Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 43094

Hi --

Well, as promised, I do have a few more thoughts on this thread -- this got a bit longish.

First, I must say --

Debbie quipped:

<<<<<No!  No!  Everyone else *doesn't like the Twins."  I don't like the Twins.  I do not like them playing jokes.  I do not like them hissing folks.  I do not like them here or there.  I do not like them anywhere.>>>>>

Being in full Dr. Seuss mode at this time in my daughter's life, I just have to say: LOL!  Excellent.  I also happen to agree.  Lest anyone might be wondering, I do actually like some of the Weasleys.  Really.  I do.  I *am* the founder & spiritual leader of P.I.N.E. after all.  <g>  Percy is definitely my favorite Weasley and one of my favorite characters overall in fact.  I also like Bill, Charlie and Arthur.  The others?  Not so much, for different reasons.  

DRACO VERSUS FRED/GEORGE

I'm not *entirely* clear how the discussion spiraled into a direct *comparison* of Draco's actions and the pranks of the The Twins, but there you go.  Here are we, so let's see:

Elkins argued:

<<<<<<<<Hmmm.  Well, there's Draco Malfoy and his cronies, of course.  In PoA, they sneer at Draco for running into their cabin while fleeing the dementor on the Hogwarts Express.  In GoF, they hex him and his (unarmed!) buddies in the back, leave them lying unconscious on the 
floor of a train in the middle of London, and then *step* on them while they're out cold.  This, I would add, at a point in the tale when they have become legal adults.  Not a whole lot of noblesse oblige going on there.  Not much in the way of chivalry.  Not the sort of behavior that represents an assumption of the mantle of adulthood.>>>>>>>>>>

Darrin responded, in part, with:

<<<<<<<<<<Of course, the fact that Draco has just insulted and threatened Fred and George's friends and by extension, said that the "Muggle-lovers" 
will be killed first. Who is a Muggle-lover?

Fred and George's dad, that's who. Perhaps they were a little over-
exuberant, but jeez, you'd think Draco and his gang were just little 
fluffy bunnies, innocent as the mountain rain.

And exactly how can a wizard be unarmed? Unless Draco is so stupid as 
to walk into HRH's train compartment without his wand.>>>>>>>>

I doubt that Elkins actually believes that Draco and his gang were "fluffy bunnies."  No, the point is not whether Draco & his cronies were innocent or not.  Of course they weren't.  As someone pointed out, noone involved was in the right completely.  The *point* is that the Twins are, at that time, full-fledged adults and perhaps, just perhaps, they should have shown a bit more restraint in their reactions.  Was it really necessary to *step* on Draco & his cronies as they left the compartment?  Isn't there such a thing as going too far in retribution?  I think so.

Later, Darrin said:

<<<<<<<<<Now tell me that when Draco makes fun of the Weasley's wealth, it is somehow on par with Fred and George's pranks. Anyone that says so is 
again, being unconscionable.>>>>>>>

Cindy responded:

<<<<<<Surely we can disagree about a few scenes in a book series without anyone calling anyone else's scruples into question.>>>>>>>

Darrin responded with:

<<<<<<<<My language was carefully chosen there. I sincerely believe that 
there is such bending and twisting to somehow attach the same level 
of severity to the actions of Gryffindors, any Gryffindors, as to 
Slytherins, that crucial elements -- such as the racism behind 
Draco's actions -- are being ignored. To do that is to place the goal 
of the argument above the substance of the material you are arguing, 
which I find beyond prudence and reason and excessive.>>>>>>>>>>

I personally found your language to be quite insulting to anyone who holds an opinion that differs from your own.  You may have carefully chosen the word "unconscionable," but IMO, it isn't language that ought to be used in reference to opinions held by other members of this list.  It's just rude.  Disagreement is fine, but civility & respect for differing opinions is the name of the game.

DRACO AS RACIST

Darrin said:

<<<<<<<3) Draco is racist. I cannot put in any plainer than that. To 
apologize for Draco is to apologize for a stone-cold racist. 
Therefore, to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily 
prove that person or persons is also racist. Fred and George are not. 
They do not tinge their humor at anyone group in particular.>>>>>>

Cindy said:

<<<<<<<But again, we certainly should be able to disagree on this point and 
even be willing to hear the ideas of others without our tone 
becoming overly strident, I would hope.>>>>>>>>

I had asked for an "IMO" or a qualifier, and Darrin responded with:

<<<<<<<No, because I don't think one is necessary.  What I will do is 
clarify.

Canon clearly shows Draco's racism, in the context of the Wizarding 
world. There is no evidence he feels blacks, for instance, are 
inferior.

But, in the context of Wizard society, he is a open racist. He uses 
the word "mudblood" casually, calmly and with no remorse. Mudblood 
is, given the reactions of those around it, equivalent with the n-
word in the real world.

Draco openly calls for Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers to be killed, 
which if you substitute n-word and n-word-lover, is direct descendant 
of the racist beliefs of the KKK and the old Jim Crow laws.

I never said he was nothing more than a racist. But he is a racist. I 
would be interested to hear from listies who dispute this.>>>>>>

You misunderstand me, Darrin.  I didn't mean that you needed an "IMO" with respect to Draco being a racist.  I suspect very few people could actively disagree with that one.  I think you needed the qualifier with respect to your 3rd statement: that comparing Draco to anyone, on any level apparently, requires the conclusion that the person being compared is also a racist.  


I said:> In any case, it makes no sense logically to say that comparing 
anyone, on any level, to Draco means that you are saying that the 
other person being compared is also a racist.  That makes no sense to 
me.  Logically, this just doesn't work.>>>>>>>>>>>

Darrin:

<<<<<<<<<No, the question was about what motivates Draco's actions versus what motivates Fred and George's pranks. Draco's actions are motivated by 
his racism and his elitism -- he believes he is better than the 
Weasley's because he has more money -- while the Twins' actions are 
not.

My logic is sound. To try and ascribe the same motivations behind the 
Twins' actions, you must first establish that they are doing it 
because they feel their targets are inferior.

I say you can't do that.>>>>>>>>>>

Where your logic doesn't hold up, IMO, is that your original statement says that "to credibly compare anyone to Draco is to necessarily prove that person or persons is also racist."  Let's just say that I want to compare Hermione's treatment of Trelawney with Draco's treatment of Hagrid.  Must I establish that Hermione is or isn't a racist in order to make this comparison?  I think not.  

Darrin said: <<<<<<<<They don't seem to have problems getting dates, but 
they aren't heartthrobs.>>>>>>>>>>

L.O.O.N. patrol: *Fred* got a date to the Yule Ball; we have no evidence that George went with a date at all.  We also have no evidence, either way, about whether the Twins are heartthrobs or not.  :--)  


DUDLEY

Debbie said:

<<<<<<<<But the Twins have never met Dudley.  Besides, he's not chiefly responsible for Harry's miserable life at Privet Drive; Vernon and Petunia are the ones who have contrived to abuse Harry; Dudley only follows his parents' example.>>>>>>>

HF responded with:

<<<<<<<<I would have to respectfully disagree with you there. Vernon and Petunia contrive to abuse Harry mentally and emotionally (and neglect him physically), we have ample proof of that. Dudley, however, is a physical tormentor who ruthlessly uses his size and strength to beat Harry up and "kick him around like a football." Further, Dudley is a part of an entire social structure that keeps Harry ground down; it's not enough that Dudley tortures him at home, but he takes his machinations to school as well.>>>>>>>

Darrin added:

<<<<<<Dudley is NOT an unfortunate scapegoat. While Vernon and Petunia take 
care of Privet Drive, Dudley takes over at school. He has his gang 
beat Harry up, and ensures that Harry has no friends.>>>>>>>>

I must definitely agree with Debbie, whose point, I think, is not that Dudley doesn't do his own damage.  Her point is that Vernon & Petunia started all the problems; they lead by example.  Dudley is following his parent's lead, and they must bear the lion's share of the blame for Dudley's problems, perhaps most particularly his bullying treatment of Harry.  I doubt anyone, least of all Debbie, would dispute that Dudley is a bully who makes Harry's life miserable.  The point though is that Dudley didn't just learn that behavior in a vacuum.  In fact, he's been actively *encouraged* to beat up on Harry & bully him further.  The ultimate fault lies at the feet of Vernon & Petunia.



HUMOR, SURFACE-LEVEL READS VS. DEEPER READS

Debbie posed the question:

<<<<<<Now, my question is this:  Are we supposed to be reading the toffee episode at its surface, comic level, taking our cue from Harry's own amusement (he didn't want to leave and "miss the fun").  Or are we supposed to see the dark side of the twins' humor?
  Abigail suggested the former:

  "There are certain elements of the books that I am just sure that JKR never   gave as much thought to as we have.  Sometimes, I suspect, the answers 
  to many a thorny dilemma are simply "because it's funny", or "because it 
  was more dramatic that way", or "because JKR never gave it that much 
  thought".  

Yes, I fear, absolutely fear, that you may be right.  But I hope not, and think there's some evidence to support both views.>>>>>>>

I also wonder periodically about this, but in response to the people who've commented that "we must remember" that these are books intended for children, I'd remind you (thanks to Ali for already doing this) that JKR has said repeatedly that she wrote the books for herself and not with a particular target audience of children in mind.  

In any case, I think the joy of these clearly cross-over books is that adults can find so many different levels of enjoyment that will pass by the children.  This is especially true as the characters age into full-blown adolescence & eventual adulthood.  I think it's actually great that if a 10 year old read GoF when it first came out in 2000, he could re-read it 5 years later & take a completely different view & so on.  

As for the "humor" read of the antics of the Twins, I agree in some cases that there are plot points furthered by their actions or they are doing things for comic relief.  I'm afraid I must agree that the lock-picking tools & skills are probably more a plot point than anything more sinister.  <g> at Debbie.  And,  I also think Dicey made a good point about the "Toons" in the series (however, I stress that characters who are currently "Toons" aren't destined to remain "Toons" forever necessarily, though they could).  But, I do think there's a reasonable basis for a read that Fred & George are on a potentially dangerous path, play fast & loose with the rules in a way that's considerably more dangerous than the Trio ever has, and may have a deeper hidden ambition than any of the other Weasleys, including the surface-level ambitious Percy.  

 Elkins originally argued:

<<<<<<<It certainly is interesting, isn't it, that we so rarely see Fred and George insulting or abusing students who are actually their own age?  Or their own size?  I mean, they're a couple of really *big* kids, aren't they?  Built like a couple of bludgers, and by the end of GoF, they're actually technically adults.  And yet who (outside of their own family) do we see them going up against?  Who do we see them hexing or hissing?  Who are the targets of their practical jokes?

Yes, that's right.  It's always younger kids, isn't it.  Children two, three, even five years younger than they are.  

Even when the twins target adults, it's always *vulnerable* adults.>>>>>>>>>>

Darrin responded with:

<<<<<<<The pranks on Percy and Ginny have been taken to task as 
picking on weaker kids. Hold on, the twins put beetles in Bill's soup and 
> constantly tweak their mother, so older sibling and authority 
figures are fair game as well. Thus endeth THAT argument.>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
I said:
<<<<<<Just because they don't confine their pranks to younger, weaker 
victims doesn't make the pranks being pulled on the younger, weaker 
victims any less detestable or worthy of condemnation.  Again, it's 
an issue of logic.  Noone was saying that they *only* pick on younger 
& weaker kids; Elkins, IIRC, was merely stating that their pranks on 
younger kids were particularly distasteful to her.  I agree.>>>>>>>>
> 

Darrin howled in response:

<<<<<<<NOOOO... the argument was that they only pick on weaker kids. I threw Bill out there to establish that this isn't the case.>>>>>>>>>>

Nope, Elkins very clearly said, *outside of their family*, who do they pick on?  Younger kids.  Weaker kids.  Bill and Molly are both part of the family.   

PERCY


Elkins:

<<<<<<<<And what about Percy?  The twins aren't picking on Percy because he has injured them terribly through any particular action he has taken against them.  They're picking on him because he is *vulnerable,* and because they have identified some trait that makes him, to their mind, "fair game," thus enabling them to rationalize their behavior.  In Percy's case, that trait happens to be pomposity.  But what if it had instead been ugliness?  Or intellect?  Or talent?  Or timidity?>>>>>>>>>>>

Darrin responded with:

<<<<<<<<First, Percy is a different animal altogether. Inter-sibling 
rivalries are normal and this is Fred and George's way of dealing 
with "perfect Percy", who is obnoxious. And there is no evidence they 
have physically harmed Percy, or even seriously attempted to. (I 
don't consider the "locking him in a pyramid") anything more than a 
joke.>>>>>>>>>>>>

Oh, so physical harm is the threshold as to whether a prank is "okay" or not?  

I agree with Debbie also that the pranks have had a very definite & negative effect on Percy.  I don't think it merits shrugging it off as just good fun or normal sibling rivalries.  It's not, IMO, been particularly healthy for the family overall.

Penny
(who likes Debbie's theories about the joke shop financier very much ....)



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