Why I Dislike The Twins

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 43286

Elkins rapped:

>I do not like them making mock.  I do not like them picking lock.  
>I do not like their gambling fix.  I do not like their Toffee 
>tricks.   I do not like Canary Creams.  I do not like their 
>business schemes.  I just don't *like* that Forge and Gred.  I do 
>not *like* them, Elfun Deb!

OK, you guys are pretty darn good at this Dr. Seuss thing!

But, uh, I . . . I hope there's no requirement that we start off our 
posts in the style of our favorite Dr. Seuss story.  See, I 
like "Horton Hears A Who," but it doesn't have any good lines that 
would be applicable here.  I mean, there's "A person's a person, no 
matter how small," but that doesn't seem to fit into this discussion 
very well, does it?

Although . . . 

You know the Wickersham brothers, who lasso Horton's stomach with 
ten miles of rope, cage him and taunt him relentlessly?  You know 
the black-bottomed bird who steals Horton's clover, and after Horton 
pursues her all night to the point of exhaustion, maliciously drops 
it into a patch of clover a hundred miles wide?  You know that 
kangaroo (and the little kangaroo in her pouch who says, "Me, too!") 
who threatens the Whos with a hot steaming kettle of beezlenut oil 
until the Whos are forced to beg for their very lives at the top of 
their lungs?  

Bullies.  Every last one of them.  ;-)

Man, I love that book!

********************
Elkins (wondering in Message 43,271 why some have objected to "over-
analysis" of canon):

> The obvious explanation that leaps to mind, of course, is that 
>people  just plain don't like what I have to say, and that they 
>therefore feel compelled to dismiss it as irrelevant because in 
>that way they hope they can make me stop saying it.  But surely 
>that can't really be the case, can it?  That would imply that 
>people find my reading somehow *threatening.*  How on earth could a 
>simple observation about the behavior of a couple of minor 
>characters in a work of fiction be so tremendously upsetting to a 
>group of mature adults?  


I think I might know.  Maybe.  Let me have a go and let's see where 
we wind up.

Elkins, Eileen, Debbie and a few others have indicated that the 
twins' behavior never struck them as funny.  That it was sickening 
to them from their first reading of the text.  That they didn't find 
it funny for even one minute.  As you all may know from my posts on 
this thread, I agree with them that some of the twins' behavior is 
bullying behavior.

But I have to admit that I didn't always view it that way.  Nope, 
not me.  I found the Ton Tongue Toffee thing *hilarious* the first 
time I read it.  And the second.  And the third.  As for the other 
behavior of the twins that is cited as bullying or mean-spirited, I 
didn't read it that way.  I either found it amusing or I glossed 
over it and so didn't attach much meaning to it one way or the other.

In fact, I don't think I gave the twins' behavior a second thought 
until I first saw the issue discussed on this list.  If my memory is 
correct, it probably was Elkins who first raised the question of 
whether the twins are bullies, at least in the time I have been a 
member, anyway.

And I still remember my reaction to her remarks at the time:  Gulp!  

I was stunned that she read the twins the way she did, saw them as 
bullies, and didn't care for them much.  I started to wonder if she 
had a point.  I started to wonder what was wrong with *me* such that 
I didn't immediately notice the bullying issue when I read the 
books.  After all, I wasn't a bully as a child, I always felt sorry 
for the bully's victims, I knew then and know now that bullying is 
wrong, and as a child I did what little I could to help out the 
victims of bullying whenever it was safe to do so (although 
admittedly rarely actually entering the fray on the victim's 
behalf).  My own failure to see what Elkins saw so clearly caused me 
to feel a bit defensive (although, as you can see, I'm well over 
that feeling and have come around to Elkins' point of view).

But *why* did I feel so taken aback and defensive when Elkins first 
raised the issue months ago?  I found the twins' behavior funny.  
Elkins didn't.  So what?

I think my initial reaction might be the same reaction a person has 
when they laugh at certain types of off-color jokes and this is 
later pointed out to them.  Imagine that someone tells a racist 
joke, and you laugh.  Then someone else points out that they think 
the joke was racist and therefore not funny.  

Personally, I would feel defensive and embarrassed.  Obviously, if I 
didn't catch on to the fact that the joke was racist – and worse, if 
I found it *funny* – this says something about *me,* doesn't it?  It 
says that, deep down, I have some racist ideas all my very own, 
right?  Clearly, I wasn't raised properly, as I should have caught 
on to the racist implications of the joke on my own, without anyone 
drawing my attention to them.  Or my views that racism is wrong 
aren't as deeply held as I always believed, perhaps.  I would be 
mortified at my lapse, and I would probably struggle to find another 
explanation -- any explanation -- to avoid confronting my lapse and 
what it might mean.

So then.  Back to Elkins' question.  Is it threatening to hear that 
one's favorite characters might display some negative character 
traits that one had previously failed to notice?  Yes, in some sense 
it is.  

Now, keep in mind that I'm not trying to dismiss the concerns and 
arguments of those who genuinely do not believe the twins are 
bullies.  I'm *not* saying, "Oh, you people who like the twins and 
don't think they're bullies are just looking for an excuse not to 
confront your own lapse, and what you're saying isn't valid as a 
result."  That's not what I'm saying at all.  Like I said before, I 
think whether one thinks the twins are bullies is highly subjective 
and depends on how one interpret canon clues in light of his or her 
own experiences with bullying, perhaps.  Reasonable minds can and do 
differ on the point, and I think the people who have said the twins 
are not bullies and those who take the opposite position make many 
good points and all genuinely believe in the validity of their 
points of view.

What I am saying is that this thread has generated a lot of very 
thoughtful and well-reasoned replies on both sides of the issues.  I 
would speculate, however, that if I were to kick off a discussion 
about how Ginny is a bully, there would not be scores of lengthy, 
well-reasoned replies.  No, there would be scores of people who roll 
their eyes, ignore me completely and move on to the next topic, and 
there would be a couple who would take a few minutes to show me why 
I was totally off-base.  There certainly wouldn't be a week's worth 
of heart-felt posts on the point.

So why the tremendous interest in whether the twins are bullies?

It's because, IMO, the discussion touches a nerve.  It makes people 
uncomfortable in the same way that learning that a racist joke 
amused them makes them uncomfortable.  Perhaps people get a little 
defensive, maybe a little vested in making darn clear that *they* 
did not laugh at bullying behavior because the twins' behavior was 
not, *not,* NOT bullying behavior.  Because if (like me) they 
laughed at the twins' behavior and then can be convinced that it is 
bullying and mean-spirited, they will either have to change their 
opinion of the twins or explain how it is that someone as caring and 
thoughtful and fair as they are could be amused by bullying 
behavior.  

That could be why people did not just roll their eyes when they came 
across this bullying thread and move on to the next thread.  Because 
when you think about it, the thread might involve something more 
than a garden-variety difference of opinion about canon.

It's a theory, anyway.  ;-)

This discussion of the twins is not the first time criticism of a 
character has touched off controvery on the list, BTW.  That same 
reaction, I think, is part of what could be happening when some of 
us start to feel uncomfortable or irritated when a list member 
points out the undesirable traits of some of the more beloved 
characters in the books.  For instance, I adore Moody, and the first 
time someone pointed out that Real Moody behaves like a Rogue Cop, I 
felt a bit defensive.  Civil liberties are important to me, so why 
weren't my police misconduct warning bells clanging loudly at 
Moody's behavior in the Pensieve?  Maybe my beliefs about the 
importance of civil liberties and police misconduct aren't as deeply 
held as I like to claim they are.  

Gulp!

Similarly, when Jenny and I get on a roll about Hagrid, some people 
become very unhappy about this.  As some of you might know, I'm not 
a big fan of either Hagrid or Lockhart.  I think both characters are 
not well written and are over the top.  They could both benefit from 
having been written with more subtlety, IMO.  When I say this, 
people are much more vociferous about voicing their disagreement 
with me about Hagrid than about Lockhart (and believe me, Lockhart 
does have his fans).  Why?  

I'm still not sure, to tell you the truth.  Why is it OK not to 
appreciate the way Lockhart is written but decidedly not OK to say 
the same thing about Hagrid?  If I'm so wrong about Hagrid, why 
don't people just blow right past my post pointing out his many 
character flaws?  

I wonder if it is because people feel threatened somehow, perhaps 
for the same reason that people might feel threatened when the 
twins' behavior is questioned.  Maybe they found Hagrid's alcohol 
abuse and general irresponsibility cute or endearing, and my remarks 
are making them question their affection for Hagrid?  I still don't 
know.

Lastly, there might be one more thing at work here.  If a person 
reads the books and does not read this list, that person will likely 
remain stuck in the very same place she was when she finished the 
last page of GoF.  If she reads this list, however, she is likely to 
have things pointed out that she hadn't noticed.  It *does* affect 
how a person will read and react to future books.  

It certainly has affected me.  In future books, I'll be keeping an 
eye on the twins.  I'll be keeping an eye on Moody, too.  And I'll 
be sensitive to even the slightest amount of bullying behavior from 
the twins or civil liberties violations from Moody.  These 
discussions have permanently changed the way I will read and enjoy 
the remaining books in the series.  For me, this is a good thing on 
balance.  I have a much deeper appreciation for the books than I did 
before I discovered this list, and that deeper appreciation is worth 
the loss of enjoyment I would have obtained from my previously 
superficial approach to the canon.

I imagine that some people don't welcome having their reading 
experience changed in this way.  I can understand that.  If JKR 
sticks to the same brand of humor in the next three books, future 
books won't be nearly as fun for me as the first four books as a 
direct result of the things various list members have said.  I'll be 
laughing a lot less and wincing a lot more, I suspect.  I'll be 
watching out for the SYCOPHANTS and cheering more for the powerless 
against the powerful.  

And who can blame me?  After all – a person's a person no matter how 
small.  ;-)

Cindy – who thinks Dr. Seuss wrote some really convincing bullies, 
and who is still feeling badly for Horton in "Horton Hatches An Egg" 
and Mack in "Yertle The Turtle"