Hermione/Ron/Crouch Sr./Hedgehogs/Twins

[elfundeb at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 37604

Tabouli responded to my comment that Hermione's compassion prompted her to 
question whether Crouch Sr. would put his own son in Azkaban:
 
Also, perhaps, Hermione's instinctive respect for authority figures and 
rules, reflected in her initial refusal to suspect Snape (and then assertion 
that Snape must be OK because Dumbledore respects him).    After Harry's 
treatment at the hands of the Dursleys, we wouldn't expect him to trust or 
respect authority figures.  However, it's interesting that *Ron* is so 
willing to believe the worst of authority figures like Percy the Prefect and 
Snape and Lockhart.  After all, his parents seem to be kind and caring, as 
far as well can see.  Something to do with the losing fight for attention 
with his older brothers and baby sister?  Perhaps knowing that adults are 
fallible and not always trustworthy through watching the foibles of adult 
older brothers?

Tabouli, that's a good addition about Hermione.  I think she tends to intuit 
her conclusions about people based on her own instincts about what's "right." 
  Thus, Snape is not evil; Lockhart must know what he's talking about or 
Dumbledore wouldn't have hired him; Crouch Sr. couldn't put his own son in 
Azkaban even if he abuses House-Elves; neither would Percy; the twins 
wouldn't ever break the law, etc.  She's usually right in her judgments, but 
IMO for the wrong reasons.  Snape turns out to be on Harry's side.  But 
Hermione never asked about what side Quirrell was on; wouldn't she have 
reached the same (wrong) conclusion?  Ron, on the other hand, analyzes the 
information at hand based on his own experience and reaches conclusions based 
on that information.  The problem with his conclusions is not a lack of 
analytical ability (although he tends to jump to conclusions at times) but 
that his information is frequently incomplete or inaccurate.  Ron sees Snape 
on a constant verbal rampage against his friends; kind and caring people like 
his parents don't act that way, so there must be something going on.  Percy 
is an introspective loner in an otherwise outgoing, gregarious family who 
avoids the others, especially the twins and Ron (and I noticed while flipping 
through CoS today that Percy did not even stay with his brothers when Ginny 
was in the chamber).  Because the twins have each other, I think Ron is the 
person who suffers most from Percy's withdrawal.  Based on the information he 
has, I don't think his conclusions about Percy are unreasonable.  Not 
correct, IMO, but hardly an anti-Percy vendetta.

On Sirius and the information he gives the trio about Crouch Sr., Charis 
Julia wrote:

With Sirius there's no problem-
you're told he's mad and dangerous in the beginning, he than proceeds 
to progressively accumulate more badness, till finally it turns out 
that-hey! Guess what! He's really OK after all!  Now that's easy. That's 
simple. That's something one can handle. You 
are told what to believe and you promptly gulp it all down like a 
good little reader.

* * * 

Sirius is the one character who actually 
does attest that he "knew" Crouch. Yet what he actually seems to mean 
is that he had one brush with the man in his life which resulted in 
quite calamitous and utterly unjust results for himself. Now 
obviously Sirius carries a bit of a grudge. And who can blame him? 

I'm so glad you pointed this out.  Sirius seems so sane and logical in GoF 
that it's tempting to take everything he says at face value, but that's not 
necessarily true.  Maybe he's not so sane as he appears, which would be 
helpful to my understanding of Sirius, because I've always had trouble with 
his sudden transformation into a Good Guy and mentor.  I'm just not a good 
little reader.

More Charis Julia on Crouch:

No doubt Crouch Sr 
did indeed leave much to be wished for as a father. But I don't 
believe Barty's assertions that his Dad never really loved him. Quite 
to the contrary he seems genuinely proud when he talks of his son's 
academic success. He just probably was not in the habit of showing it 
much. Sad, but it hardly let's Barty off the hook.

Hmm, sounds a lot like Percy to me - loved his family but too uptight to show 
it.

And on Crouch Sr convicting his son:

The fact that Barty Jr just happened to have a father in high 
places should not affect the enforcement of justice. Of course in 
this case it in fact * did* and the outcome was not very advantageous 
for poor Barty. That is of course equally unacceptable. However 
that's another matter altogether and one that rather deals with the 
oh-so-very-easily corruptible law system the wizarding society has 
working (or not working) here. But it still doesn't alter the fact 
that Crouch using his power and positioning to get his son off would 
* not* have been right.

I absolutely agree with this.  I wanted to put it in my Ambition and Percy 
post but lacked the eloquence.  Of course, if he really wanted the Minister 
of Magic job, he would've done better to have been professional about it; it 
was really a bad political move to tell the jury how to decide the case and 
then state melodramatically, "I have no son!"  This is where, I think, Crouch 
and Percy part company.  I think Percy could do the same in the right 
circumstances, but it would make his stomach churn.

And Charis Julia's closing:

Charis Julia, who really thinks Crouch Sr was hard, harsh and cruel, 
but can't help pitying and even rather liking him. He's definitely 
better than Bagman, who as we all know is in fact the one who is the 
real D.E.V.I.L.!

Amen!  (See below)

 Tabouli's Twin/Hedgehog comment:

       Ooo! The twins are Ever So Evil? Where are the hedgehog hunters?

Hedgehogs?  What were they again?  Since Inish Alley was temporarily at sea, 
I searched the trusty archives and discovered the following:

       F.L.Y.I.N.G.H.E.D.G.E.H.O.G. (Fearful League Yabbering "Innocent 
Narratives
       Generally Harbour Enemies, Death-eaters, Grim Henchmen Or Gangsters")

Well, even Harry doubts that the twins were ever innocent, but my twin theory 
seems otherwise to fit well under this umbrella.    

I also found this from Eloise:

In other words, one of the benefits of membership of the OFH is the 
protection of a very complicated charm, which I would explain if I were Prof 
Flitwick, which protects one from howlers, hexes and curses sent by the 
defenders of the upright citizens who get accused along the way (especially 
in the event of being proved wrong!)

Now, the charm would be really helpful in case the groundswell of support for 
the twins that my every mention of the topic has inspired should ever turn to 
hexes.
So thanks to Eloise for putting them on the watch list despite their 
popularity.  IMO, it's the charismatic ones - the Ludo Bagmans of the world 
who can ward off Azkaban with a well-placed smile at the sentencing hearing - 
that we really need to watch out for.  In fact, one of  the planks on my 
rickety pier is their relationship with the Ever So Evil Ludo Bagman (who was 
a Beater like the twins are).  He was way too interested in their fake wand, 
and IMO it's not because he's, to use his own words, "something of an idiot." 
 I think he sees that their products have a number of possible uses . . . .

Finally, I'll rouse a quick defense against another can(n)on attack against 
the Soon to be Evil! Twins, then beat a quick retreat.  Rohit lobbed the 
following from the H/H ship:
 
I don't think Fred is uncaring or selfish; in fact, of
the two twins, I think he's the one who displays more
unselfish concern for others (not that George isn't
equally kind, but Fred seems the more paternal of the
two).  For example, in CoS, he scolds Oliver for
telling Harry to catch the snitch or die trying when
Harry ends up in the hospital wing.   And in PoA, he
comforts Harry and tells him that there had to be a
time he didn't catch the snitch after the Gryffindor
vs. Hufflepuff match.  

I looked up both episodes.  Fred's response after Wood tells Harry to get the 
Snitch or die trying is "So no pressure, Harry" and a wink.  While this can 
certainly interpreted as an attempt to take the pressure off Harry, it's 
delivered in Fred's characteristic jokester manner, and could be interpreted 
with double meaning.  Later on, during the match, it is George who rebukes 
Wood.  It was also George who tells Harry there had to be a time he didn't 
catch the snitch.  In fact, when I first threw out this idea about a month or 
so ago,  several people produced evidence of caring, concerned twins, but 
those comments all seem to be George.  Fred, on the other hand, always talks 
first (except for the thoughtful, helpful comments, which George initiates), 
and the scene in the owlery suggests that Fred is the leader in their 
schemes.  It also suggests that he has fewer scruples than George.  What 
disturbed me about that scene is that George allowed his conscience to be 
overruled.  To tell the truth, the twins have been on my radar screen ever 
since first reading CoS, where they act like a pair of cat burglars when they 
rescue Harry from the Dursleys.

Early last week, DG made an observation that ties into the non-canonical, 
real-world reason I'm not comfortable with Fred & George:

It has been my experience though, that men cut from the Fred & George
mold tend to make better leaders than those cut from the Percy mold.
Those of my peers who played the game flawlessly and wound up in
positions of power within the school went on to competant, but
indistinguished, careers as middle-managers. Those that played a
little more fast and loose with the rules, used their initiative more
often, and occasionally ran afoul of the rules, seem more inclined
(once they made contact with the Real World) to go forth to greatness.

I agree that Fred and George exhibit many qualities that echo the backgrounds 
of highly successful entrepreneurs.  They are innovators and risk-takers.  
But there is a line between aggressive innovation and leadership and illegal 
activity.  My experience (I am a tax lawyer whose resume includes experience 
in "off balance sheet financing," - gasp - which, yes,  is what got Enron 
into trouble) has been that many want to walk that line, and some view the 
line as much more elastic than it is.  Some of those fall over the line, and 
of those, some fall quite far.  Of those who fall, some get caught and some 
don't.  For some it is a mistake they try not to repeat, but for others the 
edge becomes a way of life.  In short, in the real world, playing fast and 
loose with the rules can lead to legal trouble.  With the twins, their 
rulebreaking for the fun of it, their sometimes pushing things too far (as 
with the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident, which still makes me cringe), the 
implication of the Owlery scene that they're willing to push things VERY 
close to the edge - even George thought it was blackmail, all add up to a 
pair I can't trust not to succumb to the lure of easy financing.

I realize my reading of the twins is highly idiosyncratic, and maybe a bit 
subversive, as my experiences that led me to the Soon to be Evil! Twins 
theory are probably quite different from JKR's; I quite suspect that she 
thinks they're just clever and funny.  But I can't shake the Ever So Evil! 
Twins out of my head, somehow.
    
Debbie, who's finished with the Twins for now and is now going Snape-hunting


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]