The Twins: Smells like team spirit

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 43281

I mentioned in my last post that the Twins' behaviour, to their minds anyway, is that of a team coach. I suspect that putting this under a TBAY banner may made many people avoid it, but as what I said is related to Elkins' comments, I'll reiterate.

As team coaches, Twins see their role as being tough on people.  The fate of the team is far more important than the feelings of individuals.  They take great pains to protect interests of the team's star player (Harry).  They try to shame weak players into lifting their game in a way intended to amuse and thereby lift the morale of the rest of the team (Neville).  They have no time for people letting "trivial" (i.e. non-team-related) issues such as a petrified classmate or dead pet interfere with their performance (Ginny). They come down hard on anyone they think is showing more loyalty to their own interests than they are to the team and the game (Percy).  They cannot conceal their resentment at someone who defeated and thereby humiliated their team, especially when the victory was not entirely merit-based (Cedric). They cheer on their side furiously when skirmishes happen (Arthur vs Lucius), and do their best to undermine the morale of the opposition (Draco, Malcolm, etc.).

I'm not saying that there's no element of wanting personal acclaim for their good humour and jokes, but I think when you look at their behaviour outside their joking role, you do see a real loyalist knight kind of attitude in them.  So what attitude do people have to them?

The star player, who lives under their protection and is entertained by their antics, thinks they're great.  They're rebels with hearts of gold.  The ordinary rank and file in the team, who admire the star greatly, also like them.  Why wouldn't they?  Fred and George are charismatic, fun and intensely loyal to the team, which coincides with their interests.  When they see F&G hassling the Enemy, they love it.  It's only being loyal to do so.  The people who are less enthused are those who get the rough end of the coaches' Bludger bats.

First there's the poor performers who let the side down all the time.  As loyal team members, they know are are shamed by their poor performance dragging down the team, and they may well just take the coaches' jocular taunts and the other players' indulgent laughter on the chin like Neville does, understanding that their pride is being sacrificed for a Greater Good.  Others (like Ron when the Twins give the map to the star player instead of their own brother) quietly resent the coach but don't voice this because the coach is above reproach.  Criticising the coach is disloyalty to the team.

Then there's the sensitive types whose performance is severely affected by incidents the coach dismisses also get it tough, as do those who (gasp!) put their own priorities before the coaches'.  Dead pet?  The coach has No Sympathy.  Dead friend?  You can mourn for a day or two, but I expect you to play at your best this weekend.  Not behaving in a way that shows team spirit the way the coaches want it (Percy)?  Expect to be cut down to size.

Finally, there's the Enemy.  To the coaches, team loyalty justifies all.  If the enemy have the temerity to threaten the well-being or morale of the star (Dudley, Draco), they need to be flattened, and if you get a moral-boosting laugh for Our Side out of it, so much the better.

Here is where we shift from the Twins to the HPFGU listmembers, via Elkins:
> One of the things that I hoped to point out in that message was that 
often, when we talk about "liking" or "disliking" a character, we are 
actually evaluating them by the same criteria that we apply to real 
people in real life -- and that if moral virtue is among those 
criteria at all, it is usually pretty far down on the list. <
(...)
> It's only human, I suppose: we readily forgive the
people we like for precisely the same behavior that we roundly
condemn in the people we loathe; my friend's Endearing Little
Foible is my enemy's Horrible Great Sin.<

I'm seeing a few things in this BUTTERFLIES (pro-Twins) versus PRATTLESNAKES (anti-Twins) debate (see previous post for acronyms).

One level is of course real life experience.  People who have had bad experiences with people like Fred and George tend not to like them and perceive them as bullies.  To link this to the coach metaphor, they were the butt of the jokes, the weak player, or, more likely, one of the Enemy.

People whose experience of bullying is very different from the way they see F&G behaving don't.  My suspicion is that some of the BUTTERFLIES perceive themselves as devoted supporters, or even members, of Harry's team (the Good Side).  To the devoted supporter, criticising such loyal, dedicated coaches is heresy.  It's not showing team spirit!  The star of the team is Harry, and look how well they look after him!  Their teasing of Neville amused them and other team members, raising morale, and was obviously not done with genuine evil intent, because the Twins and Neville are on the same side and therefore have the same interests at heart.  On the other hand, the Twins owe no loyalty at all to players from the Enemy Side.  If the ultimate aim is to destroy them, why bother sparing their finer feelings?  They're the Enemy!  If they have the temerity to threaten the morale or well-being of someone on our side, particularly the star, they Deserve Everything They Get!

That's one level of analysis.  The second one, however, has to do with the "over-analysing" and "reading too much into" comments.

There's another, more abstract level from which you can look at JKR's people, and that is as creations.  Characters in a book.  From this point team loyalty is not really relevant; what's important is looking at what JKR makes her characters do and say and trying to assess it independently of their treatment of the star player, or what side they're on, or whether you like them, or whether you approve of their actions.  This is the level I find most interesting.  It's also the level being accused of being overanalysing.

The problem seems to be that some people here are arguing on the first level, and some on the second level.  One group is arguing about team loyalty, the other is arguing about character portrayal.  It seems to me that the first group is fighting slurs on the good character of the loyal team coaches (how could anyone criticise people who fight for the right side, protect the star of the show and deliver justice to the enemy for their misdeeds against our players?).  The second group are trying to step back from JKR's placement of the Twins on the Good Side as Harry's protectors and resident entertainers and examine their behaviour free of team bias.

For my own part, I don't feel strongly enough about the Twins to don a badge, but I can happily admit to different feelings on these two levels.  On a team loyalty level, sure, I appreciate the Twins' efforts to look after Harry, rescue him from the nasty Dursleys, avenge him against Draco, keeping him amused.  However, on a character portrayal level, I agree with Elkins that the victims of the Twins' antics are likely to feel intimidated and bullied, and I agree with those who don't find their brand of slapstick retribution very entertaining.

Tabouli.


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