Professor Julian Womble (0:03)

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 talking about the one and only Minerva McGonagall, our cat lady. But like an actual cat. Not like a cat. Not like Mrs. Figg, but like an actual cat. You get it, okay? We're not starting off this episode with these antics. We're just not gonna do it. We're not gonna do it, y'all. I am so excited. I realized as I was preparing for this episode that I never talk about McGonagall in any of my content. I rarely talk about her in my lectures. And I honestly don't know why. Because she's such an amazing character who we're with basically throughout the entire series from beginning to end. And I just feel like she eats her food, she drinks her water, she minds her business, she goes home, and we really don't get a lot of chaos from her. At least that's what I thought until we went and did this episode. And then all of a sudden, I was like, wait, there's a lot going on here. And so I'm really excited now because I feel like there is a lot for us to unpack about this character and a lot of things for us to think about because she just has such a rich kind of through line in the series. But then also, I did some research about, like, the post canonical lore that was created for her and y'all, it explains a lot. And there's a lot for us to unpack and to think about as it pertains to that. Have you ever wondered why McGonagall was waiting at Privet Drive watching the Dursleys while everyone else was out celebrating the vanquishness? The what? The banishment. Let's go with that word of Voldemort. Or how her lack of canonical backstory informs our expectations of her. Or how we reconcile her obvious preferential treatment for Gryffindors, particularly as it pertains to Quidditch, y'all. We are getting into every bit of it today. But you know what we have to do first. You know what we have to do first. And you know that we're getting to doing that much faster than normal. So I hope you were stretching from the very beginning, because if you weren't and you pull something, you know that I'm not liable for that. You know the disclaimer if you pull something because you Bopped too close to the sun. That's not my business. I'm inviting you to bop, but I want you to bop safely. I even gave you this bit of filler right here so that you could get your life together. But now it's time to bop. And so we bop in three, in two, in one. Let's bop. Why is that the voice we need to talk about? Harry Potter Sa. I hope you didn't pull a muscle and I also hope that you danced. Welcome back, y'all. Thank you all so much. To those of you who participated in the post episode chat for both the Remus Lupin episode and the Prof. Response episode, y'all, it was heavy and like, I kind of knew it would be, but I was unprepared for just how heavy it was. It was Herculean, okay? And I wasn't lifting weights. I haven't been to the gym in who knows how long. I do go to therapy. So I am lifting emotional weights. Uh huh. You see that? You see what I did there, y'all? I just found such an appreciation for Lupin and I really want to thank all of you who participated in the survey and all the other things that had to do with those episodes. And I also want to thank those of you who participated in this week's Question of the Week, which is still up on Patreon. So please feel free to go check it out. The question is which character, if you had to choose one, would go to therapy and what or not even would go, what needs to go to therapy and what would their breakthrough be? Y'all, you really gave me some good answers. I also want to invite you, for those of you who aren't joining us on Patreon, for the post episode chats for the Patreon Question of the Week, to feel free to join us. Patreon.com criticalmagictheory you can also join with a paid subscription as an outstanding owl, a Deep Diver, both of which are ad free episodes. Deep divers get a couple of extra things and then you can join us, a chronic overthinker and they get early and ad free episodes and we have a monthly meetup that we do on Zoom and this month's meetup was this past Sunday and it was amazing. We talked about our least favorite characters and y'all, y'all, it was a time if you're a chronic overthinker and you couldn't join us or a deep diver, you can go and watch that on Patreon. It was a time some of the Takes. Okay. Scolding hot. Some of our most beloved characters were some people's least favorite characters, y'all. I was unprepared. I wasn't ready, and no one told me. And I just felt like, what am I supposed to do with this information? Speaking of Chronic Overthinkers, I want to welcome and thank our newest chronic overthinkers, Michelle and Amanda. Thank you so much for taking the time, energy, and money to join us. I can't wait to see your contributions and y'all just join this community. You can join for free again. We have such a good time on that Patreon, particularly in the post episode chat. And I think this one is going to be no different because a lot of us have a lot of very strong takes when it comes to McGonagall. And, you know, I chose those takes to discuss for this episode because what chaos. Speaking of chaos, y'all, we have merch, and I'm actually drinking out of the goblet of chaos right now, and I love it very much. And I also found, and this is only for those of us who are of legal drinking age in whatever country that we're in, that you can pour a whole can of beer if that's your vibe. And it, like, takes it all. I didn't. It wasn't me who figured this out. It was Eric. I'm gonna name him but not shame him. He figured it out and told me, and now I'm telling you. That's how good it is and that's how chaotic you could be. Because nothing says chaos like something that's not tea or coffee in a mug. Okay? Please remember to, like, rate, subscribe. Do all the things that one does where pods are cast. If you want to follow me on social media, please feel free to do so. ProfW. On TikTok. Prof. JW on Instagram. The conversation is ever going on those platforms, particularly on Instagram, where people are messaging me all the time, particularly when I'm posting snippets of these survey responses to try to get people to respond to them. Y'all, the Instagram people are not having some of your responses, some of your hot takes. They're ready to fight. And then they come to me and I'm like, y'all, don't kill the messenger unless he's wormtail. Like, that's not. I did. I didn't do that. Okay? So please feel free to join me on those platforms if you want to be part of this broader conversation. If you are listening on Spotify, please remember that you can comment on the episode, and I will do my best to either like it or respond myself. Some of you shame me on there. And honestly, I like it. And that's something that I'm gonna work through with my therapist because there's something to it, but I don't have time for that, y'all. The next character that we're gonna be talking about is the one and only Quirinius Quirrell. We're in our teacher era now. Okay? The survey is going to drop on Thursday on Patreon and then on Friday for everyone else. If you are not on Patreon or on social media and you want to get access to that survey, it is always posted on Friday on the website criticalmagictheory.com but you can also go to the website and join the mailing list and I email out the survey to you if that's easier for you. But, y'all, let's get into Minerva McGonagall. Yeah. When I thought about my favorite McGonagall moment, I was like, oh, there are so many good ones, right? There's obviously, like, Potter half a biscuit. There's obviously her sending up to Umbridge. There's so many incredible moments that she has. And then I was like, no. You know what my favorite moment really is for her? It's the first time that we meet her when she's in cat form outside of Privet Drive. The day that Dumbledore brings Harry to the Dursleys. And I think I love this moment because I'm like, girl, what are you doing there? It's just such an amazing thing to witness. Because in retrospect, what's so clear is that she's not necessarily supposed to be there. She wasn't required to be there. Because when Dumbledore shows up, he's like, girl, what are you doing here? You know, why aren't you out celebrating? I passed a couple of parties on the way here and picked up a couple things. Everyone is celebrating. And she was there all day long. We know that because Vernon notices her and tells her to shoo. And she kind of looks at him like, boy, bye. And so in this moment, she's just there. And she knew that it was important, and she knew that this is where Dumbledore was gonna take Harry. And she needed to see for herself who these people were. And were they the kind of people that should have taken care or should have been tasked with taking care of Harry? And the answer's no, huh? The answer's absolutely not. But she was there watching. And I feel like it's just so fundamental to who she is because it's one of those things where it's like, you may not always hear her, but you always know that she is seeing and watching you. And there's something so beautiful about that because she's doing it for a child that she doesn't know that she knows is important. And it's also just something that, like, she doesn't do it because she has to. She does it because she wants to, because she thinks it's important. And what's more. And the thing that I also love is that we learn very early on, right? Like, she's not someone to mess with because she's one of the few people who actually, like, tries to hold Dumbledore accountable, right? She's the first one to be like, Dumbledore. These people are terrible. They're absolutely awful. And there has to be somewhere else that we can send him because why would we send him here? And now? Dumbledore doesn't listen to her. But, like, she didn't actually need to do any of this. And I think that it's so fascinating because this is one of the moments where we really don't, like, give her her flowers for. Because she did not need to do any of this. And I think, in fact, a lot of people are very critical of her for this moment because we're like, why didn't she do more? Why didn't she? Why wasn't she more insistent? And the reality is, is that Dumbledore's her boss. Dumbledore was her teacher in school when she was taking transfiguration. He was her professor. So this is not an equal relationship. And I know that we meet her in this moment and we're like, well, she's a deputy headmistress. And that is true. But he is still someone who she looks up to. She has a very particular relationship with him. And so our expectation of her, and this is something that we're gonna talk about throughout the episode in some ways is unrealistic, given the power dynamic. But it also highlights the fact that she is someone who willing to speak her mind when she thinks it is necessary. And whether it's listened to really isn't her business. But she can always say, like I told you. And I think that this moment really is a favorite of mine because it really sums up so much of who she is. She's a person who takes duty very seriously. She's a very caring person, even if the care that she has is not always made manifest in physical actions like hugs and smiles and laughs. But she's always there. And I think there's a lot of reasons why it doesn't manifest in ways that are kind of tangible and discernible. But what is true, and I think we feel that in her relationship with Harry throughout the series, is that she cares so deeply for this young man. And I love that this is a moment where we get to see her say to Dumbledore, you're making a mistake. And he says, yeah, girl, but it's also mine to make. And she's just kind of like, okay, you got it. But also if it goes left, I just can't wait to say that I'm right. And I love that energy. Why? Because it's my energy, y'all. The top three words for Minerva McGonagall were strong, fierce and fair. And I was looking through the comments and the open ended responses that you all offered, and there was a quote that I thought summed this up so well. And the quote is, many may be stern, but that is an important quality to maintain when working with teenagers. She isn't cruel or unfair, but has expectations and boundaries which kids and young adults need and most not young adults need as well. But that's just my insertion. They go on to say she's a good role model in that way. She's firm, but has a heart of gold and protects her students fiercely and is in every way a brave Gryffindor. She is undoubtedly one of the bravest and fearless characters in the series. And I think that when we think about who she is as a person, I feel like strong, fierce and fair are such great words. And I get in a lot of trouble because in my class, and I posted this on social media a number of times as well. I make the argument that J.K. rowling writes two kinds of women characters, moms or messes. And people often use McGonagall as a rebuttal to this claim. And they're like, she's neither. And part of the reason why, they're like, she's a strong woman. And I think that you are like, you know, minimizing her by saying that, you know, she is a mom. And I'm like, oh, okay, so this is your own internalized bias coming in. Because I think that moms and people who take care of children, whether they be their own or just in general, are some of the strongest people, because dealing with kids is not for the weak. As this person who makes this quote, like many, may be Stern. But that is an important quality to maintain when working with teenagers. And that strength, that fierceness, that fairness, I think, to me, is what makes her such a good caretaker. And for other people, it strikes me that a lot of those things stand in direct opposition to the perception of who she is. Right? And on the other hand, we have other people who are like, I wanted her to be my mom, and we're going to talk about that a little bit later. I think that a lot of us hold her to a very specific kind of standard based on who we believe she should be versus who she actually is. And I'm like, y'all, this lady takes care of all of these kids, both Gryffindors and others, for nine to 10 months out of the year. And she's really the only voice of reason that they get to hear. Because Dumbledore, you know, for those of us who are Dumbledore Stans, and I know you're out there, he's not the best caregiver, if you will, right? And it very much feels like the traditionally understood heteronormative notion of mom and dad, right? Where Dumbledore is like Arthur Weasley, like the parent, and McGonagall is very much like Molly. She's a disciplinarian. She's the one who works very hard to try to maintain some semblance of order. And so I think that when we think about the strength, the ferocity, the fairness, I feel like what is true is that a lot of people see those things as attributes that stand in the face of being a caregiver. But I think it's the stuff that makes her the best caregiver and the best line of defense and defender of these kids in a place where they don't have a lot of that. It also is the stuff that makes her worth emulating. It's the thing that makes her a good role model, like that quote says. And so I think that when we think about these three words, they fit her to a T. And they also are probably why so many of us hold her to such a high standard that I don't even think she's really meant to make. But I also do think that there's this creation of bias because we don't get to see her be flawed because she's seen in such a way. And when we think about the way that we've described a lot of these men, there's always at least one negative attribute given to them. And it's. Except for maybe Neville, and she doesn't have any negative attributes. And I think it's because she's given to us in such this kind of perfect, responsible way that we don't get to see her as a very, very flawed person. And I think that that does it. Just a what? A disjustice? No, no, no, no. Not a disjustice, an injustice. I was trying to put disservice and injustice together. You get what I was doing. Stop it. Anyways, let's get into the arithmenc. For this episode's arithmancy Lesson, we had 668 responses. The first question Is Minerva McGonagall a good person? Yielded about 97% of us saying yes, about 0.4% of us saying no, and about 3% of us saying don't know. Someone wrote, Minerva is often the only adult character doing the objectively right thing and asking the important questions. She pushes back when Harry's safety is threatened. She punishes fairly without favoritism, and she stands for what is morally right even when it is unpopular. Someone else wrote Minerva has good intentions and is more of a moral character than Dumbledore. Do I believe she could have done more? Yes, she did the bare minimum to be a character of moral good. Someone else wrote, while I believe Minerva is genuinely a good person, she bends rules to her benefit when it suits her. She does not break them. But she finds loopholes. Her pragmatism might make her seem more self serving or biased, especially towards her own house. So we start off the bat already with this notion of our expectations for McGonagall being outlandishly high, right? Like, and I will grant you, right, like, she does some things that make one scratch their head, right? You know, getting Harry that broom girl. We love it because we love a Nimbus 2000. But my question is always, who paid for that? Like, did you take that money out of Harry's vault? He can afford it. Like, are you using Hogwarts money? Like, isn't that supposed to be for the people who can't afford stuff? And so I can understand why people are looking and being like this feels unfair. That said though, there are a lot of other people running around this place who are doing all kinds of things. And again, I just wonder like, are we, is the bar too high? Right. Like, I think the vast majority, 97% of us, says she's a good person. And so I just wonder when we think about what it means to be a good person. And we're going to talk about this throughout the episode, some People, somebody wrote in a DM to me on Instagram, like, do we want her to be good, or do we want her to be perfect? And I also do think that one of the things that I find so fascinating about the way that we respond to these surveys is that I think we tend to accept the men characters as they are and evaluate the women characters for who we wanted them to be. And I don't know why we do that, but I do think that that reality is something that bleeds into the way that we assess this particular question. Like, are they good people? And at the end of the day, we don't see McGonagall do anything that is objectively bad. We see some gray areas. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Because I don't even think that her getting Harry the Broom was bad. I don't think that her having a level of favoritism towards Gryffindors is bad, because every house head of house does it. So why wouldn't she? Why shouldn't she? And maybe we could say they all should do better, but that doesn't make them bad people. It makes them human. And I think that this is one of the more interesting dynamics that we experience, particularly those of us who are revisiting these books and revisiting these characters in this way as adults, because many of us, I don't know, maybe our expectations are just very high, and they're high for ourselves. In a conversation that I was having with one of the individuals, I think it was Carmen at the Critical Magic Theory. Not Critical Cheese. The Chronic Overthinkers Virtual meeting. Carmen was like, yeah, no, listen, I hold myself to a high standard and I hold everyone to it, and sometimes there's nothing wrong with that, but sometimes we're unrealistic. I'm not saying Carmen's unrealistic. I'm not saying that. Carmen. What I am saying, though, is that sometimes we take that particular approach and it's not realistic, and we hold ourselves to unrealistic standards, and then we are, like, upset with ourselves. We're down on ourselves. And so, I don't know. I think it's interesting when we think about characters like McGonagall, who really does very little to give us any sense that she is anything but a good person for us to kind of even question that even a little bit. Because, yeah, I mean, she doesn't even really live in the gray areas that we tend to like some of our characters to live in. She just lives straight up, for me, at least in the. No, she's a good person. She's a good person. She cares about those kids more than most of the faculty there do. She is infinitely invested in making sure that they succeed, no matter what, on a number of dimensions. Personally, academically. Like, we just see her really doing the work. And there are moments where she falls short, and we'll talk about some of those. But who doesn't raise your hand. No one can see you unless you're with someone. But just if you. If you don't make mistakes, please DM me. I want to know your secret. Is Minerva McGonagall a good Gryffindor? About 95% of us said yes, about 2% of us said no, and about 3% of us said don't know. Someone wrote, minerva is a good Gryffindor because she is fiercely brave and protective. We see this exemplified in book five, when she aids Hagrid, knowing she'll probably be attacked but going anyway. She speaks her mind and never shies away from danger. The perfect embodiment of Gryffindor courage. Someone else wrote, gryffindor claims her for bravery, but her real strengths, strategy, wisdom, restraint are not Gryffindor values. If anything, Gryffindor oversimplifies her. Ooh. And another person wrote, she could be in either house, a Ravenclaw matron by wisdom, a Gryffindor by loyalty. She complicates the categories. And interestingly enough, when I went and did some research on her post canonical text lore, what we find is that she was actually a hat stall. And that so was Flitwick. Right. That they both were in between. And I think it's so fascinating because the hat was trying to figure out whether to put her in Ravenclaw or in Gryffindor and ultimately decided to put her in Gryffindor. And Filius Flitwick, I call him Phileas because we're besties. He was also a hat stall. Right. And he was also being the hat was deciding for him between Gryffindor and Ravenclaw and decided to put him in Ravenclaw. And so apparently this is like an ongoing joke, but I do think that we do see so many moments of meaningful bravery, and it's a different kind than we're used to when we're looking at Gryffindors. And I think this is one of those moments again, where I said this in I can't remember what episode it was, but there's a specific kind of, like, masculine tinge to the notion of courage and bravery in Gryffindor ness And she embodies that in some cases. I think the quote that points out, you know, her taking four stunners to the chest in order of the Phoenix is an instance where we see this. All of her involvement in the battles, right? The fact that she fought Snape in the midst of all the Carrows, she helps Harry and Deathly Hallows. I mean, so there are all of these really big moments where she is actively embodying the kind of self sacrificing nature of Gryffindors for the greater good, doing what is right, having such a very clear understanding of what moral goodness looks like and doing what one can do to make sure that it comes to pass. Right? But I also think that she embodies another kind of bravery. The idea of her telling Dumbledore, who at this point, at the very beginning of this text, is kind of infallible as far as we know, and is making all the decisions that are apparently for all the right reasons, telling him, hey, dude, you're wrong on this one. This is not the decision that you should make. We should send him somewhere else. That's brave to me. You're telling your boss that they're making a mistake. You could lose your job, you could be shunned. He might not want to confide in you anymore if he did at all to begin with, because Dumbledore. But either way, right, this is you taking on someone who you respect immensely, who you recognize as being outlandishly powerful. And you're saying, hey, no, this isn't correct. Her standing up to Umbridge in whatever way she could, I think is another instance of this. And people are critical of her for this, right? They're critical of her not necessarily stepping in and stopping Umbridge when it was revealed that she, that she was torturing students. And I think that there's a way for us to talk about that. And we won't talk about that now because that will come up in the next question or not the next question, two questions from now. So just stick a pin in that. Okay, we're sticking a pin in that for right now. But I think at the end of the day, she does enough to be able to keep her in the position that she can be in to make sure that her students are safe. She stays at Hogwarts and works at Hogwarts while Death Eaters are running the place. And I think it's all in service of trying to make sure that the students are safe. And so in that way there's a certain level of bravery and a Calculus. And I think that this is where the Ravenclaw ness comes in, right? Because to the point of the person who made the quote about being strategic and having wisdom and restraint, I think that she could have fought a lot during the moments where the Death Eaters were taking over the castle and running Hogwarts. And she doesn't. And I don't think it's because she didn't want to, but I think it's because she recognizes someone has to be here for these kids. Dumbledore is dead and so someone's got to do this. And there's a bravery in knowing when to in a courage and knowing I want to fight but I can't right now because I have to do this because this is bigger than me. And one of the things that we really notice in our young Gryffindors is that they don't have that Most of the Gryffindors that we meet are like full tilt reckless. We're jumping first, ask questions later, like I'd rather ask for forgiveness than for permission type vibe. And I think what we can see is, and maybe we don't attribute this to Ravenclaw ness, we attribute it to just being grown and being adult and having wisdom that comes with living a life that every battle is not a battle that you can fight and you have to pick and choose those battles. And that's sometimes choosing to fight is more cowardly because it's an easier out than having to stick in and stick through something for the sake of an outcome that is more optimal. And she does that. And so for me, I think she's a great Gryffindor and I think she offers us another look at what Gryffindors can look like in a way that feels important for people to like recognize as students and try to kind of copy. Is Minerva McGonagall a good half blood? About 65% of us said yes, about 6% of us said no and about 29% of us said don't no. Someone wrote, she never carries herself any particular way and seems so strong that she doesn't get the hate others do. To me that shows signs of assimilation but also fighting for better between the worlds. Someone else wrote she is kind of. She is kind enough to muggle born kids in half bloods, but she definitely isn't trying to change the system. She accepts the status quo even if it hurt her in the past. And someone else wrote I don't know if she ever showed inclination either way about wizard supremacy. She was all about Hogwarts, Dumbledore and the students. But outside of that, I really don't know. This is where I think the post canonical lore about McGonagall comes into play, because we don't really know a lot about her. And so we know that she is a half blood, but in the text, we don't really get a sense of what that means, right? We get a sense of what it means for Dumbledore, you know, in terms of his mom. We get a sense of what it means for Snape, we get a sense of what it means for Harry. Right. There are many half bloods that we meet and we get a sense of, like, what that identity is mean, what that means for them. But also note that I discussed three dudes just then. And one of the things that we know, right, is that canonically we don't get a lot of background for a lot of our women and girl characters. And it is something that I will continue to bring up because it makes me upset. And so then when we look at the post canonical lore, what we see is that she is the kind of half blood that was like, not actually raised in the magical world, right? She was raised with a magical parent, but not in a world where magic was around all the time. And what we also get a sense of is that her mother made very meaningful sacrifices to be with a non magical person insofar that she hid her identity from him, like her magical identity from him for the vast majority of their marriage. And it wasn't until Minerva was born that she had to confess, because Minerva was starting to display magical attributes at a very, very, very young age. And so she grew up with a very kind of clear Muggle understanding of the world, and then entered into the magical world much later, having very little socialization because her mother had to keep it from her father, both because she wasn't sure how he was gonna take it, but also because of the Statute of Secrecy. And this is one of these moments where I think, like, we don't necessarily think about how the Statute of Secrecy operates and has the very, very kind of intentional ability to constrain people from the things that they want, right? Minerva's mom, Isabel, I believe her name was, couldn't tell her father because she knew that she would get in trouble with the government if he knew that she could perform magic. And she stayed with him. But it made her have to give up something. It made have to give up a piece of herself, her magic, which is such an intrinsic part of her existence. And she did it for Love. And then she stayed with him even though their marriage was very strained as a result of this revelation because she had kept it from him for so long. And so when we think about what this means for who McGonagall is as a half blood, I was reading the text and I think it's very fascinating because there's a lot of Internalized shame for McGonagall in a lot of ways, right? And it leads to her, you know, forsaking love because she doesn't want to be with a non magical person and have to make those same kind of sacrifices. But also, and one of the big things that I find so fascinating is McGonagall is her father's name. So she took the name of a non magical person and she kept it. And I think that this is fascinating to me because when she marries of pureblood, she doesn't take his name. And I think that that's so interesting because, you know, there are a lot of incentives as to why you would want to do that and she doesn't. And neither does her mom, right? They both keep her father's name. And so in some ways this is a bridging of worlds, right? Because it creates a space where we're introducing something new into a space that is so stagnant and that incentivizes that stagnancy. And so I think she's as good of a half blood as she could be because she keeps certain elements, even if it's just in name only. But at the same time, we're right, we don't see her trying to fix the system. But what we also realize is that the system makes it really hard to do that because if you try, they will excommunicate you. Like, she literally doesn't marry a guy because she's like, I don't want them to take away my job at the ministry. I don't want them to remove me from the space. And so I'm going to say no to the person that I love because I'm not willing to say goodbye to the magical world. And so in the space where she could have served as a really meaningful bridge, she didn't. Because the world, the wizarding world, the pure blood supremacist structure that she lived in, made it so difficult for her to be able to do that effectively and in a way that allowed her to have the things that she wanted. And I think that when we think about what it means to be a good pure, I mean good half blood, it is a lot easier to be a Good pureblood because you don't have anything to prove. It is a lot harder to be a good half blood because you actually have to make a choice. You have to say yes or no. The statute of secrecy kind of requires it. And the other half bloods that we've talked about, everyone else seems fairly bought in for one reason or another. But McGonagall actually had to make a choice and she had to deny a part of herself. And I think that when we think about, like, our idealized version of building the bridge versus the real version of assimilating what is clear. And I think this resonates for me at least in terms of the world that we live in now. There's a very clear and easy path that one can take that is the road most traveled and with very good reason. And then there's another one that requires a lot of sacrifice. And when you're just trying to live your life, we have to ask ourselves, you know, is it worth it? And what else is true? And what is true about a lot of these oppressive structures is, at the surface, they don't seem oppressive. So does it feel like a bad thing if you don't, you know, try to build the bridge between these two worlds? Does it feel bad? Especially when trying to do that means that you literally have to say no to something else. And so I think she is as good of a half blood, particularly one who's raised in Muggle spaces, as she could be given the constraints placed on her by the wizarding world, which does not want that bridge is built. And this and her story kind of makes it clear what any half blood who wants to build that bridge is up against. Is Minerva McGonagall a good teacher? About 92% of us said yes, about 4% of us said no. And about 4% of us said don't know. Someone wrote, she's an excellent teacher, one of the few we see modeling how to do spells for her students. She speaks her mind and leads by example. Her bravery in and outside the classroom shows how much she cared about teaching and protecting her students. Another person wrote, I think her teaching style, although it tries to come across as no nonsense, actually comes across as unnecessarily harsh and with a lack of empathy. Rewarding Harry by bending the rules for Quidditch was irresponsible. Someone else wrote, good teacher. Yes, she was very no nonsense. But she also showed some favoritism. And while that's forgivable, it also meant some students didn't always feel fully seen. Okay, so I Think this is hard because I recognize. Oh, I should preface this by saying I think she's a good teacher. And I think that part of the reason why I believe that she's a good teacher is because at the root of it, her goal is that her students walk away with the knowledge that they need. And she pedagogically creates a space that is rooted in making sure that every student has the tools that they need to be able to succeed. Now can she tailor that? Can she model that for every student and sit down and make sure that they get every single bit of it? No, she can't. And I'm sure she could. She would try. But the reality is that she's got a bunch of kids to teach across a number of years and that there is an examination or two, depending on where they are, that they have to be able to pass. And transfiguration is a very dangerous. It's like one of the more dangerous subjects that they have to take. Between that and potions. But even that when you are transfiguring something, you are literally kind of changing the dynamic of it. And especially once we get into the later parts of the books where we see them kind of doing transformations on themselves, I think that we have to remind ourselves that magic can be dangerous. I think a lot of when Harry, when Ron splinches for the. Not the first time, but when he splinches in Deathly Hallows and Harry realizes like, oh, this is actually dangerous, I feel like one of the biggest ills of Hogwarts is that they never actually teach just how dangerous magic can be if not done with the necessary precision. And I think what McGonagall does really, really well is making sure that the students know the stakes. And that means that like Neville, you didn't pass the test to be able to do this. And that's okay. It doesn't mean that you are a bad wizard. It just means that you're not good at transfiguration. And like, yes, your grandma has put pressure on you, but like, I'm not keeping you in my class to make her happy because that's actually dangerous. Like, I think that we don't necessarily recognize the danger of what she's doing. I mean, cause some of us could make lots of claims about like, I don't know, animal cruelty, right? Like when you're trying to turn your pets into goblets, like, what does that entail? But at the end of the day, what she is teaching is a very dangerous branch of magic. It's super Sophisticated. And she's got a lot of kids running around with these magical wands that are, if not constrained in meaningful ways, gonna lead to someone really, really hurting themselves. And I think that she's so intimately aware of that particular reality. And so the no nonsense comes because, like, she is, you know, a no nonsense person, but also a recognition that what she's teaching these kids is dangerous. It reminds me of when I took chemistry and we would. Whenever we'd have to do labs, the teacher was a very different person. When we're dealing with chemicals that have the ability to kind of harm us in some way. And I think that this is the same vibe, right? It's a very different thing when you are teaching someone something where the stakes of them not learning it or getting it wrong are low. But, like, if you aren't precise in chemistry and something blows up, it's a problem. If you aren't precise in, you know, English, well, people may misunderstand you, but, like, you're not gonna lose an eye. And I feel like part of the way that she approaches her pedagogy as a teacher is through the lens and recognition of like, no, but if I don't teach them that this is really dangerous, it can go really poorly. And I also don't want them playing around in my classroom because I don't want to risk that. Because, yeah, we have magic to fix some of these things, but some things cannot be fixed by magic. And if they can, they can't be fixed fast. Right. Because it took Ron so long to recover from splinching. And the notion of transfiguration is one of those things that feels so hard. And so I feel like, yes, there are moments where it feels like she's being unnecessarily harsh, but I think that the motivation behind it is the right motivation, which is, you may not like the way that I'm talking to you right now, but I'm doing this for your safety. And I think maybe there's a way that she could have communicated that to her students, but she's dealing with 11 year olds to 17 year olds. I don't know if you remember how you were when you were 11, but I wasn't listening. Personally, I wasn't listening. And to be clear, I was a goody two shoes. Like, I was a goody two shoes, but I was doing my own thing. I was chatting with my friends. I was having a good time. And also, even the best students make mistakes. And so you've got to give them you've Got to let them know what the stakes are. And a lot of people are very harsh on her because she's very hard on Neville. And I think that the other problem is that sometimes we create a space where it's. Well, I should say that I think that sometimes professors and teachers have a method that works for the vast majority of their students, and then there comes a student that it doesn't work on. And I feel like it's, what do you do in that situation? Many people, some teachers and some people who are not teachers may say, you need to find a way to make that student understand. And I agree with that. But I think that it's really difficult when you're dealing with a lot of kids, and especially when you're dealing with a lot of kids in a school where very few other instructors are taking their job as seriously as you are. So now you're cleaning up other people's messes. Right? Because we see that when Trelawney talks about the Grimm, they all come to McGonagall's class, and it's McGonagall who has to tell them about it. We see that when there's discussion of, oh, no, that's in the movies, not in the books. So the Chamber of Secrets moment isn't the one. But the Grimm moment is a moment where she has to come in and kind of have to explain things. And I feel like we don't give her enough credit for having to truly navigate a lot of the problems that are left on her doorstep by other professors and the difficulty of the subject matter that she's teaching, as well as her desire to get them to understand and to be able to perform these things at the proficiency level that they need to be able to move forward if, in fact, that is something that they want to do. Obviously, there are things that she could do better. There are things that we could all do better. But at the end of the day, she's doing the best that she's got with the tools that she's been given and the students that she has in any given year. And again, I know that many of us are really capping for Neville and don't necessarily like the way that she treats Neville. I think that she's using a method that has worked for her for a very long time, and it just does not work for Neville. And she cannot tailor her approach to every student to make them feel seen and heard. It's just not practical. And this is one of these moments, again, where I'm like, are we holding her to an impossible standard. Maybe. Maybe we are. Is Minerva McGonagall a hero? About 86% of us said yes, 7% said no, and about 7% said don't know. Someone wrote other words to describe BAMF goat. Queen Minnie is the mama of Hogwarts, someone the students can trust and rely on. She protects both students and teachers. Taking four what? Forced stunners to the chest without hesitation. Someone else wrote brave and badass overall, but putting all the Slytherins in the dungeons during the Battle of Hogwarts was bigoted and unnecessary. Someone else wrote, minerva is the Miranda Bailey. If you don't get that reference, it's from Grey's Anatomy of Hogwarts. She was always the one who saw when the rules needed breaking. Was she perfect? Nah. Was she awesome? You bet your ass. But sometimes you could tell she carried the weight of the institution even when the institution itself was broken. And I think that this is really important because when we think about her as a hero, the answer to me is unequivocally yes. Because we've let all of these other people be defined as heroes. We have talked about them as heroes throughout. Most of the other people that we've looked at for purebloods, mostly because they participated in the Battle of Hogwarts. She was there, y'all. And again, I wanted to return back to this notion that she was at Hogwarts during, like, the Death Eater's control of the school. She stayed. She protected the students as well as she could without losing her job to make sure that she could be there to protect them. And what's more, and this just occurred to me, she did it as a half blood. Like, she didn't do it as a pure blood like Slughorn did. She did it as a half blood person. And some of us might kind of try to minimize it and be like, well, Snape would never let anything happen to her because they're friends, y'all. We don't know that. We don't know what he was willing to do to prove himself to Voldemort. We know that he, in the movies, seemingly took out Alecto and Amicus Caro. But even still, at the end of the day, there were questions about what kind of power he had. They were torturing Muggleborn students and he didn't do anything about that. This isn't about Snape. What it is about is the fact that she stayed at that school and there were really no provisions to make sure that she remained safe. And she was trying to keep those students as safe. As humanly possible. That to me is in and of itself without any other thing. Heroic. She took those four stunners to the chest during Order of the Phoenix. Heroic and then you add on top of that, then you take it and you say, okay. Also, she also then fought in the Battle of Hogwarts against all of these people and tried to protect the students. Now, I don't disagree with the claim that it wasn't the best choice to try to put all the Slytherins away in the dungeons. I agree with that. I don't necessarily think that that was the right choice. I would have sent them home if they wanted to go. But the reality of the situation isn't what we have to remember. And I know that people are gonna say, well, we can't kind of paint with a broad stroke, but also, many people still do that for Slytherin. So then there's that. And I say that as a Slytherin also, simultaneously, concurrently. And we have to remember that just the year before Draco, a Slytherin played a meaningful part in the infiltration of Hogwarts. So it's not coming from nowhere. And obviously there's an internalized bias that's coming that's here as well. But also literally, a student who is now a Death Eater was the person who brought in Death Eaters to destroy the castle and lead to the death of her friend, her former teacher and her boss. Like, we can see why she would make that decision. She's not coming at this as a person who is a teacher. She's not coming at this as a person who's impartial. She's coming at this as a person who is a human. Her friend is dead because a Slytherin made a choice and another Slytherin has come in now and is destroying the castle. Once again, we can understand why she might draw these conclusions. It's not unfounded. I don't think it is reasonable. I don't like it because obviously we can make the claim that obviously there are Slytherins who were there who shouldn't have been put into the dungeons because they were either just trying to get out or they wanted nothing to do with this. That would have been me. But at the end of the day, I can also understand why she would make this choice. Again, I don't necessarily have to agree with it to understand that it's a thing that she would do. And we live in a society where, like, people do this. And again, it's like she actually, to me, has a much better justification for that particular choice than a lot of the other choices that we see made in these books for the way that people in certain houses treat other houses. So, like, unfortunately, I get it. And Snape, who's been running the castle, is also like, there's a lot of reasons and it's not like, anecdotal. And so, again, I don't agree with the decision. I also don't think that that reality undermines the question of whether or not she's a hero. I think she can still be a hero who's made some questionable decisions. Serious Black. Anyone? Anyone? Some of us said that Narcissa Malfoy was a hero. Anyone? Right. Like, I think, again, I'm asking questions about the way that we understand her, what our expectations are of her and whether or not they are realistic. Because for people to sit around and this number to only be at 86%, which is admittedly high, but she's been in the high 90s for these other questions. For her to be sitting at an 86% about whether or not she's a hero when she's literally sat there and sacrificed her life multiple times for these kids and was in the Order of the Phoenix and fought in the Battle of Hogwarts, which for most of the characters that we've discussed has been the litmus test for whether or not you're seen as a hero. And we only have 86% saying, yes, y'all, I have some questions. I have some questions and I want to know, I want to know in the post episode chat why it is that some of us didn't know and why it is that some of us said no. Because she was out here riding and dying and fighting, not only just for Dumbledore, but for these kids, which is more than some of these other teachers were out here doing multiple times. She's a hero. That's it. Is Minerva McGonagall a good head of house? Now, this question was one that I thought might cause a little chaos and. Okay, we'll see. Let's see. About 83% of us said yes, 10% of us said no, and about 7% of us said don't. No. Is Minerva a good head of house? Someone wrote, completely. She has the utmost respect for the rules, but also the clarity and sometimes whimsy to know when it's okay for them to be bent or broken. She provides stability to Gryffindor even in times of chaos. Someone else wrote she failed to set real boundaries to stop Gryffindors from putting themselves in Danger, loyalty to the house was prioritized over student safety. Someone else wrote, good head of house. I mean, yeah, she showed favoritism, but who didn't really? She was approachable, but wasn't going to play about you getting away with rule breaks, y'all. I think when I think about whether or not whenever McGonagall is a good head of house, I think about the fact that I think about the number of times she got dragged out of bed to deal with antics, madness, absurdity and foolishness that was going around in the Gryffindor common room. Whether it be parties that were being thrown by Fred and George, whether it be the fact that Sirius Black somehow broke in. I think the fact that she punished Neville. I know that some of us don't like it, but I also am like, he put the house and like the school, but particularly her house, at risk by writing down all those passwords. Like, that's really, really, really, really dangerous, y'all. And again, I know that there are probably better ways that she could have handled it, but at the end of the day, her job is to make sure that the kids in the house stay safe. And she does that and she did that. And I think that people who were in Gryffindor felt like they could go to her and they felt like they could be seen by her and heard by her in a way that was indicative of the fact that they thought that she was good. They were afraid of her. And I think that fear can be healthy sometimes. Especially when you're dealing with kids who don't necessarily always have the best sense of, like, boundaries. And especially when you're dealing with kids like Gryffindors who are, like, breaking the rules is fun and getting into trouble is a blast. I think you have to kind of lay down the hammer sometimes because that's the way that you're setting boundaries for what is and is not acceptable. And again, when I think there's a certain moment in children's world in orbit and lives where they're, like, pushing the boundaries of an adult is literally all I'm here to do. And if you let them, they'll push you over into the Great Lake. So you have to assert yourself. And again, I think Gryffindor's introduced a very particular kind of, like, child into teenage adolescence vibe that requires a lot of work and intentionality on her part. And so, yes, I think that, like, there were some things that probably weren't great. Does she have favoritism? Absolutely. I'm trying to figure out why you wouldn't have favoritism. Like, the other students aren't put in her charge. So, like, she has favorites that are Gryffindors. To me, that makes sense. Whether or not it's right or not. We can quibble, but literally, so do all the other heads of houses. But I also would present to you the fact that she's not afraid or against punishing or holding those individuals accountable from her house. And we see that in the first book when she literally deducts 150 points from Harry, Hermione and Neville for being out of bed. And I think, you know, I brought this up a couple days ago and someone was like. And then Dumbledore gave them back. Absolutely he did. We want to talk about favoritism, let's have that conversation. But we'll stick a pin in that for Dumbledore's episodes. But the reality is that she's not so favoritismistic, copyright trademarked. That she doesn't hold them accountable when they break the rules. Yes, she bought Harry a broom. From what I understand from the post canonical lore, she's got a very big soft spot for Quidditch because she herself was a player. Understood problematic. Absolutely. We also, though, saw Snape in that same. That very same book, go and be the referee and actively, actively favor Slytherin during that game. So, like, when we think about this, are we holding her to the same standard? I want us to keep that same energy for everybody. And some of us will say, well, like, but, yeah, but Snape is Snape. That's not an excuse. That's not a justification for his behavior. And we can't say McGonagall is McGonagall because we know so much more about Snape. We know so much more about, like, why he operates the way that he does. And we know very little about why McGonagall operates the way she does. But we're going to get into that in the reflection. Which comes next. At the end of the day, I think she took her job as head of House very seriously. And her first job was to make sure that they were safe. And she did that as best she could. And yes, I think that there were moments where she was showing favoritism. There were moments where she probably could have handled things better. But again, humanity. And I just think that there is something about her that invites us to think of her and see her as a person who needs to be not, like infallible per se, but much more intentional and just completely and utterly like the bastion of, like, liberty and justice as it pertains to the way that she adjudicates things in Hogwarts. And we're not asking that from many other people. And so now we're going to move into the reflection and talk a little bit about why we might hold these expectations. We've now reached the point in the episode where I want to reflect on Minerva McGonagall. One of the things that I said in the Prof. Remus Lupin episode last week was that part of the work that we're doing here in terms of our deep diving into Harry Potter is trying to make the invisible visible, trying to kind of shine a light on these hierarchical structures that are oppressive to people. And I think that Minerva offers us an amazing ability to see how this operates because pure blood supremacy ruins her life and her mom's, right? Like a generational ruining of life, right. It forces her mom into silence. She can't tell her husband who she really is because the statute of secrecy keeps them from being able to do that. It forces her mother and Minerva herself from being able to choose love and the magical world together. Right? And then patriarchy forces them to be strong, but never broken and brave, but never vulnerable. Particularly, we see this with McGonagall, and it forces her to sacrifice everything and still get judged when she doesn't live up to an impossible expectation that we as readers are conditioned to set for her. Because we expect more from women like her and other women just in general, than we do from men who behave the same way. Right? Like, we don't judge our paternal figures the same way that we judge our maternal ones. And we saw that in Molly Weasley's episode when dads spend a Sunday alone with their kids, we act like he deserves a medal. Right? Like we talked about that in Arthur Weasley's episode. Right? Right. When a mong does the same thing, it's just what she's supposed to do. No fanfare, no extra credit. And we see that, right, Both in our world and in these books. When Dumbledore messes up, when he withholds information, when he gambles with people's lives, when he puts Harry in harm's way, some of us say it's for the greater good. Now, I know that there are many of us who are shaking our fist right now and saying, absolutely not. He doesn't get off scot free for that. I agree. But I also think that there are some people who would say, well, he did what he had to do, but we would never say that for Molly Weasley, if she had made the right choice if she had made the same choice, rather. But when McGonagall, even when McGonagall shows a hint of favoritism when she bends the house rules when she isn't perfectly fair, perfectly brave, perfectly selfish we have questions. We call her out and say, like, well, was that the thing? Or, this is why I answered, don't know. Or this is why I answered, no. Because somewhere along the line we decided she wasn't supposed to be just good, she was supposed to be perfect. And that's the cost of being made into a fantasy maternal figure. That's the cost of being turned into someone's idea of safety. We expect perfection and we punish anything less. And if you want a perfect example of this, you don't have to look any further than my favorite moment that I talked about at the beginning of the episode in philosopher Sorcerer's Stone. McGonagall, she's sitting on a wall all day watching the Dursleys, doing the work. She's the one gathering the information. She's the one who sees the problems with the Dursleys. She's the one who cares enough to make sure that Harry is going to a good place. And Dumbledore, he shows up having just left parties. He is like, no, this is where he has to be. He's the one who gets to make the decision. She raises the concern and he's like, I hear you. But also, we're doing this. And when you really think about it, right? When you really just kind of, like, allow yourself to go to a place of, like, thinking about that moment and not about what more she could have said or done but just the moment we're presented with, it's patriarchy in a nutshell. She's done the emotional labor. She's done the heavy lifting. He shows up, is like, this is what we're gonna do. Ignores her recommendation and keeps it going. And then. And this is what really gets my goat is that when he shows back up in Half Blood Prince to get Harry to go and try to collect Horace Slughorn he has the audacity to be upset at them for doing the very thing McGonagall told him they were gonna do. He's shocked that Petunia didn't treat him like a son. As if she didn't tell him, based on her own observation that this was gonna be a thing that happened. And again, it just feels so on the nose and so on Brand for the way that we come to Understand not only these characters, but also just the dynamic between men in power and women who are power adjacent. And I think that there's just something about that particular reality that we have to acknowledge because I think we look at McGonagall and we look at Dumbledore and again, we assume a level of equality and equity between the two of them, right? Because he listens to her. But listening to and listening to and hearing like those are two different things. And Dumbledore will always do what Dumbledore wants to do. Maybe not wants to do, but believes he needs to do. And I think that what we see here is the invisible labor of McGonagall, right? Where their warnings exist but are ignored. Where their sacrifices are expected but never celebrated, right? The fact that we are. Again, I'm stuck on the fact that we did not have high 90s for whether or not she was a hero. Why wouldn't she be? And again, I think some of it comes from the reality of like we just expect these things from her. She's presented to us as this very austere, very fair, very fierce woman. And we're like, this is this. Okay? Obviously this is who she is, but. But y'all, she's just a human person. Just a human person. And when we really look at her story, when we really dive into it in the post canonical lore, what we find isn't someone who failed. It's someone who was set up to fail by the structure that defined her life by pure blood supremacy. She grew up in a divided home where her mother had to hide who she was and her father could never really know her. And then when he did find out, everything was strained. She fell in love again with a non magical person and had to make a similar choice. And she had to choose. I guess she didn't have to choose, but she chose magic over love because she thought it would mean that she could finally be free. And that didn't happen. And in the magical world, she sacrificed herself. Never really protected her. The safety she chose over her own happiness was a lie. Voldemort came back because the magical world didn't do anything. The war came back, the fear came back. And she, this whole time that we see her in these books is holding all of that inside. She's not communicating that to anyone. The post canonical lore tells us that Dumbledore is the only one who may have known, who may have had an inkling of the suffering that she had gone through, of everything that she had to give up in order to be the person that we like her to be. And it's so interesting, too, because we so very rarely ask, like, people, women, moms, caregivers, how are you? Are you doing okay? There's an expectation that if you've taken on this role, that everything's in order. And that just feels like a massive patriarchal fallacy to me. And so we look at McGonagall, and she's carrying all of this, the heartbreak, the loneliness, when right after Voldemort is vanquished, the man that she actually decided to marry dies. We never know. And that's happening in the canonical text. And she buries it all inside because it doesn't serve a utility for her. She's got to teach these kids. She's got to protect these kids. When we think about, you know, maybe why some of the choices that she makes that we don't, like, manifest, it could just be the fact that you. Sometimes you just can't hold it in anymore. And we know they don't have therapists in the magical world, right? She doesn't get to be messy or selfish or angry or broken. She has to be strong. She's got to be fierce. She's got to be fair. She's got to be loyal. She has to survive. But she can't be human. We get to see Dumbledore crying. We get to see Snape take out all of his bad behavior on these kids left and right. And we're mad at them, justifiably so, for being people who do this. She doesn't get to do that. She's not written in a way that allows her to do that. So all we then do is fill in the gaps with the things that we want from her. Someone wrote in their comment, I wanted her to be my mom. What an impossible task to place on her. Because. Is it. You wanted her to be your mom because you thought, like, she's perfect, she's the kind of person that I want. That feels like a very high bar to place for someone. Like, she was a maternal figure in these books, but she was also one that we didn't know anything of what was going on with her. And I feel like that's true for so many people who, particularly caregivers who are assumed to just be okay and. Or assumed to just have to get over it because they have a responsibility. And I think one of the things that someone asked me when I posted a snippet of somebody's response on Instagram was like, do we want her to be good, or do we want her to be perfect. And I think that's a really important question. And I think that part of our inclination for perfection as it pertains to her and other caregivers like Molly, is the way that they're written. It's the patriarchal understanding that women suffer in silence, that women go through everything and don't say anything to us about it because it doesn't serve a purpose. And it comes off in a way that makes them look and potentially feel inadequate. And so they hold it all in. They don't tell anyone, they don't share. And then at a certain point, it bubbles over. And I just had a thought that is shaking me to my core. It's what happened to Ariana. She keeps the magic inside, and she doesn't know how to control it when it comes out because people punished her for being boys, boys punished her for showing her magic. So she had to keep it inside. And it ruined her from the inside out. And so much of what we see from McGonagall isn't necessarily being ruined, but it's kind of being a shell of a person. And these moments, these glimpses of her being human, her having favoritism, her buying Harry a broom, her. All of these different moments that people brought up, these glimpses of things that may feel like transgressions but are actually just a person being a person, are the very things that we then use as a means by which to figure out whether or not she's still good in our eyes, when she is literally one of the most responsible people that we see. And so that when we think about these structures that exist in the world, in this magical world, one of the big things we have to remember is that they control the way that we view people. We look at Minerva McGonagall and we have such an unrealistic expectation for her. And I think that so many people in the actual wizarding world did as well, which is why she never shared her story. And do you know how many people probably could have benefited from that? How many half bloods who are going to ultimately have to make those decisions, how many Muggle borns who are going to have to make those decisions would have benefited from her story? And they'll never know it because she suffered in silence, because it didn't do to share it. And so we expected more from her than we should have. We excused less than we should have. And I think that what feels right for me is like, maybe she was never meant to be perfect. Maybe she was meant to show us that surviving with grace is its own kind of heroism, and that suffering in silence is its own kind of torture. This has been another episode of Critical Magic Theory. I'm Professor Julian Womble and if you liked today's episode, first of all, thank you. Please feel free to like, rate, subscribe, share and do all the things that one does where pods are cast. Thank you so much to everyone who participated in the survey and I can't wait to hear your thoughts about this episode in the post episode chat on Patreon. Please feel free to join us there for free or join us with a paid subscription. But remember, if you're going to do that, do it on your browser. Also remember that the Quirrel survey is going to be coming out okay on Thursday on Patreon and on Friday everywhere else. If you need access to that, please feel free to check it out on the website criticalmagictheory.com if you want to follow me on social media to continue this conversation, please feel free to do so. Prof. W on TikTok, Prof. JW on Instagram I can't wait to hear what you all think about Quirrel. Until then, be critical and stay magical my friends. Byee.