[HPforGrownups] Re: Why I Dislike The Twins (longish addendum)

[yr awen]

No: HPFGUIDX 43278

No, I *can't* go to bed because I have to correct part of my post I had cut out; in going back to cut & paste stuff into NotePad, I clicked the 'Send' button as opposed to the 'Cut' button, which results in the bit of cliffhanger you might find in one paragraph. Stupid HF. Stupid Outlook. This rather hefty addendum should appear as follows:

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 [CLIFFHANGER!] *very* nastily to the mere thought that someone could so dislike the twins, who I like very much. After a bit of huffing, private raging, breaking things, etc. I was able to calm down and look at things a bit more objectively. My eventual conclusion was that, well, F&G aren't squeaky clean and shiny-new -- I never thought they were -- but my perception of them has never been of them as morally admirable beings. Similarly, my F&G-like friend was never admired for the quality of his mind, or his moral stance on issues. We found ourselves in a situation we both regarded as intolerable -- being surrounded by irritating siblings and later being snickered at in middle school -- and found that we could overcome our differences sufficiently enough to become friends and remain so.

In re-evaluating my proxy relationship with the twins, as an experiment, I tried to divorce personal experience and inclination from rigorously dispassionate evaluation of the text, using canon as much as possible and extrapolating only when necessary (and then under circumstances with much soul-searching and refusal to become reminsicent and personally attached.) My conclusion is that -- not surprisingly -- the canon text is unhelpful. Reasons:

1.) Harry's POV is as far from unbiased as you're going to get, and his situation is set up in such a way as to make him and his viewpoints immediately sympathetic to the reader, thus garnering him an ally in his war against the Dursleys, Draco, Snape, and other antagonists. This has been pointed out elsewhere and the solution for it is to look specifically at the bare-bones action of certain scenarios and/or extrapolate behavioral motivation from them.

2.) Apparently, JKR has stated in interviews that canon is freighted against people such as the Dursleys, which makes evaluating them on their own merits difficult at best. To what extent this applies to other Potter antagonists, whether it's Draco, Lucius, Pettigrew, Snape, or whoever, is a little less certain; there's at least psychological explanation given for Pettigrew's action and we know Snape is something more than he appears. Draco, though...

3.) Taken as a whole, canon scenarios indicate that the twins like trouble, both getting into and out of, it (duh), but rarely give categorical, conclusive statements. Those statements are filled in by Harry's POV, which is undeniably sympathetic toward the twins, and Ron's remarks concerning their popularity. In picking through a few scenarios, I dredged up the following:
a. - I can't approve of the 10TT incident because of the physical risk involved that's lightly blown over (and it's just nasty -- there's no other way around it) and the twins' bad combination of exuberant "creativity" and Machiavellian methodology. Overall, this might point to a general Weasley characteristic, little or no sense of moderation. Percy shares in it, as does Ron. Arthur and Molly might, as well. 
b. - The Canary Cream incident (GoF), however, does not suggest specific, mean-spirited targeting of weaker or younger students as was frequently claimed; Neville is one of the couple dozen possible people who could end up eating the cream and there's nothing in the text to suggest otherwise. 
c. - The lexicographical vagueness of "catcalling" (PS/SS) and "hissing" (GoF) Lavender Brown and Malcom Baddock respectively make evaluation of motive difficult, as both terms connote different things depending on the reader: "catcalling" can be a derisive hoot made by female objectifiers or an honest expression of enthusiasm that is *not* sexually-charged; "hissing" is, as Pippin pointed out, the sound appropriate to Slytherin House but is also derisive.
d. - The attempted blackmailing of Bagman seems to be attempted as a last resort, according to George at the conclusion of GoF (borne out by snatches of conversation overheard by Harry and Ron), although they would probably be much better served by asking Arthur to speak with Bagman or enlisting official support -- not that, in Bagman's case, it would help.
e. - Lockpicking in CoS strikes me, as I've said, as being JKR's only way to get Harry out of the Dursleys' house without bringing down the wrath of the Ministry, but remains quite in-character for the twins; conversely, their reason for getting Harry out of there does have some scrap of moral fiber in it -- and Molly agrees that Harry was in an untenable situation.
f. - Hexing Draco & co. is retaliatory on the parts of *all* parties involved, the Trio included; given the utter lack of human feeling on Draco's part, and his ability to strike some very raw and painful nerves on all parts, the most dispassionate verdict I can give for myself is that, if not justified, the actions of the Trio & F&G are understandable. Stepping on Draco &c. while they were knocked out is too closely comparable to what one might call kicking a man when he's down.
g. - Various pranks and inventions: some are low-brow, but to dream up some things takes genuine creativity. It may seem like a travesty of creativity to employ it creating hexed sweets and fake wands, but to quote Serendipity from Kevin Smith's Dogma, the problem with being a Muse is that "you have no say in the editorial process." Ron laments his position as their younger brother by saying F&G mess around a lot, but still get good grades -- although they don't do as well on their OWLs as their mother would have hoped.
h. - The constant harassment of Percy is detrimental in the sense that all harassment is, after some point. My mental jury is still out at this point, as it's the dynamic I find I have the most trouble dissociating myself from. In my odd little family circle, I'm the straight-laced, rule-abiding, perfect know-it-all Academic -- read: Hermione -- and as such when my sisters and I were younger I was the frequent target of F&G-type teasing. My reaction in earlier posts, that Percy sets himself up for it by being a bit full of himself, is based largely on excruciatingly honest personal retrospective. I *was* a perfect know-it-all Academic, was anal-retentive and obsessed with detail, and took every opportunity I could to rub it in my sisters' collective faces.

Wait...

Come to think of it, I haven't changed much <g> At any rate, I now have to wonder how my sisters managed to tolerate me as long as they did. Although I still wonder how I tolerated *them*.

HF.
who is now going to go and collapse, thank you very much.


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