.

As we know from later on, Malfoy is the one who started that curse--using the necklace from B&B. So McGonagall has--whether deliberately or unintentionally--thrown them off the track. Unless, of course, someone else has helped Malfoy. . . We know that Malfoy tells Snape the night of Slug's Xmas party that he has "other people" "better" than Goyle and Crabbe on his side. Next, after Dumbledore's death, McGonagall comes into the ward where Bill is. Harry tells her "Snape killed Dumbledore. " She says "Snape. We all wondered . . . But he trusted . . . always . . . Snape . . ." P. 615

Keep reading that passage and the next--it makes sense both with Dumbledore as "he" and Voldemort as "he." And, though McGonagall confesses she sent Flitwick to get Snape, she rather bizarrely can't recall the details of how he joined in the fight, and she recounts her tale "distractedly" P. 117. Isn't it an odd time not to remember what happened?

She is "curt" when saying Dumbledore would have been happier to think there is more love in the world. P. 624.

And then she tries to pry the info out of Harry about what happened, but he won't tell him anything in return. And she immediately suggests closing the school. P. 626-627.

Given the story arc, I think it's clear there has to have been a spy at Hogwarts and/or in the OoP. Snape's the easy answer: hate the guy who is mean to Harry. But isn't that too simple? McGonagall is the secret: we like her just enough throughout the books. However, J.K. Rowling herself says that McGonagall is an "old softy" and a "very worthy second in command"--but not Dumbledore's equal. (JKR's interview with scholastic in 2005, and 2000). Could be read both ways, no? Note also the sequence of cats Mrs. Figg has cats, Crookshanks, and McGonagall's an animagus. Moreover, in the movies--which we believe JKR has insight into, McGonagall is wearing green, as she does in the formal parties (whenever she's not wearing tartan).

Finally--one last thing: Wikipedia says the Queen of Spades depicts Minerva, AND spades in Tarot indicate obstacles, trouble, death.


Did I just blow your mind? Because that just happened. Fine work, K.S.

28 comments:

Hei Lun said...

I can't say it's as persuasive as that article about how the Jedis are evil.

silos said...

I would like to agree with you on this, but there's just not enough proof. This theory is like saying Hermione and Harry are sibling (thats been in fandom for a long time) and is very tempting, but no proof!

Minerva is T-fig teacher, and she is a year older than Lord V
according to the hp-lexicon.com. Her name means wisdom and she seems very strict and wise. But one should see her enthusiasm in Quidditch and she seems very just. Also, didnt she give Hermione the time turner (wont that again spoil your theory of her? cause she has aided the good side?)

I only agree with you insofar as that the murder of Albus has made her the Head Master, although one doesnt even know whether Hogwarts will reopen.

Anonymous said...

OMG. I am reeling. McGonagall??? I don't want to believe it. But what a totally interesting argument.

Still, JVL, you and your pro-Snape bias may mean you WANT to believe this more than the possibility that Snape is inherently a bad person. More than just misunderstood. Maybe not a bad guy, but definitely a bad person.

But still, intriguing...
GW

Anonymous said...

If Minerva was also a spy, why would Voldemort let Snape knowing he was a double agent? To feed false info to the Order?

BJ said...

During Year 3,

McGonagall tries to stop Harry from practicing with the Quiditch team while Black is on the loose. She only allows him to keep practicing by insisting that Madam Hooch supervise/attend/observe their practices. p 167 - 168 hard cover

And she doesn't allow Harry to go into Hogsmead p 150

"But I don't say so," said Professor McGonagall, standing up and piling her papers neatly into a drawers. "The form clearly stats that the parent or guardian must give permission. She turned to look at him, with an odd expression on her face. Was it pity? "I'm sorry, Potter, but that's my final word. You had better hurry, or you'll be late for you next lesson."

Although, the line about her having an odd expression on her face is interesting.

Anonymous said...

I have to say it does make the mind wonder.. I have given so many theories thought. What is she to gain? She's already in command, why suggest closing the school repeatedly?
I have to say if this was to be truth then bravo for figuring it out. I didnt give her a second thought.
Lisa

Bathsheba said...

Yeah, It's different, but I don't think so.

In Sorcerer's Stone, McGonagall is irritated because the wizards were celebrating so much that it ended up on the muggle news (pg 10). She refers to Voldemort at "You-Know-Who" (pg 11, and "flinched" when Dumbledore says his name and "sound(s)half exasperated, half admiring" when he tells her he doesn't see why people don't call him by his name.

On page 12, its true she doesn't believe that Voldemort couldn't kill a baby, but thats because he's killed so many people, including member of the Order and Aurors.

It is a fun theory though, I deffinatly don't think Snape is the bad guy here, I think Dumbledore let Snape kill him bc it't the only way Voldemort and the rest of the Death Eaters would ever really trust him.
-Bathsheba
http://geekchic.typepad.com/

Ashley said...

It's definitely quite an interesting theory. I must say, I haven't heard it before.

In my opinion, Minerva McGonagall is lost without Albus Dumbledore. I mean, not in the sense that they were lovers in any sort, but she relied on him a great deal. He was a very close colleague of hers for a number of years. Naturally, she would be insecure without him. He was easily the most powerful [aging] wizard of the day, and he sacrificed a lot of that power for his cause.

McGonagall certainly isn't in the same league as Dumbledore was. She certainly isn't a weak witch or a stupid witch, but she certainly lacks a lot of the gall, sensitivity, and power/ability that Dumbledore had. With Dumbledore gone, McGonagall would naturally be shaken. She could even feel like a lame duck. No one would be prepared for Dumbledore's death.

As we've seen through all the books, McGonagall rarely shows an emotion outside of brisk irritation. Does this mean she's a spy? No. I think it's just her demeanor. Honestly, I believe the last thing Minerva McGonagall would want is to be on Voldemort's side of the war. I'm sure she'd rather die, and I wouldn't be surprised if she did.

Anonymous said...

Yeah this is a genuinely interesting theory. I never gave it any thought before but as others have said, if it's true then bravo. I think its refreshing to see a theory that doesn't think that Snape is the villain because, seriously, he can't be, that would be an awful story. Again, the only thing that's missing here from my limited scope is her motive. I suppose power could be one but...im not so sure.

Eileen said...

Isn't it interesting that one of the most rigid and rule-following characters in the book (she won't let him go to Hogwarts w/o a permission slip in Book 5, for example)

-actually, she wouldn't let him go to HOGSMEADE in Book 3 because he didn't have a permission slip from the Dursleys. This was the same time that his "enemy" Sirius Black was on the loose, and I always assumed she wouldn't let him go not just because of the lack of a permission slip, but also for his safety.

Anonymous said...

As for the reference to MacGonagall keeping Harry safe when Black was around, I don't see that as contrary to this theory.

If she was a Death Eater, she would know that Black wasn't a Death Eater, Pettigrew was. So she wasn't keeping Harry safe from Black, she was keeping the truth from reaching Harry through Black.

yaycoffee said...

Nicely done theory! I can't say I agree. While you have a lot of reasoning, for each and every one--the exact opposite (her alliegance to the White Hats) could be true, or it can be explained away by a severe Quidditch weakness ;-)

I just like ol' Minnie, and even though I know that there is probably a Spy (I also do NOT for ONE SECOND think that Snape is evil) in the Order--it hurts my heart to think it's her. But, that would be the whole POINT of a Traitor, I suppose.

Oh, man. I just will be really sad to see this series end. D-:

Anonymous said...

Very interesting theory! Alhtough you're forgetting one important detail from the first movie. When Harry, Ron, and Hermione visit Hagrid at night Malfoy rats them out, to McGonagall who in turn punishes them.

In the book he gets McGonagall to catch them when the dragon is taken away. Malfoy doesn't go to Snape, he goes to McGonagall, why?

CPA said...

Interesting theory, but I think the most persuasive parts are from book 1, particularly the first scene. The trouble is, as has been pointed out elsewhere, book 1 has lots of contradictions with the later ones, probably because JKR was still working things out.

Well, we'll know soon! Can't wait

Jay said...

I don't think it's the same person, but either way this was theorized last year by someone I stumbled across:

http://community.livejournal.com/unplottables/46684.html#cutid1

Jay said...

http://community.livejournal.com/unplottables/46684.html

Sorry, that link seems to break. Just add .html after 46684 if it doesn't post.

Ric Caric said...

The McGonagall theory is interesting, but it's just as plausible to say that McGonagall is marked for death. Why? she's a prominent character. So killing McGonagall off would be significant. But McGonagall's also not THAT significant in that she's not driving events, isn't central to the fight against Voldemort and isn't given much depth of personality. McGonagall could be killed off with less real cost than Mrs Weasley.

Our homespun Potter theories at focus on how Harry is going to find the horcruxes. Our idea is that Harry will find Hufflepuff's cup, the snake, and a third horcrux through legilimency, i.e. breaking into Voldemort's mind. The fourth horcrux, Slytherin's locket, is at 12 Grimmauld Place and we think Harry will find it by asking Kreacher.

Jacob said...

I passed this theory on to a friend who knows more about Harry Potter than I do and here was his response:

This is one of those longshot theories that people just throw out there in the vague hope that they'll be right by sheer accident. This is also one of those theories that isn't... uhhh... plausible. I've got time on my hands, so I'll refute it. Feel free to send this back to the source of the theory if you want to. In any case, let me go through this:

> * In Book 1, before we even meet Harry for the first time, she is > waiting--as a cat--at the Dursleys. She is surprised, ruffled, to see > Dumbledore at the Dursleys, and did not know he'd recognize her as a > cat. So, why was she there?

To keep watch on the Dursleys and scope them out.

> How did she, of all people, know that > Harry was going to his uncle's, and she questions Dumbledore about > whether Voldemort is really gone. P. 9-11.

The fact that Harry is going to his muggle relatives isn't a secret. Everyone knows. Dumbledore is surprised to see her there because he'd have expected her to join in the post-Voldemort celebrations, not because she just sort of showed up to a secret thing.

> Remember also her reaction to the celebrations of Voldemort's death: > she's cold, sharp, and angry. These are odd reactions, no?

No they're not. The Wizarding world is built on secrecy. To go around throwing out shooting stars and such isn't really smart when you think in the long term. She's a bit of a killjoy, sure, but there's nothing odd about that.

>And she > finds it "astounding" that Voldemort couldn't kill a little boy and > wants to know how. P. 12.

That's the same reaction that you know... everyone else in the books had to the whole thing. "The most evil and powerful wizard ever gets rocked by a 1-year-old". Yep, that qualifies as astounding, I think.

> Was she there to intercept Hagrid? Did she know about--and seek to > stop--the protection of Harry's mother's family?

You may as well argue that Dumbledore was there to intercept Hagrid. And geez, it was just pointed out how very 'astounded' McG was about Voldemort's fall and how she wanted to know how it happened - i.e. she doesn't know about the mother protection.

>Another thought: How > old is McGonagall? We know she's quite old--older than > Sirius/Snape/the Potters/Lupin. In a 2000 interview, J.K. Rowling says > that McGonagall "is a sprightly 70" and that Wizards have a much > longer life expectancy than Muggles. (2000 scholastic chat). Doesn't > that put her at school about the same time as Riddle? (Wikipedia says > she was born in 1925). And couldn't we see her as the Gryffindor > Prefect at the same time he was the Slytherin Prefect?

She's two or three years older than Riddle and graduated either the year before or the year that Riddle unleashed the Basilisk. She was probably Head Girl. Even if she was there when Riddle let loose the Basilisk, however, that doesn't actually prove anything. Hogwarts is a big school and they were in seperate houses. We know that Riddle kept a tight gang of what was likely mostly Slytherins. Riddle may have had as much interaction with McG as Harry does with Pansy Parkinson.

> Also, recall that she is the one who makes Harry a Seeker--and > directly puts him into the line of danger when Quirrel tries to jinx > his broom. Isn't it interesting that one of the most rigid and > rule-following characters in the book (she won't let him go to > Hogwarts w/o a permission slip in Book 5, for example), is so quick to > break the rules to set up Harry in what could be seen as an > "accident"?

First: he can't go to Hogsmeade without permission in book 3. Sirius signs his slip from then onward. The reason I point this out is she doesn't let him go there because she's concerned for his safety, as everyone thought at that point that a convicted murderer is looking for him. Second: No, it's not unusual for her to do that because, in spite of how strict she is, McG loves Quidditch and she wants Gryffindor to win. And honestly, if you want to talk about Quidditch sabatoge, what about when she took away Harry's Firebolt to check it for jinxes? If she were really secretly trying to let Harry die, wouldn't she have not done that so thoroughly? Unless the guy's willing to say that she jinxed the broom way back then and the jinx will manifest at a critical point in book 7?

> Recall her reaction when Harry and Ron tell her about the > Philosopher's Stone? She reacts with "suspicion and shock".

Yeah, because they aren't supposed to know about any of that.

>Also, why > would she be the one to send him the broomstick? Isn't that kind of > weird--she would have known that he had money from his parents, no?

Again: She likey Quidditch.

> > Also, also, recall that the chess game--McGonagall's protection for > the stone--was intact when they got to it--and they left it shambles. > How did Quirrell get past it?

There's nothing to say that the chessmen didn't piece themselves back together and stand back in place after Harry and Hermione went onward. This is magic remember?

>Finally, I'm fascinated by Quirrell's > reaction when Harry confronts him. He says "Yes, Severus does seem the > type, doesn't he? So useful to have him swooping around like an > overgrown bat." Is that JRK's way of telling us that Snape is a red > herring?

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with McG any more than it has to do with Flitwick or Mrs. Norris.

> In Book 2, she's the one who finds the final message that says Ginny > was taken into the Chamber, and tries to close the school. P. 293. > Then, she says "weakly" that they'd all like to know how Harry and > Ginny get out of the chamber and probes repeatedly for the answer. P. > 327-328.

A 12 year old kid just came into your office soaked with blood while holding a sword in one hand and a rescued Ginny in the other. I think a degree of shock and curiousity is warranted.

> * In Book 3, McGonagall is mysteriously absent from the scene after > Peter Pettigrew escapes. And she "goes white" when she says she "never > speaks ill of her colleagues"--is she talking just about Trelawney > there?

Yes. Read the context.

> (or even if she is, does she recall the prophecy)? P. 109.

No. Only Dumbledore knows about the Prophecy at this point in the series. And no, if she knew about the Prophecy and were a spy, I'd think she'd have mentioned it to Voldemort at some point rather than let Voldemort go through all the trouble to discover its contents in the 5th book.

> Moreover, doesn't she call Voldemort "the Dark Lord" when she takes > Harry's new broom (a gift from Sirius) away from him? Harry later > notes that only the Death Eaters call him that.

No, actually, she doesn't. I just checked. She doesn't even mention Voldemort there.

> In Book 4, who is with Barty Crouch Jr. when the Dementor administers > the kiss? McGonagall (and Cornelius Fudge). We know Dumbledore didn't > want this to happen - why wouldn't his second in command, McGonagall, > stop it?

Read the part where it happened. The Minister stormed in with a Dementor and mindkilled Crouch before anyone could react. You'll notice that there is no Dementor anymore when Fudge comes to Dumbledore, by the by. What do you think happened to it?

> Also, recall that Voldemort says his "most faithful servant" > was at Hogwart's. Is that Crouch? Too easy, I think. Sure, he's > important in Book 4, but the story arc for him is short. Perhaps I'm > too quick to dismiss the obvious, but I don't think it's him.

It is him. Crouch engineered Voldemort's rise to power masterfully. He did it out of personal devotion, rather than the fear/power hunger that motivates many Death Eaters.

> Snape? I > don't think so, because there are references in Book 6 to him having > to go back to Voldemort after the hubbub dies down to sort out his > role--he tells Narcissa and Bellatrix about this at Spinner's End. So > at the point Voldemort says this, he didn't know Snape was coming back > to him. So there must be another spy at Hogwarts. (At that point, > Wormtail has already returned.) Note also that when Harry returns from > the graveyard, McGonagall is one of the people trying to yank Harry > away to the hospital wing. We know that it turns out badly when > Crouch/Moody takes him away. Is it important that McGonagall has tried > to do the same thing?

No it's not. The Hospital Wing isn't actually an ideal place to commit arbitrary murder.

> *In Book 5, McGonagall tells Harry about the importance of "keeping > your head down and your temper under control". P. 249, 319.

That is pretty important thing to do actually, considering the situation. Good advice, McG!

> When she's stunned by the ministry, which side is she on? P. 723-24. > Note, however, that this is a hole in the McGonagall-as-spy theory: > getting yourself stunned is not likely to be a stellar moment for a > spy. And she's nowhere near the Ministry during the fight. Note also > her response to Umbridge on how long she's been teaching at > Howarts--doesn't that track fairly closely with the number of years > since Riddle was there? I think that might (though I've not run the > numbers exactly) help confirm she was at Hogwarts during the time > Riddle was a student. Also, I feel like I remember that Madam Pomfrey > somewhere in here comments on McGonagall's dueling prowess back during > the day, but can't find the cite to it.

What does this babble prove? Nothing. Again, Tom Riddle had a small gang in Hogwarts. There's nothing to say that he and McG ever even had a conversation.

> *In Book 6, Mcgonagall also digs for info when Katie Bell is cursed, > and immediately dismisses Harry's Malfoy theory. P. 253-55.

Everyone dismisses Harry's Malfoy theory. Ron does. Hermione does. Are they also spies?

> As we know from later on, Malfoy is the one who started that > curse--using the necklace from B&B. So McGonagall has--whether > deliberately or unintentionally--thrown them off the track. Unless, of > course, someone else has helped Malfoy. . . We know that Malfoy tells > Snape the night of Slug's Xmas party that he has "other people" > "better" than Goyle and Crabbe on his side.

Again, Ron and Hermione didn't think it was Malfoy either. Does that indict them? Are THEY the better people that Malfoy has on his side? Because there's absolutely no reason to suspect McG any more than there is to suspect Ron and Hermione.

> After Dumbledore's > death, McGonagall comes into the ward where Bill is. Harry tells her > "Snape killed Dumbledore. " She says "Snape. We all wondered . . . But > he trusted . . . always . . . Snape . . ." P. 615 > > Keep reading that passage and the next--it makes sense both with > Dumbledore as "he" and Voldemort as "he." And, though McGonagall > confesses she sent Flitwick to get Snape, she rather bizarrely can't > recall the details of how he joined in the fight, and she recounts her > tale "distractedly" P. 117. Isn't it an odd time not to remember what > happened?

No, actually, it's not. They just had a huge and confused battle that they were completely unprepared for. It was a surprise attack and so you can't expect McG to know exactly what was happening where and why. Plus: Dumbledore just died. McG is here having a... get this... human reaction to having her friend and colleague of many many years murdered! Hard to believe, I now, but there we are.

> She is "curt" when saying Dumbledore would have been happier to think > there is more love in the world. P. 624.

How sinister!

> And then she tries to pry the info out of Harry about what happened, > but he won't tell him anything in return. And she immediately suggests > closing the school. P. 626-627.

Closing the school is natural. They were going to close the school after a few petrifications and one potential murder in book 2. After a surprise attack by Death Eaters and the murder of the Headmaster, I should damn well hope they think of closing the school.

> Given the story arc, I think it's clear there has to have been a spy > at Hogwarts and/or in the OoP.

I see no reason to be certain about that.

> Snape's the easy answer: hate the guy > who is mean to Harry. But isn't that too simple? McGonagall is the > secret: we like her just enough throughout the books.

There are plenty of instances where McG is thoroughly likeable - for instance when she tells off Umbridge during Harry's job discussion in book 5. She's not favourite-character material, but I've never known of anyone who disliked her.

> However, J.K. > Rowling herself says that McGonagall is an "old softy" and a "very > worthy second in command"--but not Dumbledore's equal. (JKR's > interview with scholastic in 2005, and 2000). Could be read both ways, > no?

No, it really can't be read both ways. There is only one logical way to read both statements.

> Note also the sequence of cats Mrs. Figg has cats, Crookshanks, > and McGonagall's an animagus. Moreover, in the movies--which we > believe JKR has insight into, McGonagall is wearing green, as she does > in the formal parties (whenever she's not wearing tartan).

So?

> Finally--one last thing: Wikipedia says the Queen of Spades depicts > Minerva, AND spades in Tarot indicate obstacles, trouble, death. >

That's probably the dumbest thing I've read in this stupid theory. Minerva, if anything at all, is a reference to the Roman name for ATHENA. Geez.

Anonymous said...

Sheesh... jacob, it sounds like you're too bitter to give this theory any credibility at all. It might not be the most plausible in the world, but there are definately theories that are below this one.

If there is a traitor, he or she would have had to have crept in early on.

I think too though, back to book four, before Voldemort realizes Harry's there, he's going through the death eaters who've arrived. Why wasn't McG there? She would have expect Lord V to be able to kill Harry that time, right? Or did she still lack faith in his power?

Dan said...

Interesting detail work here, but no, I don't think even a fictional character could be convicted in a court of law of treason on such flimsy evidence, most of which consists of (1) sour facial expressions and (2) questionable decisionmaking.

Anonymous said...

How about this for a theory;
Lucious is a double agent for the good side or at least he's not quite the Voldy follower.

There are some contradictions in his character and events that follow him.

1) In book 5, Harry mentions that metions in reaction to finding out about Kreacher's betrayal, that House Elves don't always "have to follow" their masters, as Dobby was able to disobey the Malfoys...
Question: Was he really disobeying Malfoy.

2) Harry's ability to free Dobby. Did he really, or is lucious a good legilmen and supplant the idea in Harry.

3) I find it very coincidental, that the Diary wound up with Ginny. Why not another wizard, w/o such close connection to Harry.

4) He's also not so good with the Ideas. Not only did he lose his House Elf, but he manages to get 5 Death Eaters caught too.

5) As with the McGonagall, whom by the way, is not quite as 'by the books' as everyone is stating; Lucius tells Draco that Black killed the Potters, Yet being a death eater himself, He has to know that Black is not..

6) He never has referred to himself as Voldemort's most faithful servant, which almost all the others have! Pettigrew, Crouch Jr and Lestrange!

Although, my thoughts of his being a good guy, messes with my theory that he was the Wizard who blew up the street, killing 13 muggles. McGonagall( i think it was her ), was very surprised when it came out it wasn't Black, because Peter just didn't seem to have the talent. It would appear as a second death eater was on the spot with Peter...I also thought that, that would have been LM.

In conclusion, I just think there is more to Malfoy, than we're being told.

Also, I've been thinking about heritage: Sirius commented that to keep Wizards pure blood there almost all purebloods are related:

Although Narcissa is related to Black, and Arthur is somewhere in that line, there's no mention of
The Potters, Longbottoms or Lucious Malfoy.

My two cents on the Snape trust:
if you read books 5 & 6 in regards to the Prophecy. Dumbledore states 2x that the spy who heard the prophecy was chucked out before he heard it in entirety; Yet Trelawney states she saw Snape, THE SPY.

If the above is the case, then the trust could actually come from Snape possibly being a better legilmen than Voldemort, and he planted the idea of Killing Harry, Knowing Harry would be protected, into Voldemort's head. He also didn't tell Voldemort the entire prophecy.
Harry needed to be "the chosen" one, Neville's parents ( and heritage ) wouldn't have been able to protect Neville.

this theory also is based on Harry's parents being martyrs.

One last note on McGonagall, I believe that Dd's death was planned from the get go; Part of Dd's plan to Ready Harry for his final fight against Voldemort. Mcgonagall, fell right into place, as her part calls for.

Anonymous said...

Great theory I have to say, but I think there are a few parts that don't fit together properly.

McG never said "Dark Lord" first off. Also, with many people storming towards Harry in book 4 at the end of the tournament, and people about ready to celebrate, it wasn't exactly the safest place to stand, plus Harry was bleeding from the arm where Pettigrew cut him with a knife, and he was caring a dead body and crying. Had it been me, I would have thought the hospital wing was a good choice to bring him next.

McG LOVES quidditch. You leave out many instances where this is proved and claim that she must not like it that much, but she does. She even mentions in book 3 about how Snape kept reminding her at dinner and in the staff room that Gryffindor hadn't wont the Quidditch Cup in 7 years. She cared about this a lot and DIDN'T stop practices of quidittch even with the risk of Harry being attacked by Black. If I wanted someone to fall off a broom I would want them to be inexperienced with it. I certainly would not want them to practice every night under supervision so they could get the feel of it.

On a final note, many people say in here that wouldn't one death eater know all the others. The answer to this is NO!!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! It even states so in the book. If you keep all your followers secret from one another, none can turn the other ones in. If I was a death eater and I knew snape was, but he didn't know I was, and I saw him talk to Voldemort then Dumbledore, I wouldn't know what was going on and would tell either dumbledore or voldemort to beware, because I wouldn't know which side he was on. To help prevent this you limit every person's knowledge, which is what Voldemort did. You even see this in real life with terrorism, most people don't know who else is in on it, only a few do, so no one can turn everyone in, in case someone is a spy. How did voldemort communicate with them? Through a "tattoo" on their arm. They always keep it covered in public so no one sees, when it moves they feel it and go to where he is, MASKED! Just because one is a death eater never assume for a minute that everyone else knows he/she is.

That is all I have to say

WILD said...

Really really good argument.
Its worth noticing

Anonymous said...

i believe potter will not die as i think he will become a teacher at hogwarts and follow in dumbledores footsteps. and i also think hagrid willplay a big part in the lastbook. as he was at school the same time as voldemort, theres no proof they were friends but in the 2 film in riddles diary, it shows riddle releasing aragog so he might of new that aragog existed cas hagrid told him. am not saying hes gointg to be a death
eater but he prob knows more than wats bin shown so far

Anonymous said...

and one more thing snape is deffinetly a deatheater as his hatred for harry is to strong as he torments him every chance he gets also in book 6 harry says not even snape is that good of an occlumens which is true, as the way he talks about the dark arts he seems to desire them. also when sirius was killed he gives credit to bellatrix, and no one can deny he was lying when he said that, also one other thing i am almost certain tonks is a death eater, as in book 6 she is in hogwarts lookin for dumbledore when he is not there also she is rubbing her left arm which may indicate a dark mark jus something to think about

Anonymous said...

MCGONNOGALL LOVES QUIDDITCH... WE ALL KNOW THAT..,. BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE KNEW SHE WAS A QUIDDITCH PLAYER?... WATCH THE FIRST FIILM......WHEN THEY GO TO THE PLAQUE LOOK ABOVE JAMES' TO THE RIGHT....
M. MCGONOGAL

Grace Howarth....xX

Anonymous said...

Admirable effort.But all evidences are crude,and one can easily make counter arguments

Anonymous said...

you guys are looking to deeply into this. first, this is a spoiler. fair warning. dumbledore knows who 2 trust and who not to. hes a genius man! so the death was all planned because dd was cursed and didnt want an emmbarising death. see, dd always had reasons to trusting people. both mcgonagall and snape were good guys read the book dunces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!