Twins, Toons, What is bullying?

[lupinesque]

No: HPFGUIDX 43279

> Dicentra wrote:
> 
> > I think that reading HP without taking into account that some 
> > characters are Toons ends up distorting the story. 

Elkins wrote:

> I think that it would distort the story even more if we were to 
> assume that only the realistically portrayed scenes have any real 
> significance or can be assumed to convey anything about character.
>  
> For one thing, if the "Toonish" scenes have no meaning that relates 
> to the rest of the text, then what on earth are they *for?*  I 
really 
> don't think that the story works very well if we discount all of 
the 
> toonish bits as irrelevant comic interludes, included for no other 
> purpose but to give us all a nice laugh before we move on to the 
rest 
> of the story.  

I agree with almost everything else you wrote in this post, Elkins, 
but I'll quibble with this.  The point is not that Toonish interludes 
have *no* significance and convey *nothing* about the character.  The 
point as I read it is just that they convey *less.*  Now, you may be 
right that this isn't the case either--I am rethinking thanks to your 
eloquence--but I can't help jumping in when I see a line of argument 
turned into something flatter than it is (a Toon perhaps).

* * * * *

On to bullying.  I keep going over this in my head and thinking about 
why "bullying" does not seem right for describing the twins.  I am 
definitely on the sensitive end of the scale when it comes to 
identifying bullying behavior, and though I do indeed *want* to like 
Fred and George (and approve of all of JKR's morality) and so fall 
into that tendency you identify, I'm able to sigh and say "guess JKR 
and I part ways on this one" on various issues, e.g. her 
distressingly schoolyardish inability to describe Dudley without 
repeating terms like "porky," "massive," "fat bottom," 
and "waddling."  So what's going on with Fred and George?  Why don't 
I just say "OK, they're bullies," and be done with it?

I just think the word "bully" overplays the dynamic.  Maybe English 
doesn't have the right word for it.  Maybe we keep using words that 
are not borne out by canon, like "stomp" for what Fred and George did 
to Goyle and Malfoy (I still don't think it was a Nice Thing to Do, 
mind.  But it was NOT a stomp.  Imagine your foot being "stepped on" 
or "tread on"--the terms JKR uses--and then imagine it being stomped 
on.  Not at all the same thing).  There are a continuum of behavior, 
a continuum of power imbalances, and a variety of motivations to any 
unkind behavior, and for such behavior to be called "bullying," I 
need to see (1) a certain level of endangerment/damage (it has only 
to be very slight, in my reckoning); (2) a sufficient power imbalance 
between perpetrator and victim that makes it different from a fair 
fight; and (3) a desire to wound or wield power (i.e. accidental 
harm, even if it is very deadly, would not not bullying).

Just to look at one of the incidents that has received the most ink:  
within the dynamic of the relationships among Dudley, Harry, and the 
twins, I see the Ton-Tongue-Toffee as righteous comeuppance, with 
only a mild shading of bullying.  Looking at my personal criteria one 
by one:  

Damage:  definitely enough to be called bullying.  Dudley is 
humiliated, terrified, and in great physical distress.  

Power imbalance:  tricky.  At the moment, Fred and George have the 
upper hand; such is always the case with stealth pranks such as 
enchanted food.  Furthermore, the power imbalance of the thin vs. the 
fat is in play here, especially if, as Mr. Weasley claims, they knew 
he was on a diet (and this must be the case; after all, Mr. Weasley 
knows.  He must've gotten that info from the same source as F & G--a 
letter from Harry to Ron, most likely).  However, Dudley has been 
systematically bullying Harry for 13 years.  This is a rare 
opportunity for the surrogate big brothers to give him a thumping.  
(I hasten to add that I don't approve of corporal punishment, of 
revenge, or of the my-big-brothers-will-beat-you-up approach to a 
bully, but--my point--I *do* think that all of these things are quite 
distinct from bullying.)  They have never met Dudley before and may 
never again; they are aware that Harry has to go back for a summer of 
torment every year and, presumably, also aware how much he dreads 
it.  *We* know just how bad the power imbalance has been between 
Dudley and Harry (need I detail the pinching, beating, constant 
belittling, imprisonment, etc. that came from Dudley directly or 
indirectly for their first 10 years together?), and that the past 
three years have done little to correct it; for all Harry's threats 
of "hocus-pocus," Dudley's smirks, insults, and willingness to be 
alone in the room with Harry indicate that he still feels he has the 
upper hand.  Had Harry had a pair of champions around, they'd have 
swung into action long ago.  Now they have their chance.  I think 
this is an overdue blow in a fair fight, not an unfair picking-on of 
underdog Dudley.  To be precise, the fight is not fair, but it's 
*Dudley* who has the upper hand.  He's been slugging away for 13 
years with only the occasional counter-blow by Harry (Harry's pretty 
feisty, but Dudley has had the backing of Petunia, Vernon, a gang of 
friends, and apparently the school he and Harry went to); now he 
receives an uppercut from the big brothers.  Not Nice, but not a case 
of the bullies picking on the underdog, not at all.

Motivation:  On this one we have the twins' exact words, and I 
believe them.  "'We didn't give it to him because he was a Muggle!' 
Fred said indignantly"--why indignantly?  Because he thinks being 
mean to a bully is justifiable, while bullying a Muggle is not.  
George: "We gave it to him because he's a great bullying git."  And 
then the "isn't he, Harry?"--clearly, off the page, Harry has filled 
the twins in on some of his mistreatment by Dudley, entirely 
accurately; he IS a great bullying git.  
     The Ton-Tongue Toffee skates along the border of Muggle-baiting, 
yes (since their Muggle victim is more terrified by it than a wizard 
one would be), even though I agree with Elkins that they were not 
cognizant of this at the time.  I love her point that it is on the 
light end of an increasingly dark progression of wizard-on-Muggle 
violence portrayed in GF (not in the Pensieve, though; in chapter 
27.  There is nothing about attacks on Muggles in the Pensieve).  I 
think JKR is aware of this, also; wizards who really want to do right 
by Muggles are going to have to be aware of subtle forms of 
mistreatment as well as obvious ones, and Arthur is right to upbraid 
the kids for taking advantage of a Muggle boy, even if that wasn't 
their intent.  However, after all is said and done, I can only put 
their motivation a shade away from the "revenge" end 
of "revenge . . . . bullying."

JMHO,
Amy Z