Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know

[abigailnus]

No: HPFGUIDX 43064

Jenny from Ravenclaw wrote, in response to my statement which I knew 
was going to get me into hot water:

> > You know, I've had the feeling for a long time that, as a group, we 
> tend  to over-analize the Harry Potter books - at least past a certain 
> point.>
> 
> That is exactly why people join and then stick around this list.  We 
> love to analyze HP because we've noticed that JKR has written multiply 
> layered characters and events.  I'll be analyzing every word of HP for 
> a long time.

Of course we do, that's why I said "past a certain point."  My point here is 
that there are some cases where we think things to a far greater degree 
than JKR does.  I'm not saying that this is true in all cases (and indeed I didn't 
say so in my original message) but I am all but certain that it is the case when 
it comes to the more humorous passages in the books.  Do I have proof of 
this?  No, and there's no way I could without having a conversation with Rowling 
herself, and given how taciturn she tends to be during interviews I suspect that 
even that wouldn't do me much good.  This is my opinion, a vibe that I 
sometimes get.

Think about it this way - for every thorny issue and murky passage in the 
books there are several competing theories suggested by different group 
members.  Obviously for every situation, only one theory can be true - or 
maybe none of them, and the only person who knows for certain is JKR.  
But unlike her readers, who take the available canon and try to guess the rest 
of the story, JKR first came up with the story and then wrote the canon.  
Doesn't this suggest that at least in some cases, group members have given 
more thought to the plotlines and characters than JKR has?

I'm not suggesting that JKR is oblivious to her work, or that any of the themes 
that we perceive were not conciously introduced by her.  I'm certainly not 
suggesting that JKR doesn't know her characters (although Elkins has on more 
than one occasion suggested that this is the case - subversive Neville, anyone?)  
What I am saying is that our perspective of her work gives us different insights 
into it, and as a result we sometimes tend to overanalize it.  You are of course 
correct when you say that the HP books have many levels - and it is precisely 
because of this that we stand in danger of reading too much into them.

Of course this is a slippery slope - instead of analizing characters we could just 
say "because it's funny" or "because Rowling needed it that way" and never 
gain any new insights into the books, and then what would be the point of this 
group?  That's why I only feel comfortable applying these explanations to the 
humorous passages in the books - Rowling's humor is so broad that I feel all but 
certain that there is very little, if any, subtext in it.

But even if we are meant to take Fred and George seriously, I object to categorising 
them as bullies, as I said in my original message and as I explain below.

>  
> > I honestly believe that in most of these cases, JKR's reasoning 
> doesn't go any further than "this is funny."  This is something of a 
> disservice to the characters, making them the purveyors of cheap 
> laughs and nothing more, but let's face it, Fred and George aren't 
> that important.>
> 
> Are you so sure?  Did you think Scabbers was important in SS, CoS and 
> most of PoA?  

No, of course I'm not sure.  This is a theory just like any other, although I do find 
Harry's asking them to be the official moralle squad of Voldemort War II rather telling.

About Fred and George's bullying (or lack thereof):

> First, I must say that the arguments consisting of things like "boys 
> will be boys" and "he's just being a 16 year old" push my buttons.  It 
> excuses the behaviors of people as involuntary because of their sex or 
> age.  

No it doesn't.  What it does is say that a person, especially a male, who is 
young, tends not to understand that his actions have consequences and that 
he might hurt people, physically or emotionally.  This is not an excuse, it is a fact.  
The line "boys will be boys" is most often used to explain why rambunctious boys 
shouldn't be punished for their transgression, and I never said that I felt the 
twins didn't deserve to be punished or that their actions were correct.  What I 
was trying to argue was that being idiotic 16 year-olds does not automatically 
mean that the twins are sociopathic bullies, it just means that they're idiots.

> 
> I also have to add that you shouldn't be so sure that everyone gets 
> over being bullied as well as you have.  I was the target of bullies 
> when I was much younger and I remember it to this day with a sour 
> taste in my mouth.  Many people who were bullied as kids need therapy 
> as adults.  Ron seems more and more to have quite a bit of trouble 
> letting go of Draco's nasty comments about the Weasleys' poverty and 
> I've mentioned before that I'm curious to see how he will continue to 
> handle this.

And once again, I did not say that I was bullied, I said that I was teased.  There 
is a monumental difference.  The people who teased me were getting a cheap 
laugh out of whatever inadequecies (social, physical, mental) they perceived in me.  
They were amusing themselves at my expense.  This is not a nice thing to do and 
it can be quite hurtfull, but the goal of the teasing was the teasers' amusement.  
A bully's goal is the power rush that comes from his victim's humiliation, and this 
can have a lasting effect.  You yourself support this when you point out that Ron 
suffers from the lingering effects of Draco's nastiness - because Draco is a bully.  
We have yet to see one person teased by the twins who seems worse off for it - 
they may not have enjoyed it, but none of them suffered emotional scars.

> > Not only do I find it hard to classify hexing Draco and his buddies 
> as bullying (which is, after all, mostly about fear and humiliation.  
> Having been knocked out immediately, Draco and his cronies had no time 
> to feel either.)>
> 
> Please tell me you are joking here.  Are you seriously saying that 
> because Draco and Co are *knocked out* they won't feel humiliated when 
> they come to?  

Of course they feel humiliated later, but Fred and George aren't there to see it.  
The twins' purpose in attacking Draco was not to bully him but to get back at 
him for hurting them - not a mature or reasonable response, but then I never 
claimed that it was.  What I did say was that it didn't fit the bullying approach - 
the twins didn't care about Draco's humiliation, it wasn't their purpose.

> > Oh, come on, give the kids a break.  Look at Cedric - he's older 
> than the twins, he's handsome, smart, popular, good with the girls, a 
> great Quidditch player, and on top of all that he's nice, modest and 
> friendly.  How could they not hate him?  Can you honestly tell me that 
> you've never met a person like that and just hated them?>
> 
> Yes, I can.  How can I hate someone who is always nice?  I envied the 
> girls in my school who were pretty and who were on receiving end of 
> the boys's crushes, but I didn't dislike them.  I disliked my peers 
> who were mean, or petty, or dishonest.

Alright, so maybe hate is a strong word (but then I think that Elkins' original 
description of the twins' reaction to Cedric is a bit too strongly worded.)  But 
surely you conceed that envy can lead to dislike, and that the twins, especially 
at their awkward age, might be predisposed to dislike someone who was so much 
better than they were at everything.  It's only human.  

As a teacher I can understand how you would take even a hint of bullying very 
seriously - and good for you - but I really don't feel that Fred and George fit the 
bullying mold.  They are not cruel, they are thoughtless, and while this is not 
a good thing, it isn't anti-social either, especially not at 16.

Abigail