[HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George: The Bullies You Do Know

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43251

I was away when all this started and I should probably keep out of it, 
but...........

Forgive me if this has been covered in the posts I haven't caught up with 
yet, but I'm just wondering *why* we're arguing about this (other than the 
fact that the twins' behaviour does come in for these periodic debates).

What I mean is, these are fictional characters (leaving aside for the moment 
whether they're Toons, or 'real' people), so is the argument really not so 
much about whether they are bullies as about what JKR is communicating via 
them: whether or not she is condoning bullying, whether or not she has drawn 
characters who are out of keeping with the moral message of the books (i.e., 
are they a *mistake*), is it all about divining that authorial intent that 
we're not supposed to worry about?

It seems to me that most people in this discussion have good and valid things 
to say. I certainly understand where Elkins is coming from.  I myself only 
underwent mild bullying at school, most of it in the form of verbal taunting, 
although I was pushed around a bit. But bullying in any form is ugly and 
there is no way I would wish to see it condoned.

So if we say that the twins *are* bullies, what is JKR saying about it?
They are portrayed as popular: liked by their house despite losing loads of 
points, liked by Dumbledore and liked by Harry, one of whose last actions has 
been to encourage them by giving them his winnings towards the joke shop. My 
impression is that JKR likes the twins. Does that mean she's condoning 
bullying, or does it mean that she doesn't perceive their behaviour in that 
light? 

Is she betraying that it's a topic she hasn't thought through, or did she 
never expect us to read them in this light?

*Is* what the twins are doing bullying? This seems to have arguments on both 
sides. I think I would tend to agree that *most* of the time their 'victims' 
are either older or in a position of some authority (like Quirrell). But 
isn't another characteristic of bullies that they tend to pick on the same 
one or few vulnerable people? I would be much more concerned if, for 
instance, they always picked on Neville. Yet when Neville does fall victim, 
he takes it in good part and it seems almost like he's being included as one 
'big' enough to be victim of the joke. It is entirely different from what 
happens to Dudley with the TTToffee. That, as has been pointed out was surely 
their version of retributive justice, misguided perhaps, but a condemnation 
of Dudley's own bullying behaviour.

The twins are portrayed as jokers writ large and practical jokers at that. 
Humour tends to need a victim: it is frequently at someone else's expense. 
Now, we have to be mindful of our actions on others; what we see as teasing, 
someone else may see as taunting. I'm *very* conscious of this, as I tease 
myself and I have one child who *cannot* be teased under any circumstances. 
I've lost count of the times that normal, everyday family banter has ended up 
with the child in question in floods of tears over something that anyone else 
would laugh about. Practical joking is a particularly difficult area as it 
has physical connotations and these may be easily perceived as (or turn into) 
physical bullying.

But...
I think we should put the twins' behaviour into the context of the Tough 
wizarding culture that we have so often commented on. This is a culture where 
children are routinely put into what we would see as less than ideal 
situations: Neville is dropped off Blackpool pier; a detention involves an 
expedition into the Forbidden Forest to find out what's been killing 
unicorns; the Triwizard Tournament involves facing dragons and Hagrid's 
beasts, apart from anything else; it is implied that within living memory, 
students have been suspended from the ceiling in chains for breaking rules 
and Arthur still bears the marks from being caught after a midnight stroll 
with Molly.
When Draco cavils at going into the Forbidden Forest, Hagrid bluntly points 
out that 'that's how it is at Hogwarts'.

In the context of all this and even of some of the magic they are taught and 
glimpses of books etc we see, the twins' behaviour perhaps isn't as bad as it 
might be if they were Muggles. I'm not sure that what the twins get up to 
would be perceived as bullying in the WW, even if it would in RL.  Many of 
their practical jokes are actually the fruits of research in pursuit of their 
goal of opening a joke shop. Zonko's is apparently accepted and practical 
jokes are its stock in trade. Is everyone who uses a Zonko's product a bully?

Now, for me, the most disturbing incident is the well-discussed 'train 
stomp'.
This *does* seem to indicate real ill-will. OTOH, the battle lines have been 
drawn up and it is clear which side Draco et al are on. Never mind, even the 
battle field has its code of honour and this was clearly breached.

But here, I would come back to Dicentra's analysis of the twins as Toons.
You see, I think that JKR draws on so many different genres in her writing. 
There is epic, there is fairytale, there is the detective mystery, there is 
fantasy and there are probably many more that I haven't mentioned.

Her books carry a serious moral message. Well, probably several messages. But 
they are are also *funny* and she makes use of a number of different types of 
humour. IMO, her portrayal of the twins does make use of slapstick, Toon-type 
humour. I don't think they are necessarily Toons *all* the time, but 
sometimes they are. Possibly we should see the train stomp in this light. 
OTOH, they are possibly more like 'real' chacters in their interaction with 
their family.

Oh dear, what am I trying to say?
I think this calls for some meta-thinking, (if I've finally got the meaning 
of that right!) ;-)

I suppose the bottom line is that from what we know of JKR as a person, we 
can be sure that she would never condone bullying. If the twins *are* bullies 
(and personally I think that we need more evidence of deliberate, callous, 
ill will, rather than careless humour at others' expense for this to be the 
case), then we can be sure that they will meet their come-uppance at some 
point. 
(I do realise here that I am distinguishing between intent and effect; the 
effect may of course be the same whatever the intent.)

At the moment, I would say that superficially at least, she seems to approve 
of them. This suggests to me that they do, at least partially, perform a 
*literary* function of providing comic relief: they function as Toons. 
Otherwise, the writing is careless and given the number of people who do see 
them as bullies, JKR has let slip in a possible undesirable apparent 
approbation of something that I am sure she would condemn.

I think this is why the train stomp is so difficult. At a visceral, childish, 
cartoon-loving level, we can revel in retribution being given out to Draco et 
al, just as we would when Wile E. Cayote falls off the cliff yet again. But 
of course we would never condone such treatment being meted out in the real 
world. The real-life message we have come to expect from JKR and the language 
of Toon-land clash here. As right-thinking folks we dislike the behaviour 
and, I would venture to suggest want to distance ourselves from acknowledging 
that 'vengeance is sweet'. 

I'm a Snapefan, so I will acknowledge it! ;-) If vengeance isn't far up my 
own list of priorities, perhaps it is only because a willingness to own up to 
the less pleasant facets of our personalities goes a long way towards 
dissipating them. (I have a lot of others to work on, though!) And shouldn't 
one of the functions of literature be to awaken some of this awareness of 
ourselves?

I think similar clashes occur throughout JKR's writing: the lack of 
psychological trauma suffered by Harry despite his abusive childhood, which 
is understandable if we explain it as a mythic or fairytale early childhood; 
the 'greyness' of the 'Light' side which suggests that good an evil are 
complex, when we are clearly told which side to take; the treatment of 
Slytherin House (for instance the argument a while ago over Dumbledore's 
treatment of Slytherin at the end of PS/SS). There are more, I'm sure. There 
are parts of the books which bear detailed moral analysis and parts which, 
perhaps, do not; parts which perhaps were written with other intent, merely 
to amuse rather than to instruct. (Although this does not negate Cindy's 
point about the twins' actions having consequences for others.)

Really, as often, I want to agree with everyone! I think JKR's 
characterisation of the twins is too complex a subject to be analysed on one 
level. I think they perform different functions in different contexts and 
that they could be developed in either direction.

Eloise.