Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know

[abigailnus]

No: HPFGUIDX 43217

Cindy took offense when I 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.

And respnded with:
> 
> 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?

No, the discussion is getting tedious because after nearly a week and 
almost 70 messages, it is still mostly one group going "they are too 
bullies and here's the canon for why" and the other group going "no they 
aren't and here's the canon for why".  Now at first this was interesting 
because both groups make good arguments, but now the canon is 
beginning to repeat itself.  Plus, it's becoming clear that both groups are 
firmly entrenched in their disparate views of what the canon means, partly 
because everyone has their own personal definition of bully.  I think this is 
the point where we should just agree to disagree.

I truly am sorry if I offended anyone, but I find Dicentra's ideas infinitely 
more interesting then a canon fight.  Think of my message as a 
not-so-subtle attempt to steer the conversation.  Whether or not it works 
depends entirely on the group. 

She also said:
> 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.

I expanded on the idea that we are not meant to analyze the twins in my 
original response to Elkins' message, and then defended it to Jenny from 
Ravenclaw who offered a similar objection (#43032 and #43064, if you're 
interested), so I'm not going to repeat myself here.  However, I think Cindy 
inadvertently defended my position when she wrote, in respnonse to Suzanne:

>At the same time, I think it would deny the words on the page to 
some extent to claim that Snape is not a Mean Man. Or that Sirius 
is not a Hot-Head. So how is it different and "tedious" for someone 
to read the text and form the opinion that the twins are Bullies?

I must say that I am struck by the reluctance to deny the flaws that 
the twins have, whether you think those flaws rise to the level of 
bullying or not. Many characters in HP have flaws, including some 
of my favorites, like Lupin and Moody. Why not just admit the 
flawed behavior and embrace the character anyway, if that is what 
you prefer? Why claim that some flaws are unimportant and some harm 
the character causes is to be dismissed because the character is 
supposed to be a flat "Toonish" cariacature? >

Because it's an unsatisfying pursuit.  Sirius, Lupin, Snape truly have depth, 
and their flaws do turn them into interesting characters.  I don't perceive 
the twins as having this kind of depth, and claiming that they are bullies 
doesn't help to give them that depth because their allegedly bullying 
behaviour is never addressed by canon.  They are treated as walking jokes - 
barely even distinguishable one from the other - and their antics are never 
very firmly criticised or shown as having negative effects on anyone (not yet, 
anyway).  Without these elements, any depth we perceive in the characters 
has either been so completely hidden by JKR that one wonders why it was 
introduced in the first place, or is a subversive reading of the characters.  
There are some characters, like Neville, that can shoulder the burden of a 
subversive reading, but the twins are not nearly meaty enough for it.

I'm not saying none of this will change in the future.  If Fred and George 
develop a little more depth in coming books then it would be appropriate for 
them to start wondering if their pranks aren't a bit over the top, but I only 
have the available canon to judge by, and so far, F&G don't even merit the 
second dimension.

Abigail