[HPforGrownups] Re: Why I Dislike The Twins

[yr awen]

No: HPFGUIDX 43277

Brain... will... not... shut... up... ::clutches head and writhes::

Elkins, snippage from #34,058:

This interests me in part because so much of the discussion
here seems to center on the use of canonical citation to evaluate 
the HP characters on *moral* grounds. Evidence is presented to
support or condemn characters ethically, or philosophically, or
even spiritually. 

I strongly suspect, though, that more often than not what
is really at issue is simple personal affection. We like
some characters and dislike others in very much the same
way, and for very much the same reasons, that we like or
dislike real people; and as in real life, our reasons
rarely have all that much to do with moral virtue.

What worries me, I think, is that I suspect that all too
often, we form our judgements about the characters based
on these sorts of factors first, and only *then* go searching
for evidence of their moral wrongdoings, or their hidden 
virtues.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm not sure if you're referring to the "we" in the sense of general readership or HPfGU discussion (in its range from casual discussion to scholarly, informed debate.) Inevitably, I think it's a bit much to ask a general readership to sacrifice personal affection for close reading and character interpretation. On HPfGU, there's an expectation that personal affection can be backed up by canon, even of the most twisted sort, such as liking Crouch for his sadism, which is amply demonstrated :-)

What follows might irritate some people who dislike textual analysis, but... oh, well. I've always felt that "interacting" with a text is an inaccurate term, because it implies the text is actively, well, acting back, which it *doesn't.* The text, if considered as being an entity separate to some degree from its author, is static; it's the reading mind reading it that takes evidence and uses it to either glorify or excoriate a character -- or to, as you say, form a proxy relationship with it. This allows for widely divergent opinions on the Twins, let's say, in which discussions canon has been pulled to either support or condemn a character on a variety of levels. It allows for a perception of empathy or lack of it in the text, whether it exists or not. And that's where I agree with you: that many times, it is possible to allow a proxy relationship with a character to color interpretation of a static, rather limited text -- especially one told from a certain point of view, that of an adolescent boy, which is neither impersonal, complete, or wholly trustworthy.

Obviously in this case, the text and author cannot be separated clearly; the discussion informing the creation of the HP books fills reams of paper and reels of film. We have perceived discrepancies between what JKR *says* and what can be extrapolated from her writing -- here I'm thinking of the long and most excellent discussion back in July concerning her somewhat problematic values system with regards to class issues (which relates to some extent here.) There is a massive body of discussion, informed or otherwise, on various characters that color the reading of a text -- *that* is the interaction there, discussion between two or more parties, and that's what forces or at least suggest, re-readings. Similarly, they may simply harden various parties in their respective viewpoints. More on that later.

Elkins:
I'm a little bit worried here, actually, that by arguing so 
strenuously for my reading of the twins as the Bullies You Know, I 
may have given the impression that I don't believe that people 
*ought* to like people (real or fictional)....<<<<<<<

And I *do* think this is where the discussion became... ahhh, passionate ;-) Strenuous arguing is a *good* thing, inasmuch as it can help get one's point across -- but it runs up against what shall be discussed later, and that is presenting a viewpoint differing from the majority's. Admittedly, I reacted 

Elkins, in expressing remorse, said:
<Elkins shakes her head in disgust.  She reaches into a pocket, draws 
out a ruler, hands it to HF, and then extends one hand, palm up.  She 
looks away, wincing slightly>

Go on, then.<<<<<<

Corporal punishment? Pfft. Can I just have you writhe in self-torment for a few minutes? <g>

Elkins:
Oh, hey, yeah, I remember you!  I always wondered how you could do 
that for so long without being sick all over the macadam.<<<<<<<<

It's all in suppressing the gag reflex :-) That, and knowing people will avoid you is good incentive.

Yes, I was voted Most Likely To Become a Hermit in my school (just kidding -- we didn't have that, but if we did, I would have won.)

I was that kid who was always sitting right up against the wall of 
the school, where the teachers could keep an eye on me, reading my 
book and only occasionally looking up to glare out over the crowds 
and entertain myself with Columbinish fantasies of bloody vengeance.  

Elkins:
But this raises another issue.  Is it even considered *okay* to talk 
about ones reasons for feeling dislike for characters on this list?  
Is it okay to wish ill upon them?  Is there some language short of 
profanity that is unacceptably vituperative to direct towards 
fictional characters in this forum?<<<<<<<<<<

Well, one would certainly hope so :-)

To elaborate more along some stuff I snipped, I think it's habitual in any discussion of polarized views for the individual in the minority, or, as the case may be in some instances, the silent majority, to possess the burden of proof. I'm not saying that's just, or right, or anything, merely pointing it out. The one in the closet inevitably has to supply the justification for their views, lay out all reasons, et cetera because their belief can't lay claim to the legitimacy held by the majority. Maybe it points to an entrenched conservatism (is there any other kind?) endemic to *all* groups, online discussion forums included. From my prior experience on other groups in other fandoms, I can say that they've all reacted in ways similar to this list when touchy topics have been brought up, or when groups in the minority aired their views. Typically, the minority has had to approach their argument with far more delicacy and tact than one of the majority would, or risk being labeled a disturber of the peace, for want of a better definition, and being told to siddown and shuddup -- and that's something expected in non-messageboard society as well.

Again, I'm not saying that's right or a pardonable offense. Just so we're clear on it. I'm not out to exculpate people or groups by any stretch of the imagination, mostly because I dislike the notion that dissent has to be pussyfooted and self-effacing, especially given current events and prevailing attitudes (at least where I live). Now:

In the particular instance of character discussion, part of the vitriol that has run throughout this thread comes from the resentment that comes from mistaking attack on a character for an attack on the reader. It calls into question the reader's value judgments and their perception of the text -- and I think here it's important to stress *text*, which is in turn mistaken for a real-life surrogate person. For some, having their interpretation of canon questioned is far and away more worthy of their fury than having their value judgments (e.g. treating a character as "friend" or "enemy" based on the criteria they would use in establishing a relationship with a flesh-and-blood being) questioned. Vice versa applies as well, I would imagine. Some people resent both equally, depending on the degree to and manner in which they interact with the text.

Yes, I admit I reacted with hostility toward Cindy, Elkins (to whom I was a bit snarky), Debbie, and others who professed their dislike of the twins. There, I said it. Some of my objections to their posts were based in different interpretations of canon scenarios; a great deal, though, as it has become obvious through the course of this thread, is personal. Given the prevailing and not-so-prevailing currents of the discussion, I view F&G with a bit more wariness generated from being exposed to alternate viewpoints on canon that I hadn't previously considered, but still like them out of personal familiarity and tolerance for their traits. And that is, I think, the way it will stand. 

Once again to bring in a Real Life example, I was recently at a conference listening to a panel on Margery Kempe. After the last well-reasoned and thoughtful paper was given, all semblance of academic reserve was utterly lost; once individuals ran out of long-winded citations of passages supporting their views on Margery as either a whacked-out hormonal schizophrenic or a misunderstood mystic (or whatever), they were basically reduced to furious splutterings and repetitions of "Honestly! I don't *believe*...", bitter glares in the direction of their adversaries, and what have you. I think it illustrates the difficulty -- or, perhaps, the impossibility -- of divorcing personal from academic investment in a text. One will inevitably color the other, although I think personal bias has the initial and probably more powerful advantage. After all, personal proclivity, removed from the influence of Required Reading, dictates what someone will be drawn to read, and what characters she will like or dislike. If she is so inclined, she'll pursue the text more deeply and attempt to ferret out why it is she likes a character, or dislikes a character the author is attempting to set up as sympathetic, and so on. Ultimately, though, segregating personal preference from dispassionate dispute strikes me as being a futile endeavor.

But -- ah, there's always the qualifier -- we should *try* to some extent, shouldn't we? The questioning of a character, I agree, is not a questioning of the reader's character in and of itself, unless it's specifically phrased as an attack on the reader's acuity (eg. "Only an idiot would like X.") It's a fine line, though, and we've toed it many times in this thread, if not crossed it altogether.

And now I think I can go to sleep.

HF.






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