Toon Talk (WAS Who Framed Fred and George?)

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 43315

Dicentra wrote (about the revised Toon bullet points):

>  They [the twins] just don't seem to be able to land
> *real* blows on the victims of their pranks.

Ah, but what does it mean to land a *real blow* on the victim of a 
prank?  This, to me, is one of the central questions, so we probably 
shouldn't just assume or declare that the twins don't land real 
blows.  The idea of whether characters are capable of landing real 
blows seems central to the theory, so we probably will have to do 
our level best to work out what this means.

How do we know if a character is landing a *real blow?*  Well, in 
cartoons and in a fictional world of wizards, we could say there is 
*never* a real blow.  Nothing in the wizarding world (or the 
animated world) functions according to the standards any of us in RL 
must abide by.  But that can't be the end of the analysis.  If it 
were, no Toon-ish character –- a character in an entirely fictional 
world -- could ever land a blow.  But as I demonstrated in my 
whimsical reference to Dr. Seuss, even the most simple children's 
fiction contains real bullies -– bullies depicted as animals with 
wide eyes and smiling faces, bullies speaking in verse and playing 
for laughs, but bullies landing real blows nonetheless.

So how do we know if a character is landing a *real blow?*  Well, we 
evaluate this using the only tools we have – what the author tells 
us coupled with our own experiences.  We use empathy.  We imagine 
that this or that prank did or did not cause physical or 
psychological pain, based on the author's description of the prank 
in the text, the description of the aftermath in the text, and to 
some extent based on our understanding of the way our own world 
works.  

Were the twins functioning as Toons when they played the TTT prank?  
I don't know, but I'm still unsure what difference the label "Toon" 
makes.  Even under the Toon theory, either the character caused 
needless physical or psychological pain to the victim – thereby 
landing a *real blow* or they did not, regardless of whether they do 
it in the middle of a comedic scene or not.  

In the TTT prank, it is quite clear to me that the twins scored a 
*real blow* to Dudley, that it hurt, and that it might scar him 
emotionally the way the pig's tail episode scarred him.  So did the 
TTT prank cause real pain?  Yup.  Did the twins land a real blow?  
Yup.  I think so.

How do we know?  There's the language JKR uses, for one 
thing.  "Horrible gagging sound."  "Scream[ing]."  "Gagging and 
sputtering."  "Bellowing."  "Panic stricken."  "Sobbing 
hysterically."  "Suffocating."  Yeah, we get plenty of description 
of emotional and physical pain – a *real blow* indeed.

And for another thing, the twins *intended* to land a blow.  That 
was the whole purpose of dropping the TTT on the floor.  How can we 
now say that the twins didn't land a *real blow* when they set out 
with that very goal in mind and when their prank worked exactly 
according to plan?

 Dicentra:
 
> What the Toon theory posits is that not all fictional characters 
>are created equal. Some of them react realistically, others don't.  

Here, again, I have trouble.  Dudley reacts realistically.  He gags 
and suffocates.  His mother reacts realistically – she panics and 
tries to remove the obstruction.  His father reacts realistically – 
he panics, attempting to attack Mr. Weasley and defend his family in 
the only way he knows how.

Let me ask it this way.  What would it take to push that scene in 
the direction of a more realistic reaction to what we see already?  
More screaming?  Less screaming?  Weeping?  Begging?  As it was, the 
reactions of the Dursleys seemed quite realistic to me – given that 
we're operating in the magical world, of course.  Now, if the 
Dursleys had done something else – something to indicate they didn't 
feel threatened, that Dudley wasn't in pain, that none of this 
bothered them – then *that* would have been an unrealistic and 
Toonish reaction – the equivalent of Daffy strapping his beak back 
on and carrying on.  But that's really not what happened in the TTT 
scene.

 Dicentra (on Toon!Trelawney):
 
> Being a Toon has nothing to do with being liked or being forgiven. 

Maybe.  Maybe.  But I think one reason that list members find the 
Toon theory appealing is that it allows them to reconcile their 
discomfort at the idea of bullying and laughing at the pain of 
others with their desire to like two charismatic characters.  So I 
would say that there is a relationship between being a Toon and 
being liked and forgiven -– not in the theory itself, but in the way 
it is being applied to excuse the twins' actions, but more 
importantly, our own reactions to those actions.

Dicentra:

> As for Trelawney, she can't seem to land blows on Harry either. 
<snip>  To the extent that Trelawney acquires the ability to
> really hurt someone she emerges from Toon status and becomes 
>real.  

Fair enough.  The gist, then, is that Trelawney is a Toon and so far 
hasn't landed any real blows on Harry.  But if we remove the element 
of whether Trelawney is a Toon, we are still left with the salient 
question – did Trelawney or did she not inflict needless physical or 
emotional pain on Harry?  Once we answer that question, does it 
matter whether she is written for laughs throughout the story or 
only in certain parts of the story or at no point in the story?

> Cindy:
> 
> I'm still noodling through this whole issue of slapstick and
> come-uppance humor, but I think the bright line that separates 
whether
> something is potentially amusing or is sickening is the extent to
> which the victim is harmed, either on-screen or off-screen, 
including
> the extent to which the offending act itself is portrayed in a
> realistic light. In assessing whether the extent of the off-screen
> harm, it is quite reasonable for readers and viewers to rely on 
their
> own knowledge of the world and extrapolate what is hurtful and 
what is
> painful.
 
> Dicentra:
> 
> Except with Toons you can't rely on your own experience.  If I fell
>off a 6,000-foot cliff and landed face down in the rock, I'd become 
a
>puddle of skin, bones, and blood, and I'd be dead dead dead. It 
would
>not be funny at all. Wile E. Coyote, however, falls off cliffs all
>episode long. He's not harmed because he's a Toon. And it's 
>hysterical.

Well, sometimes you can and sometimes you can't rely on your 
personal experience.  It all depends on how the author describes an 
outlandish episode.  I have no idea what it would be like to have my 
tongue swell to several feet long.  But JKR thoughtfully advised us 
how this might feel.  And it looked scary, painful and life-
threatening –- just like a *real blow.*

As for the typical exaggerated injuries that animated characters 
suffer, you're right that this is often quite funny.  I disagree, 
however, that the Toon is not harmed "because he is a Toon."  The 
scene is funny so long as the viewer is not shown Wile E. Coyote 
with his guts splattered all over the canyon floor.  We don't see 
the aftermath.  He doesn't scream in pain.  His face barely 
changes.  He seems not to be bothered at all by his injuries.  That 
indifference to injury is not what we see or imagine in the TTT 
scene or the train stomp scene.  The victims in those scenes suffer 
*real blows.*

> Cindy:
> 
> Let's say we have a work of fiction. In it, one of the characters 
>is a black servant. Let's then assume that all of the characters 
>except for our black servant are white, and the black servant works 
>for all the white characters. ... OK. Now let's assume that the 
>white characters play practical jokes on our black servant. They 
>burn crosses in places where he can see them. They turn up in Klan 
>outfits. They tell racist jokes to the black character. Oh, the 
>white characters don't mean any harm, though. They never lay a hand 
>on our black servant character, and they adore him like a member of 
>the family, they really do. It's not intended to be malicious, and 
>it is not motivated by hatred. It's all in good fun, see? ... Would 
>anyone find this work of fiction funny? 
 
> Dicentra:
> 
> I wouldn't.  Even a mock representation of Klan violence, in which 
>the black character doesn't get hurt (he would just laugh it off), 
>would not strike me as funny.  And the reason I wouldn't find it 
>funny is that it's Too Close To The Truth.  

In this hypothetical, I invited each of us to construct it in any 
way we wished.  We had control over which characters were 
pranksters, which were minor, which were comedic, as well as the 
character and severity of the racist humor itself.  And no matter 
how you re-arrange those elements, the answer is unchanged – racist 
humor isn't funny.  So doesn't that mean the Toon theory is beside 
the point -– that something else entirely dictates whether slapstick 
humor, come-uppance humor and the like is funny?

Indeed, there was a reason why I gave several types of harassment 
examples.  I assume that each of these examples (including the least 
threatening, the racist jokes), wouldn't be funny to anyone.  Even 
if we take the hypothetical and depict every single harassment event 
entirely for laughs and as mildly as possible, it wouldn't be 
funny.  Even if the characters in the work of fiction were all wide-
eyed, lovable-looking animated characters, it still wouldn't be 
funny.  That's because the Toonishness of the characters doesn't 
dictate whether the humor is funny, IMHO.  

Further, one reason I chose the example of racism is that I thought 
there might be a useful parallel between the example involving the 
Klan and the TTT scene.  See, the Dursleys are *terrified* of All 
Things Magical.  By GoF, the Dursleys have seen a wizard barge into 
their quarters in the middle of the night and give their son a pig's 
tail for no real reason.  They have seen wizards damage their home 
on two occasions.  Wizards are more powerful and muggles are 
defenseless.  One can only imagine what else might have happened 
over the years to give the Dursleys such a tremendous fear of magic 
–- fear so overwhelming that they would flee their home and purchase 
a firearm to protect themselves from it.  That sounds a lot like how 
Klan victims view the Klan -– harassing and hurting defenseless 
people for no reason, abusing their power, even attacking in the 
middle of the night.  

So no.  Klan humor isn't funny.  And bullying humor (such as when 
powerful people pick on defenseless and weaker people) isn't funny 
to me, for a lot of the same reasons.  Toons notwithstanding.

Why, though?  I think it is because whether the authorial voice 
tries to say the characters are Toon-ish is beside the point.  
Whether the author intends people to laugh at abuse is beside the 
point.  And once the issue is serious enough, it isn't funny even if 
the perpetrator never lands a "real blow."  No, I think the point is 
that we all use our own experiences, morals and understanding of the 
world (in addition to what the author tells us) to evaluate whether 
a form of injury or abuse is significant.  It is the form of injury 
that is the most imporant factor in determining whether we will find 
the injury funny, IMHO, not whether the scene is played for 
laughs.   

Dicentra:

> So it doesn't matter whether the motives of the twins are 
>malicious, whether the twins like their victims, whether they go 
>for weaker or stronger victims.  It matters if the incident is 
>written as a joke (no one is hurt) or as a serious thing (someone 
>is hurt).  And then ultimately it matters whether the reader has 
>been hurt by real-life pranks (or "pranks").

Well, I almost agree.  Almost.  The problem I have is with this 
statement:  "It matters if the incident is written as a joke (no one 
is hurt) or as a serious thing (someone is hurt)."  This statement 
assumes that if something is written as a joke, no one can be hurt.  
That strikes me as incorrect.  My example involving race proved that 
is not the case -– that the scenes of racial harassment are 
presented as a joke does not make them funny.  Not at all.  And the 
TTT scene proved that a scene written as a joke can also have 
someone being hurt, right in front of our very eyes.  

I also find myself struggling with this statement:  "And then 
ultimately it matters whether the reader has been hurt by real-life 
pranks (or "pranks")."  Again, I'm not so sure about this.  I 
haven't been bullied myself.  I haven't been the victims of pranks – 
certainly not to the extent of others on this list.  Similarly, I 
can imagine that a person who has never been victimized by the Klan 
(or who is not even of a racial group that has been so victimized) 
would still not find Klan humor funny.  A person doesn't have to be 
vulnerable herself to find no humor in the vulnerability of others.  
As you say, some things violate our sense of morality so thoroughly 
that no amount of comedic writing and timing will make them funny.  
This isn't something that necessarily depends, IMHO, on whether one 
has *personal* experience that leads to heightened sensitivity.

*******************

Now what, though?  Is it impossible to be against bullying (or mean-
spirited behavior, if you prefer) and like the twins?  Is it 
impossible to be appalled by police misconduct but like Real Moody?

I certainly hope so.  But we need a theory.  We need some rationale 
that makes it logical to like a character, to defend a character, to 
appreciate a character despite flaws that cut to the heart of our 
core personal moral beliefs.

<looks around on floor for a decent theory>

Why, I seem to have a theory right here!  A theory you all are more 
than welcome to use for target practice, if you want.  I have no 
idea if it holds up or not.  I'll just toss it out there.  

OK.  As I mentioned in another post on this thread, someone pinned 
my ears back pretty good about my affection for Real Moody.  In the 
Pensieve scene, Moody displays contempt for the criminal defendants, 
to the point of advocating that the government break its plea deal 
with Karkaroff after hearing his information.  This sort of thing 
would be morally offensive to me normally as evidence of a Rogue Cop 
keen on abusing his position.  Yet for some reason, I didn't even 
see that scene as problematic, let alone let it shake my affection 
for Moody.

For months now, this has bugged me.  So here's a theory:  call it 
the "Mitigation Theory."  See, Moody did display some traits 
consistent with a Rogue Cop.  But he also displayed other traits 
inconsistent with a Rogue Cop -– chiefly being unwilling to kill if 
he could avoid it and being unwilling to sink to the level of the 
DEs.  The connection between Moody's troublesome conduct and his 
mitigating conduct is direct -– sometimes he is a Rogue and 
sometimes he is not.  

As some have suggested on this thread, the twins have done plenty of 
nice things in canon.  The difference between the twins and Moody, 
though, is that there is no direct connection between the twins' 
acts of kindness and their acts of malice -– the kind acts in no way 
mitigate the cruel acts because they are entirely unrelated.  In 
other words, let's imagine that the twins played lots of practical 
jokes, but regularly interceded on behalf of weaker individuals who 
are not in their social circle.  Or that they engaged in behavior 
toward the Dursleys that was protective and kind.  That would raise 
some ambiguity in my mind sufficient to mitigate the malicious 
conduct they displayed in the TTT scene.  

As it stands, then, Moody has mitigated his Rogue Cop behavior by 
behaving like a Good and Conscientious Cop at times.  When it comes 
to bullying behavior (or mean-spirited behavior or whatever you wish 
to call it), the twins have not mitigated their bullying behavior in 
any way that relates to bullying itself.  As a result, I have more 
difficulty defending the twins, excusing their transgressions, and 
in the end, liking them as characters.

OK.  Now you can destroy that theory.  

Go ahead.  I'm waiting.  ;-)  

Cindy