[HPforGrownups] The Twins

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43301


There have been some particularly sensitive posts on this subject, today, I 
think.
What I find particularly encouraging is that Tabouli (welcome back, Tabouli!) 
and Cindy both found ways of expressing why members of the group have such 
strongly differing opinions and what it might be that touches a nerve in us.
I apologise for ruthlessly snipping short passages from these posts.

Tabouli differentiated between the function which she perceives them to have, 
that of 'team coaches' one one level and their character portrayal on another 
level:

Tabouli:
>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.

Thank goodness. I was beginning to think I was almost the only person round 
here who could see the validity of interpreting the twins in more than one 
light simultaneously.
I suspect that they were originally envisaged rather as Toons (and I do mean 
in the sense that Dicentra meant it, as clarified in her latest post) and 
this is my instinctive reading.
Yet the books have proved worthy of deeper analysis and deeper analysis of 
the twins seems to be a little worrying.

If we insist on analysing the text at one level only, then we are like the 
two women observed arguing from adjacent properties, unable to agree because 
we are arguing from different premises.
As Ali has just pointed out, since I started writing, it may be useful to 
read on more than one plane at once and I think this is what I tend to do.

Cindy tackled the question of why they are such an emotive topic, on the way 
explaining how her reading of them has changed:

>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.  

I think this is very true and once we start to analyse the twins as 
characters who have a real effect on other characters or who because they 
seem to have authorial approval might be seen as role models, then we have a 
problem, whether or not we actually label them as 'bullies'. I actually think 
that the labelling issue isn't necessarily very helpful. It's what they *do* 
that is at issue, isn't it, rather than whether they technically fall into a 
particular definition of bullying (although posts regarding the latter have 
been informative and helpful in making us think about what the twins *do* 
actually do: I don't want anyone to think I am belittling their 
contribution). 

Cindy has gone on a journey where her perception of the twins has changed. I 
would say that mine has perhaps gained another layer, another plane, as Ali 
said. You see, I don't feel compelled to justify why I find the twins funny, 
despite the fact that I would like to think of myself as caring, thoughtful 
and fair, as Cindy puts it. I can see why others interpret them as bullies, 
yet *I* still find them amusing.  I am amused by humorous scenes and 
situations, by jokes which are sometimes banal (I'm easily amused), by JKR's 
inventiveness. I am amused by them as I would be by cartoon characters. But 
if I analyse their behaviour as *characters*, then I do regard them as often 
(but by no means always) careless of others' feelings, often (but by no means 
always) self-centred.  

Cindy again:
> 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.  

I have an image of Cindy trying on the Sorting Hat and worrying about whether 
she's been put in the right house.

We all have bits of ourselves that we aren't comfortable with, don't we? And 
some of us worry that there are still more bits in there that we wouldn't 
like if we knew about them. But I think this is both one of the functions of 
literature and one of the functions of humour. Humour allows us to laugh at 
things that in the real world we would find abhorrent, to assimilate them, to 
deal with them, to acknowledge that there are those dark recesses in there 
that we'd rather not think about. If I laugh, for example, at a scene of 
comedy violence, you might think it is because I am uncivilised enough to 
think that violence per se is OK and the victim deserved all he got. OTOH, it 
might be because I am a human animal and humans, unfortunately have a 
regrettable instinct to violence which many of us have (to a greater or 
lesser extent) sublimated. Yet the instinct is still there and comedy allows 
a cathartic release of what is deep within us. Tragedy does it too, of 
course, only perhaps this is more socially acceptable.

You know, I think we *could* argue that unwillingness to laugh at the twins 
is as much a distancing, defensive reaction as the rush to defend them from 
the charge of being bullies. Just a thought.

But hey, it's our choices that make us who we are, isn't it? Not whatever is 
lurking in the darkest corners of our psyches, waiting to jump out like a 
boggart when a sensitive topic is broached. So it's OK for Cindy to adore 
Moody and for Elkins to adore (is that the right word?) Crouch Jr (for whom I 
also have a strong appreciation) and for me to adore Snape. The fact that we 
do says nothing at all about our own choices in leading our own lives.


Cindy again:
>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.  

<snip>
>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.  

It's certainly true that our discussions inform our reading. My reading too 
would have been pretty superficial and I suppose this group has politicised 
my thinking about various issues, as well as allowing me to develop my 
thinking about the ethical issues contained in the books. But I do fear for 
your future enjoyment. I can't see why JKR *would* change her brand of humour 
as she has said that she writes what she enjoys. 


To go off on a different tack, I have begun to wonder if there is a cultural 
element to this problem.
British humour is not always very, erm, *subtle*, you know. 
We have a very strong strain of slapstick/toon-type violence/ crude school 
boy
humour which some of us never really grow out of, JKR included, I suspect.

Eloise