Professor Julian Womble (0:01)

You can make a difference in someone's life, including your own, with a job in home care. These jobs offer flexible schedules, health care, retirement options, and free training. They also provide paid time off and opportunities for overtime. Visit oregonhomecarejobs.com to learn more and apply. That's oregonhomecarejobs.com foreign welcome to Critical Magic Theory, where we deconstruct the wizarding world of Harry Potter. Because loving something doesn't mean we can't be critical of it. I'm Professor Julian Womble and today we are going to be having a Prof. Response twofer episode. As you all know, I was on vacation and didn't get to do a Prof. Response episode to the post episode chat from Minerva McGonagall. And so we're going to be doing that and we're going to be talking about Quirrell. In a previous take, I tried to say his first name again just to see if I could do it. I can't. And you're not gonna hear it. You're just not gonna hear it from me. I'm so sorry. Okay, before we bop, and we are gonna bop, so take this time to just get yourself limber while I give a little bit of a preface. Okay? There are gonna be some things in this episode that I think some of us may not like and some of us may not agree with. That is fine. That's what this whole endeavor is about. You do not have to agree with me. Okay? And if you think that somehow, like, I am just wrong, I love that. If you recognize that I may be bringing my own privileges, my own biases, my own internalized whatever, call me out, call me in, call me maybe. Okay? Sorry, I couldn't help myself. That's what this podcast is about. And one of the things that I love the most about the post episode chats is that you all have such respectful conversations without necessarily having to agree. I don't believe in like toxic positivity or like agreement. I think that part of critical thinking and critical learning is being able to disagree about things. To be fair. This is like Harry Potter. And so to the extent that our agreements hold like true meaning in like a big way about the way that individuals live their lives is fairly minimalist as far as I'm concerned. Feel free to disagree with that. And so this is not the same kind of thing as people who have politics that may or may not like question your existence. And that's a different situation. In this situation, I think it is healthy and important for us to be able to be in space together and disagree without having to necessarily sacrifice, like, our sense of being and so all of that to say if there is something in this episode, or indeed any episode that you feel I've gotten wrong or there's a perspective that you think is really important to share. Some of you already feel very comfortable doing that, and I'm so happy because it means that, at least in part, you have. You feel comfortable enough. So I'm gonna give myself a pat on the back. And I'm gonna give you a pat on the back. I'm doing it right now. It's consensual to do so. Okay. But I want those of you who may feel either compel to, like, I don't know, make me feel good about whatever points up. You don't have to do that. I promise. My ego is big enough that, like, in the event that I've said something that you disagree with and you want to talk about it in the chat, do it. I guarantee you there's someone else in the chat who will agree with you, and that is what community building is about. So don't feel compelled to agree with me. In fact, if you disagree with me, I want to hear from you, because that's what makes this whole, whole thing better. But I don't want to talk too long because we talked about this. Okay? I gave you, like, two minutes to bop. Don't you get ready to bop? So now we're bopping in three, in two, in one. Let's bop. We need to talk about Harry Potter, Sa. I know we normally begin these episodes and dive right in, and we don't have announcements, and I only have one announcement, and it's mostly celebratory because it's a big deal for me, and I wanted to share with you all because it feels important, because we're on this journey together, y' all. I got my official notification that I got tenure, like, today, and I am very overwhelmed, even though, like, the process itself has been fairly straightforward and so far that, like, I've been getting indications that have been very positive for a while, but to get the letter and to, like, see it with, like, the. The GW letterhead, the whole. It's very nice, and I'm very, very, very pleased. Um, and so I just wanted to share that with you because if the energy feels high today for this episode, it's because of that. And so anyways, it felt important to share it and not keep it to myself, and I shared it on social media. So many of you who are listening who follow me on social media. But those of you who don't follow me on social media, first of all, why? Is it because, like, you're too cool to be on social media? If that's the case, fine. But if not, and you are on social media, like, do it, like, follow me because we have a good time on the socials. Okay? Anyways, Prof. W on TikTok, Prof. JW on Instagram. That's not what this is about. I got tenure, okay? And starting in September, I'm going to be a minister society. And I cannot wait, okay? People can barely tell me anything now, let alone when I have this, like, very, very difficult to attain thing. Anyways, I did it and I'm so happy. I can't believe it. Anyways, I wanted to share that with you. Now we are diving into the episode. We are going to begin with Nerva McGonagall, because we're going in chronological order. Okay? So the first thing that came up quite a bit in the post episode chat on McGonagall, if you haven't looked at it, I definitely recommend that you go do that because it's amazing. But one of the big things that came up was a conversation surrounding one of the things that I often teach in my class, which is the fact that J.K. rowling wrote the women characters in these books to either be a mom or a mess. And some people had a lot of pushback. And I listen, I love it. Okay? Danielle C. Wrote, just because Minerva McGonagall is caring and nurturing does not mean she is a mother. She could have. She could have. No, no. She could have chosen. I had to get the emphasis right. She could have chosen to be a mother. She didn't. And that decision deserves to be honored, not overwritten. Let's stop collapsing women and mother into one identity. Some of us grew up needing to see women who cared without mothering, but Minerva gave us that. She didn't have to be your mom to matter. I love this. I really think this is a really important distinction. And definitely, like, called me in to think about some of my own internalized things. That said, I think that what's really important about kind of what I was trying to get at in the episode was the reality of, like, in our society, even in the year of our Lord 2025, those things that Danielle lists, they do mean to many in society. They equal mother. And I think that when J.K. rowling wrote this, that's exactly what she intended for us to take away. I think Danielle's invitation is a really, really, really important one because it invites us to understand the nuance of the social construct of what it means to be a woman in society. And that so much of the way that we understand womanhood is in some ways connected to this idea of if you are a mother and if you are not. And in some ways, right, like the mom or mess dichotomy that I talk about is literally just that, right? It's either you're a mom or you're not. But the way that J.K. rowling writes women who are not mothers, it's very specific. And Nico points to this. Nico writes, she, being McGonagall, is the only prominent female character that is and remains husband and childless, that is not also evil. See, Bellatrix Umbridge and Rita Skeeter, two of those are still obsessed with a man, a woman without a man or child that is happy and satisfied with her life. Scandalized. Gasp. That's what I'm talking about, right? Like in our society, again, even in this time, this 21st century where we're seeing women embody so many things, we still live in this dichotomy of if you're not a mom, right? And, and I, and I, I, I have a lot of friends who are child free and who get a lot of like, backlash. I mean, I'm a man and I still get lots of questions. And so I can't even imagine what it is because in a society, in our society, like being a single man doesn't like, it's like, well, you know, I guess you're just a bachelor. Like, there's no like social penalty for it. But for women, it's not only just being single, it's being you have to have a child. And when we think about like the way that society, like politics is operating right now, right? Specifically in the United States, but also in other countries in Europe and other places, right. There is such they're trying to actively incentivize motherhood. And I think that when we think about what, who J.K. rowling is as a person, what we've learned about her particular politicians, she is one of those people who really places a. Like she derives an understanding of what it means to be valued as a woman in the biological function of creating and birthing a child. And when you don't do that in these books, you are cast in a very specific way, as per Nico's kind of description, right? Bellatrix Umbridge, Rita Skeeter. And so it seems almost impossible to me that J.K. rowling would have written a character like McGonagall who is not meant to be seen through this maternal lens. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying that it is who she is as a character. I am saying, though, that I think that that's the intention that J.K. rowling wanted us to walk away with. And I think that we, and rightfully so and understandably so, have imbued this charact with the nomenclature and sensibilities of our contemporary society. And that right now we can look at McGonagall and say, thank God. Thank God that here we have a woman who can take care of children and then go home and live her life the way that she wants to. Amy alludes to this writing. I'd like to think that McGonagall was child free. Like, when she gets to be by herself at night, she just wants her quiet time. She's probably super happy being a teacher. I think she could have easily gone on to do something else. And she held another job before teaching. Teaching. She knew she liked kids, but also probably knew her limits. She is decidedly and likely intentionally not a mother. This is a very 2025 McGonagall. I don't think that J.K. rowling was writing that in 1990, whatever, when she wrote it, because that wasn't the sentiment of society at the time, it's barely the sentiment of society now. And so when I introduced the dichotomy of mom or mass, what I'm bringing to bear is a critique on the way that J.K. rowling imbues the wizarding world with this very clear dichotomy and this biological understanding of who a woman is. And she's placed on these women characters the social construct of if you care for kids, you are a mother, and if you don't, you're not. Because what we also can recognize in the other characters, Umbridge, Rita Skeeter and Bellatrix, they all hate children. They're all terrible to them, right? Bellatrix tortures them if she gets the chance. Umbridge definitely does. And Rita Skeeter literally, like, alludes to all kinds of biases that then leads to a child being hate crimed, right? So these women are not only child free, they hate kids. Like they do not like having children around them. They treat them terribly when they are. So then you juxtapose them with McGonagall, and I can hear some of you saying, and that's the point, that that's why she's such a great character. I agree. I agree. That when we look at her now as adults in a society that we live in now, with an understanding of the societal expectations, particularly those placed on women and femme people. Right. That like she is a beacon. I don't think she was written with that in mind. You can make a difference in someone's life, including your own, with a job in home care. These jobs offer flexible schedules, health care, retirement options and free training. They also provide paid time off and opportunities for overtime. Visit oregonhomecarejobs.com to learn more and apply. That's oregonhomecarejobs.com I don't think that that's what it was and that's what I want to call out and that's what I want to highlight. And I don't necessarily think that there's anything wrong with people who want McGonagall to be their mom. I think that if that's what you want, that's your desire. I do love the nuance, though, of us allowing her to also be someone who isn't a mother who can have all those things and can be and be available to children and like them. But as alluded to in one of the comments, knows her limits. I love the idea that there is someone in these books that we can now as adults look and say, there she is. Like there's a character that we can kind of relate to. I think that that's a really important thing. I do not again though, however, think that that is what J.K. rowling wanted us to walk away with. And that is, I think, the goal and the conversation that I hope to start with the mom mess dichotomy. Because I think that when we look at the way that many of these women characters are written, one, they mostly lack nuance. Right. Like to we know so little about McGonagall, so little about her, so little about her. Like we get nothing. We know her at Hogwarts and nothing else. And so when we think about that, it makes it easier for us to imbue her character with the things that we want her to have. And I think especially as adults rereading these books and re engaging with this world, it's a very specific thing that we are kind of placing onto her in the context of where we are now. And I don't think that that's what the author would have wanted us to. It's kind of like when people were, you know, shipping Sirius and Lupin. Right. She had a very clear understanding of who these characters would be through the societal lens that she lived in And I think that a lot of what we get out of McGonagall and a lot of the reason why some people might walk away with the sense of kind of maternal understanding of her is because that's how she was written for us. Because otherwise it doesn't make sense because we don't really have any other characters who break the kind of mother, not mother paradigm who are adults. Children, sure. But really it's only Jenny, and she ultimately becomes a mom of three. Right. And so, again, it just strikes me that it seems unlikely that J.K. rowling would give us this kind of character. And I just want to point out that I am not trying to take away child free McGonagall from anyone. I want her for you all. I want her for other people. I think the point being made about how important it is for people to see a character like this and like, understand her this way. I think it is so important. So I just want to be clear, like, I'm not trying to take her away from you. I just want us to be mindful of the fact that what it is that we're taking out is not what J.K. rowling put in. As far as I'm concerned, it. Okay, so the next thing that I want to talk about is going to be very, very fast because it's just a point of clarification that many of you. Many of you, where did that come from? Who's that guy? Many of you brought up, and that is the fact that it came up in one of the comments during the episode about McGonagall sending the Slytherins to the dungeon. That is just a facet of the movies and not something that was done in the canonical text. And that in fact, McGonagall sent all the children home unless they wanted to stay and fight. And so what I think is interesting about this, right, is that I'm like, okay, so we can accept that there is a very clear difference between these two things. And people brought up the idea that it was so unlikely that she would even think to do something like that, Right? And Jazz brought up the fact that McGonagall orders the Slytherins to evacuate first, followed by Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, and Gryffindors with the option for any of age students to stay if they wanted to fight. No Slytherins chose to stay. And so I think there's. That's an important point. But I also. It invites me to think about, you know, why would they change it for the movie? I mean, like, you Know, other than the desire to see, to see the Slytherins kind of get their comeuppance as kids, which is a weird thing to do, just in general. I don't understand it, but it's like it feels very out of character for the way that we understand Minerva McGonagall. Yes, she has her favorites. Yes, she is a Gryffindor. Yes, she is a Gryffindor head of house, but her responsibility is to the school and its students. And, and I think that it feels, it feels cringy and weird that the people of the movie decided to do this. And also strange to me that, like, you've cast this house. And again, yes, I'm a Slytherin. I get it, I get it, I get it, I get it. But, like, I know the house is cast as like, these villainous people and that, you know, not a witcher wizard who's gone bad, hasn't been in Slytherin. Get it understood. However, like, putting them in the dungeons during a battle where they could die because the castle was. Who's doing what? What professor is doing that? Like, what person who actually cares about the well being of like, human life is doing that. It just seems like such a strange and crazy thing to villainize children that way in a context where, like, there are already crazy villainous adults running around. And so the idea of making that departure from the canonical text always boggles the mind. And I'm so glad that many of us brought this up because I think it is really important. And I think in the next iteration of this podcast, when we come back to revisit these characters, I really do want us to do like a text and movie comparison for each character and kind of go through and look at these characters again now that we have like, a much deeper understanding of them through the lens of the canonical text. And think about, you know, trying to understand the differences in how, like, individuals made choices in the writing of these characters in the movies and how we come to understand them. Because even myself, right, like, I consume the movies much more frequently than I do the books. And so there are moments where I have to, like, remember which one is which. And that skews the way that we view these characters. In the same way that people in the survey were very critical of McGonagall when they thought that when they wrote that this is what she had done. And I do think that. And Cassie wrote, you know, so annoyed that the movie changes seem to have ingrained itself in as book canon. Her kindness towards her being McGonagall her kindness towards and protectiveness over the Slytherin children is now stained by the idea that she'd leave them trapped and defenseless in the battle. And I think that this, it undermines our understanding of who McGonagall is as a person. And I think it's important for us to think about like why that was a decision that we think the people in the movies made. Because like why not another professor? Why not why her and why this choice? Let's talk about that in the post episode chat for this particular conversation because I think it's important and I want us to have it. So many of you brought it up. Let's continue that conversation. The last thing that I want to talk about is something that came up for many of us which was McGonagall's favoritism and advocacy for Gryffindors. Allison S. Wrote, I'm sorry we're criticizing McGonagall for having particular interest in advocating for her own students. Now Wild it is absolutely her job to be a particular advocate and fan of the kids in her house. Specifically. As far as we can tell, she is sometimes frustratingly fair to non Gryffindors in her classes and is ready to sacrifice her own house points when it is appropriate for discipline. And I think this is really important because I feel like we see her on many occasions actually hold Gryffindors to a higher account than others. Right? Like she punishes Neville, Hermione and Harry at the beginning. I mentioned that in the episode in the first book for being out of bed at night and Harry's kind of like, girl, are you crazy? And she goes, yes, Potter, even my own house. And I feel like that is such an important thing because she's like, the rules are the rules and they need to be abided by now. Yes, of course. Like she buys Harry a broom, like and to that Will Bishop writes, I've always assumed that she used money from Harry's vault with his permission and he was only surprised because he didn't know the broom would arrive with the mail at breakfast. And while this in some ways feels like head cannon, you can make a difference in someone's life, including your own, with a job in home care. These jobs offer flexible schedules, health care, retirement options and free training. They also provide paid time off and opportunities for overtime. Visit oregonhomecarejobs.com to learn more and apply. That's oregonhomecarejobs.com Will writes, I can't, I just can't imagine McGonagall breaking the rules to the extent of buying a broom for a kid who's already rich. Now questions remain about whether or not people actually knew that Harry had the money that he had. And also, you know what that would then mean for her buying the Nimbus 2000. I do think though that there is something to be said about the notion of playing favorites. And I feel like of the professors that we see, I'm not necessarily like, I'm not convinced that she is, I guess, the worst. I don't know if she's the best but I also don't know that she's meant to actually be impartial. I don't think that she's actually meant to be someone who ignores and treats all of the students the same. Why would she? She cares for these students and not just like I care for you, emotionally like, no, it is my job to make sure that you in particular Gryffindors are safe. That you don't embarrass the house of Gryffindor, that you don't make me look bad. And whenever they do anything wrong, she's the one who gives infractions. Like we can't expect her to treat everyone. All the students are, I guess technically, yes, under her charge as a teacher. But these particular students, it is their well being that she is specifically named to be responsible for, right? Like she is the head of Gryffindor house and so that when it comes to disciplining them, when it comes to rewarding them, like she is one of the people who is in charge of doing that. And I don't know if it's incumbent upon her to be someone who is then meant to not give favoritism. I don't know. Sarah writes. One of the things I'm thinking about regarding the conversation of McGonagall's favoritism is in getting Harry a broom is the fact that she of all teachers is the one who had some inkling of the idea of the abuse he went through. I think a little favoritism was necessary to remind him from at least one adult in his life that he is worthy of care and investing in his future in a way that he never ever had growing up. I think this is important and it's such a great point because it speaks volumes about how even in this favoritism she's acknowledging a particular reality. Now I can already hear some of us being like, but what about Neville? Because we were particularly critical of the way that she treated Neville, of the fact that she was very, very hard on him. And it really did make me think of a time when I was in college and I remember I was taking a class on the Vietnam War and I got an exam back that I had taken and I got like, I think I failed the exam. And I was like, oh, no, I don't fail now. To be clear, I wasn't the kind of, like, Hermione esque type of student. I knew my limits, I knew my boundaries, I knew my bounds, I knew what I could do, and I knew that I was not getting a failing grade on an exam. And I went to meet with the professor and he was like, oh, I hold you to a higher standard because I want you. I know you can do better than this. And it pissed me off because I was like, that's not fair. And I wonder to the extent that she is harder on Neville is that she knows that he has it in him and he just needs to believe in himself. And so she punishes. In her mind, punishing him is a more effective way of bringing something out in him than, like, coddling him. Because I don't think she's a coddler. Like, even when Harry is being ridiculous and, like, dealing with Umbridge in Order of the Phoenix, like, she's not coddling Harry. She's being very, like, upfront and. And pronounced in her being, like, you need to stop doing this. You need to stop pushing back the way that you're pushing back. And so I'm wondering if there's a way that this is just how she navigates dealing with some students. And again, like we talked about in the episode, it is really hard to try to customize the way that you relate to students for a student who may not respond well. I remember when I was teaching at another school, one of the professors who kind of was running the department was someone who was known to be a very, very, very hard professor, particularly on her graduate students. And I remember she was struggling to try to find a way to navigate another, a graduate student who was coming up on the end of their time in graduate school, because she's like, my normal method doesn't work here. And I think it's a lot to ask of McGonagall to, like, alter everything. And I know we love Neville, and I understand why we might want her to do that, but I also think we have to be mindful of the fact that. That her job is to protect these students, to teach them. And sometimes it's really difficult to curate, and sometimes you have to kind of use whatever tools you have at your disposal and hope that the student rises to the occasion. And we know that Neville ultimately does and not necessarily because of, you know, anything that McGonagall did. But I don't think it's because of anything that she didn't do. And we know that when it comes to their sixth year when Neville's like, I wanna take transfiguration and McGonagall says no, and she's like, you should do well in charms. And so she clearly knows what he's good at and she wants him to play to his strengths. And so all that to say that I think the favoritism that she offers is not necessarily coming from a place of just abject disregard for rules or abject disregard for, you know, the care and concern of the people put in her immediate specific charge, namely Gryffindor's. I think that we can see, you know, even in our discussion of her taking care of the Slytherins and trying to get them out of the castle during the war canonically that she is someone who does actually care about all of the students. But I also. I don't know how realistic it is. And I think this kind of comes back to the double standard we talked about sometimes. I don't know how realistic it is for us to expect for her to, you know, not have any favoritism. Especially, and I'll end with this, especially when you have Albus, Wulfric, Brian Dumbledore and Percival. I forgot Percival running around here just giving points all willy nilly. Okay, like let's talk about that favoritism. And I know that some of us are very critical of that moment. But I think that sometimes we expect things of our women characters that is not grounded in realism. And I think it would be. I don't. It would be feel weird if she didn't have some sort of favoritism. And we know again, compared to Snape she's not nearly as bad. And that's not necessarily the best comparison. But the truth is the truth. Okay, okay, now let's move on to our discussion of Quorl. The first thing that I want to talk about and something that came up a lot was response to my reflection on the idea of ambition and how we can really see the way that it works for Quirrell and kind of it paints a picture for us as we look forward in other books for other characters. Elizabeth Kay wrote, loved the ambition discussion and how Quirrell and Helena both show examples of this. Interestingly, both of these Ravenclaws were also manipulated by Vulde V and I think that this is really fascinating, right, because there is a way, and again, kind of to rehash kind of what we talked about in the episode. There's a way that Voldemort is able to recognize ambition. And I think that we talk a lot about Slytherins and their ambition, but I think there's something to be said about recognizing ambition that you have and figuring out how to work with it. And I feel like what is true for a lot of Ravenclaws and other ambitious people in other houses, because obviously they exist in all of these other spaces, is the fact that, like, they don't know how to be ambitious without, like, going overboard or being easily tempted into something. I think, you know, in our discussion of Lucius, we talked a lot about how his ambition is very specific and it's not so all consuming that he's easily swayed even by Voldemort. But then you have characters like Helena, you have characters like Quirrell who are so easily drawn to it because and without. And they don't have the tools to be able to successfully navigate it. And part of it is because of the way that, you know, we understand ambition. And so I do think it is fascinating to think about this relationship that Quirrell has with ambition because I think it does a thing of really kind of setting him up for failure. And I think the same thing is true of Helena, right? Another individual who wanted to be more than she was, but didn't have the kind of emotional tools to be able to navigate it in a way that wasn't easily corrupted. And sometimes it just. It makes it easier for things to creep in and take you over and possess you in a very specific way. Speaking of possession, we're just going to roll right on through this. Speaking of possession, there was a lot of back and forth in the comments about how much agency Quirrell actually had. Was he possessed? Was he complicit? Was he somewhere in between? And GM wrote, it's difficult to say how much of the work was Quirrell vs. Voldy, but if Voldy was weakened, then Quirrell needed to at least perform some of the physical feats under V's guidance. That's 100% petty of Voldemort, right? To have Quirrell have to go sit up there under Dumbledore's nose and try to curse Harry. To have him go and get the troll, to have him have to go and navigate the. You can make a difference in someone's life, including your own, with a job in home care. These jobs offer Flexible schedules, health care, retirement options and free training. They also provide paid time off and opportunities for overtime. Visit oregonhomecarejobs.com to learn more and apply. That's oregonhomecarejobs.com the Maze. The maze. The kind of trials to get down to the mirror of Erised, to get the stone. And Voldemort's just chilling on the back of his head, right? I think that, you know, as I thought about this and read through some of your comments, I feel like it's important because I feel like some of us. I mean, I think that the trick is, is that JK ruling is kind of inconsistent with the way that we understand possession, Right? Because we know in. We know that in these books and many of you brought this up, that in the text Dumbledore discusses. I mean, not Dumbledore, Voldemort discusses the fact that he has possessed Quirrell. And he's like, I had to because I needed to survive. And so he uses the word possessed. But then we know in Chamber of Secrets there's a discussion of what Ginny experienced as a possessed person. And that is kind of. She is completely and utterly out of her depth in terms of what she's able to do and the control that she has over her own body. And so I think that, you know what's fascinating, and then we have, in order of the Phoenix, that there are questions about whether Harry is possessed and he's worried that he's possessed. And Ginny comes back again and it's like, you know, basically gives us a barometer for what it is to be possessed. And she's like, can you remember what you're doing? Have you, you know, are there gaps in time? Blah, blah, blah. And Harry's like, no. And she's like, well, then you're not possessed, right? And so in that moment, in order of the Phoenix, it's kind of the definition is kind of what happened to her. Now, that may be her own perspective and not necessarily the one that is truthful or the one that, you know, is used because Voldemort is using different language. Suffice it to say one thing for certain. Two things are for sure. Voldemort was on possessed his body insofar that he was on it. But there was a lot of things that were going on that Quirrell had agency over. And so we can call it possession, but I don't know that it was like a full. Maybe it was like a kind of possession, you know, but not like full tilt, because we know that Quirrell was doing a lot of this stuff and he wasn't in a trance because he remembers all of it. Someone else wrote, and this is a really interesting question. Charlie wrote, I'm curious if we think Quirrell was under the illusion that he was in control of Voldy. I stand by my comment in the survey that he had the overconfidence of a mediocre white man. And I think that this is what is so fascinating because again, I'm so struck by the fact that he allowed Voldemort to be on his person. Like, I'm so struck by the idea that he was like, oh, yeah, like, just join with me. Why? Why would you do that? That feels not ideal in any capacity. And I think that, you know, Voldemort wanted to keep a close eye on him, but I think that the conversation for me really ends with him being like, yo, this. I'm still in control of my body. Like, I can still do things right. Like, he's the one who went and drank that unicorn blood, which means he had to go catch the unicorn. Like, again, going back to GM's comment, like, it's so petty of Voldemort to just be like, hey, go do this for me. I'm just gonna be sitting back here under the turban real quick. But it's also very on brand for Voldemort because when we think about all the things that he had Wormtail do, we think of all the things that he had Barty Crouch Jr do. It's all there. And I think it also does go back to, you know, the leveraging of Quirrell's ambition, whether or not he thought he was actually in control. I'm sure he did. And I'm sure that that's part of the reason why Voldemort had to punish him a lot, because it was giving very much like wannabe Lucius Malfoy, right? And. And Voldemort was like, I keep wanting to call Voldemort Dumbledore. And that is a different conversation for a different day. It's a different fight for us to have. But it is fascinating to me when we think about it. I think my conclusion is that he was possessed, but not the same way that Ginny was. And that possession did not mitigate his agency. If anything, he had agency, but that there were ways and methods that Voldemort could punish him if he didn't do the things that Voldemort wanted him to do. The last thing that I want to discuss as it pertains To Quirrell is really this amazing discourse that came up about being a Ravenclaw. And one of the things that I realized in reading your comments is, and I think it's true, even in the discussion of McGonagall, like I talked about before, is that when we as readers are not given a lot of information about a person or a concept or a house, we imbue it with what we want it to be instead of sometimes navigating with what it is. And so that I think that this conversation is a really important one because I think, and I want to say that even though that's even, you know, I think that that's true. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I do think though that sometimes we see the world in a very specific way that resonates with us and we've kind of written our head canon for us to understand this thing a very particular way. And Ravenclaws are a house we do not know a lot about. We don't experience a lot of Ravenclaws. We get Luna, we get Cho. That might be. Those might be the ones that we get experience so much. We get Penelope Clearwater, but, like, only as it pertains to her and Percy. And so sometimes I think that, like, it's hard for us to really know what it is to be a good Ravenclaw or even a good Hufflepuff, because we don't get a lot of them. So it's hard for us to understand. And so Miroslava wrote. I'm not sure I completely agree with the Ravenclaw take. For me, Ravenclaw isn't just about knowledge, it's about wisdom. To be wise is to truly understand. No, and someone else wrote the discussion, or someone else. I keep doing it like I do in the episodes as opposed to reading you all's names. Eric wrote the discussion of his quality as a Ravenclaw reminds me of our meta conversation about how flawed the house system is by separating kids based on a limited number of characters. Characters characteristics and then surrounding them only with similar people is a great way to create single minded, single minded, elitist people with little appreciation for nuance. I think that for me, I don't disagree with Miroslava's point. I do think though that, like, wisdom is not something that you learn in school. It's something that comes along with experience. Like, you can be very smart and not wise, right? Like, you know, we talk a lot about book smarts and street smart. And I think that, you know, to me Wisdom is one of those things that is kind of like street smarts. But the only way you get street smarts is like being out on the streets, right? Like being out and experience, like, experiencing life. And it just strikes me that to be a Ravenclaw for it to be wisdom, then we shouldn't be sorting you yet because you haven't experienced anything. Like, you know, obviously some people will say, oh, they're wise beyond their years. But that suggests that the people who are at their years are not because they haven't done anything, they haven't experienced life. And so I, you know, I think I recognize and understand this particular critique, but I also am like, I don't think that we should expect that from children. I don't think even by the time you're 17, you should be wise. How could you be? You're only just experiencing life. I think Harry had to learn how to become a wise person because otherwise he was going to die. But he was experiencing things that no one his age should be experiencing. Same thing with Ron, same thing with Hermione. And so it's hard for us to really understand what it means to be a good Ravenclaw. I personally think that at its root, Ravenclaw is about intelligence. The motto on the diadem is beyond measure is man's. I'm putting that in quotes because we're going to be inclusive, right? Wit beyond measure is a person's wait. Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure is a person's greatest treasure. Right? And so I think it. Wit is not wisdom. It's sharpness. It's the ability to think fast on your feet, to, you know, be mentally, you know, agile and aware. And like, you know, it has nothing to do with experience. It has nothing to do with wisdom. And so I think, you know, when we think about Helena Ravenclaw, for example, like, she wasn't wise. She was a young person who was selfish and wanted more for herself. You know what I mean? She was ambitious. And I think that we can see the relationship between ambition and wit and smarts and intelligence, right? Like, that's not difficult for us to be able to see. We can see how it would be easy for someone to, you know, want to know more. And I think that that's what's so fascinating is because a lot of you said in the comments, you know, that you felt like he wasn't smart, but the reality is that he kind of was. Like, he fooled everyone, just like Barty Crouch Jr. Did. He fooled everyone. No one was checking for him, except for Snape. And that's because game recognized game, right? And so he was effective in fooling people into believing that he was this poor, stuttering Quirrel. Right? And I think we cannot overlook that. And I think that it also, you have to be pretty smart for you to be able to, one, go find Voldemort, figure out a way to smuggle him back into the magical world to break into Green Gods. Like, I mean, I guess we could try to attribute some of this to. To you can make a difference in someone's life, including your own, with a job in home care. These jobs offer flexible schedules, health care, retirement options, and free training. They also provide paid time off and opportunities for overtime. Visit oregonhomecarejobs.com to learn more and apply. That's oregonhomecarejobs.com To Voldemort. But we know that it wasn't until after Green Gods that that Quirrell and Voldemort came together. And so Quirrell broke into Gringotts effectively. And I think that's you. It takes. It's not an easy thing to do. I mean, even if we think about the plan that the trio put into place when they broke into Gringotts, it was very involved and only really worked because they had Bellatrix's hair. You know, like, it takes a very high amount of acumen to be able to pull that off. And I think that, you know, I know the Ravenclaw. Many of our Ravenclaws are not used to being on the receiving end of, like, villainous people doing villainous things and still being Ravenclaws. But, y' all, I hate to tell you, welcome as a Slytherin welcome. I think that all of the houses, and we talked a little bit about this, all of the houses have, you know, dark sides to them. And we're going to talk a little bit more about that when we talk about Gilray Lockhart. But, y' all, hey, y' all, welcome. Welcome to the reality of what it is to be a house that is associated with evil. And I mean, think about in pop culture in general, right? Like, the evil genius, the diabolical. I mean, like, you know, when we talk about, like, serial killers, a lot of these people are not stupid. They're smart. They have to be in order to keep it up. And so there has to be a level of, like, intellectual acumen. Some of us may not like being associated with that, and I get that, but I think we have to acknowledge that, like, bad people can be smart. And that, and to be clear, right, like, you know, that's true across all these houses, right? I think though that, you know, when we think about Quirrell, some of us are like, he's so dumb. He made some dumb decisions. But then again, so did Voldemort. And we would never say he wasn't smart. They said he was. He was, he was brilliant. So was Dumbledore. And he made some really stupid decisions and he acknowledged it, right? And he said, I made a mistake and my mistakes are bigger because I'm so smart. And so there's a way that we have to kind of think about, you know, when we think about what it means to be a Ravenclaw. I think that many of us are trying to like, figure out a way around some of the lesser or less desirable people, like your, like your Barty Crouch Juniors, right? Many of whom y' all were like, he's a Slytherin, like your Quirrells, like your Gilderoy Lockharts. And we have to, to accept the reality that. Yeah, no, sometimes though, like, smart people can do dumb things and also can do bad things. And the bad things that they do tend to be even worse because they are dedicating a lot of like, time, energy and intellect into it. And that it doesn't always mean wisdom. Sometimes it's not wise at all to do it. And, and I think that that's also an important reminder. So, like, y' all, I'm sorry to our Ravenclaw friends, but yeah, some of y' all, y' all have some people in your house that are not maybe up to your standards. And no, you don't get to redefine what it means to be a Ravenclaw because the definition is super loose to like, exclude those people. Sorry. Not sorry. Welcome to the gang, y' all. Thank you so much for joining me for this Prof. Response episode on McGonagall and Quorl. I know that there are going to be some things for us to discuss. Hashtag bars. I cannot wait to hear what you all have to say when you join us. When you join us. Not if, but when you join us for the post episode chat. Some of you have reached out to me and said that some of you are a little bit nervous about, you know, interacting with us on the post episode chat. That's totally, totally fine. Some of you are DMing me your thoughts because it makes you feel more comfortable. Also fine. However you want to engage with this content, whether it be through the post episode chat, whether it be through the DMing me directly, sending me emails. Please feel free to do that. I, you know, I want you to be comfortable, but I also want you to get the things off your chest that you need to get off your chest. And so however you need to do that is however you need to do that. And we are welcoming and accepting of whatever means that you do that. Okay? And I wonder how many times I can say that you do that. That was four, I think, y' all. This has been another episode of Critical Magic Theory. I'm Professor Julian Womble and if you like today's episode, first of all, thank you. Please feel free to like, rate, subscribe and do all the things that one does where pods are cast. The next episode is going to be on Gilderoy Lockhart. I am going to post the survey one more time in the Patreon, probably on Friday. So be on the lookout for that. If you have not done the survey and you want to get it done sooner rather than later, which I highly recommend, please feel free to find it on my social media. You can find it in my link tree. You can find it on the website criticalmagictheory.com yeah, please feel free to email me at criticalmagicleermail.com Y' all. I can't wait to hear your thoughts in this post episode chat about these two characters and in the survey on Getaway Lockhart. Until then, please, please, please be critical and stay magical. My friends.