I did see McG's response as an impending battle response, but not as sarcasm. In another circumstance, I thought she might have given Harry a lecture, but with the whole Facing Death etc. in front of him, she gave him a break.
Of course, that's NOT McGonagall. That's some ringer author insertion, which I had begun to see more and more of during the course of DH. No character moved from what they had grown into in the previous books to something logical in DH. That was one reason I thought portions of DH, not just the epilogue, were written well in advance of all the subtleties, growth, life arcs, etc. that happened between PS/SS and DH. The characters all seemed to revert to tentative frameworks instead of fleshed-out personalities. The McG who called Harry "gallant" was, to me, more akin to the McG who said Dumbledore was too noble to use certain methods back in chapter one of PS/SS than to the McG who fought Aurors in OotP and Death Eaters in HBP.
Did anyone else think parts of DH were pre-written early on and not edited to conform to the new realities of the series?
Re: Wandering freely away from the topic at hand
Date: 2008-03-12 01:07 pm (UTC)Of course, that's NOT McGonagall. That's some ringer author insertion, which I had begun to see more and more of during the course of DH. No character moved from what they had grown into in the previous books to something logical in DH. That was one reason I thought portions of DH, not just the epilogue, were written well in advance of all the subtleties, growth, life arcs, etc. that happened between PS/SS and DH. The characters all seemed to revert to tentative frameworks instead of fleshed-out personalities. The McG who called Harry "gallant" was, to me, more akin to the McG who said Dumbledore was too noble to use certain methods back in chapter one of PS/SS than to the McG who fought Aurors in OotP and Death Eaters in HBP.
Did anyone else think parts of DH were pre-written early on and not edited to conform to the new realities of the series?