Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 43200

Abigail wrote:

>I'm beginning to find the "are they or aren't they" part of this 
>debate a bit tedious, especially 
> since, Elkins' definitions notwithstanding, it seems that everyone 
>has a different idea of what constitutes bullying, and this idea is 
>very strongly coloured by personal experience.  <snip>  I remain 
>convinced that *it just doesn't matter* whether F&G are bullies, 
>because we were never meant to analyze their actions 
> as deeply as we do.

We were never meant to analyze the actions of the twins in this 
fashion?  The discussion is getting "tedious" because people have 
different ideas about what constitutes bullying?

Well, OK.  And here I thought that the vast differences of opinion, 
the varying points of view, and the extent to which this discussion 
was colored by personal experience was half the fun.  Silly me!  ;-)

As for whether we are "meant" to analyze the twins' actions . . . 
well, why wouldn't we be?  If there are some clues in the text that 
indicate that a character is a bully (or a thief, or a racist, or an 
elitist or what have you), how can we be certain the author meant 
for us to blow past these clues?  It strikes me as quite reasonable 
that JKR may have added the "bullying" component of the twins' 
characterization precisely to give them depth and dimension.  True, 
different readers might react to some of the twins' actions in 
different ways.  Which, IMHO, simply means that JKR *succeeded* in 
making the twins multi-dimensional, regardless of whether that was 
her original goal.

Elkins wrote (about the definitions of bullying and bullying 
behavior):

> A social, verbal or physical action is "bullying" if it fit the 
>below criteria:
> 
> -- is it behavior that could be reasonably assumed by a person of 
the 
> instigator(s)' age, intellect, and experience to cause pain, 
> discomfort, humiliation or embarrassment to the victim?  
> 
> -- has it happened more than once?
> 
> -- has the instigator persisted in the behavior even after the 
>victim has demonstrated that s/he resents this behavior or is 
>bothered by it?
> 
> -- is there a real or perceived power imbalance between the victim 
> and the instigator(s), is the victim incapable of retaliating 
> effectively in kind, or is the victim unusually and specifically 
> vulnerable in the arena targetted by the behavior?
> 
> If the answer to all four of these questions is "yes," then 
>bullying is taking place.

OK, I'll endeavor to keep this on topic, but I will have to veer 
wildly away from canon for just a minute.  I swear, I'll try to get 
to the point quickly.

Something intrigued me about this definition of bullying.  One of 
the *requirements* in this definition for labeling someone a 
bullying is that they have engaged in certain behavior "more than 
once."  If they only engage in bullying behavior once (even if all 
of the other criteria are met), they are not a bully under this 
definition.

Contrast this with the definition I pulled out my hip pocket farther 
up this thread, where I wrote:

>Are the twins bullies? I guess we have to define our 
>terms a bit. I'll play it safe. To me, a bully is someone who 
>engages in bullying behavior, including any form of victimizing 
>weaker individuals.

Now, in my mind, before I read the definition Elkins quoted above, I 
would never have dreamed that someone is *not* a bully if they bully 
only once.  After all, murder once and you are a murderer.  Steal 
once and you are a thief.  Beat your wife once and you are a wife-
beater.  Indeed, in the case of domestic violence, the prevailing 
wisdom is that if someone engages in the behavior *even once* for 
any reason, the victim is advised to recognize the relationship for 
what it is and get out.  There should be no second chances for 
perpetrators of domestic violence, it is said.

Nevertheless, bullies get one free bite at the apple before they are 
labeled "bullies."  Why?

My guess is that the reason we don't label someone a bully the very 
first time they victimize a weaker person is because of Real World 
proof problems.  If there's a scuffle on the playground, perhaps you 
can't easily be sure who is the perpetrator or even whether one 
individual is necessarily weaker.  It takes a number of observations 
to be sure that you're seeing bullying behavior and not something 
else, perhaps.  Fair enough.

But, of course, when we analyze HP canon, we're not talking about 
the Real World.  Instead, we have essentially only one side of the 
story – Harry's side.  If Harry reports that the twins hissed a 
Slyth, we believe him.  If he reports that the twins stepped on 
unconscious foes deliberately, we believe him.  

So then.  Here's my question:  In analyzing the text, is it really 
possible to use Real World definitions of bullying that require the 
observance of a *pattern* of bullying behavior?  Or, given that we 
have no reason to question Harry's perceptions of the circumstances 
of the alleged bullying behavior, should we dump the requirement 
that bullying requires more than one occurrence?  Should we adjust 
our definition of bullying to account for the point of view 
limitations in the text, given that we are limited only to what 
Harry is positioned to observe?

Now, you see where I'm going with this.  If we can drop the 
requirement of a pattern of bullying behavior, the twins come a lot 
closer to being lovable, comical, affable students who just happen 
also to be bullies.

Cindy -- who thinks this discussion is one of the more interesting 
we've seen in a while, and who is amazed that everyone has managed 
to stay on topic