Steering Tedious Conversations (WAS Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 43225

Abigail wrote:

> 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".  

Well, I guess that is one way to view the exchange on this 
particular thread.  Personally, I have learned quite a lot from the 
thread, and I think a number of excellent and novel points have been 
made, including some I have never seen discussed on this board 
before (for instance, the idea that the twins hissed Malcolm because 
the mascot of Slytherine is a snake).  So I don't perceive the 
discussion as tedious.  Not at all.

There is something that does trouble me about Abigail's two most 
recent posts on this thread, though.  It is related to this idea, as 
Abigail put it:

>Think of my message as a not-so-subtle attempt to steer the 
>conversation.  Whether or not it works depends entirely on the 
>group. 


Hmmm.  How to put this?  

I personally don't think it is especially kind or appropriate for 
any of us to attempt to "steer" a thread in this way -- by declaring 
a discussion that no longer interests him or her as "tedious."

See, I view this list as akin to a huge cocktail party.  People are 
clustered in parts of a large room, discussing whatever is of 
interest to them.  Some conversations are small.  Others are large, 
involving scores of people.  Some interactions are genteel, some get 
a little hot.  Some people join conversations late, some leave 
early, and some stick around for the whole thing.  When party guests 
stumble across a conversation that doesn't interest them, they 
quietly slip off, freshen their drinks, and join or start another 
conversation that is more to their liking.  

Usually, conversations at the party taper off and end because people 
wander away once they lose interest or can think of nothing to add.  
What cocktail party participants don't do, however, is attempt to 
steer a conversation or shut down a conversation if they think it 
has gone on long enough, perhaps by declaring the conversation 
tedious once they have grown weary of it.  

Personally, I always assume I'd be seriously getting in the way of 
other people's fun if I entered certain types of discussions on the 
list that I think have been done to death and tried to steer them 
toward something I found more satisfying.  Stating one's opinion on 
the merits of the issue being discussed is always welcome, of 
course.  But if a party guest enters a conversation to declare it 
not to their personal tastes for whatever reason, the remarks can 
sound a great deal like heckling to my ears.  

I asked:

>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? 

Abigail replied:

> 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.  

Well, OK.  If it is unsatisfying to you personally, then you're 
right that this particular discussion probably won't please you as 
much as some other discussions might.

But this discussion hasn't been unsatisfying for me at all.  In 
fact, I would disagree with the statement that the twins "allegedly 
bullying behavior is never addressed by canon."  After all, people 
*are* citing canon for their interpretation that the twins are or 
are not bullies, as you mentioned earlier as evidence that the 
conversation was tedious.  So the subject of the twins' bullying 
*is* addressed in canon, although it is not as crystal clear as the 
explicit description of Dudley's actions as bullying.  

Indeed, I have seen very few threads discussing whether Dudley is or 
is not a bully. This aspect of Dudley's character is established 
explicitly, so there is little to discuss with respect to whether 
Dudley is a bully.  IMHO, the reason that the issue of whether the 
twins are bullies has generate so many messages is because there 
*is* ambiguity in the text.  Reasonable minds can and do differ on 
the point.  So from where I sit, the discussion on this thread has 
been quite satisfying because the fact that an idea is not hammered 
home explictly in the text does not make it unworthy of discussion 
among list members.  In fact, the ambiguity may make the discussion 
*more* satisfying for me, not less satisfying.

Now, some people (perhaps even the majority of people) who have 
commented don't view the twins as bullies.  That's fine.  But that 
doesn't mean the conversation itself is irrelevant or that the topic 
is the figment of the imaginations of the list members discussing 
it.  If canon provide no basis at all for suspecting that the twins 
might be bullies, then this entire conversation would be off-topic 
and couldn't take place on this list, IMHO.

Now, I take your point that you find the "Toon analysis" more to 
your liking.  Personally, I'm not entirely persuaded that the Toon 
analysis is compelling, and I might or might not find time to post 
on that thread about my own take on it.  But I won't try to shut 
down that conversation or steer it toward something else, because 
that might get in the way of the people who have gathered to explore 
that idea and who *are* enjoying it.  

Cindy