[HPforGrownups] Re: Toon Talk (WAS Who Framed Fred and George?)

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43318

Cindy:
> 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.  
> 

I would never dare, Cindy.......

But I have a problem with the parallel.
You see, Moody can be a Good Cop or a Rogue Cop, two manifestations of being 
*a cop*.

The twins can hardly mitigate being Bad Bullies (for the sake of the 
argument) by being Good Bullies, if we are to regard all forms of bullying as 
wrong. In fact the nearest to 'good bullying' that has been provided as RL 
examples involves standing up for siblings which seems to me to be related to 
Tabouli's 'team coach' function. They can only mitigate bullying behaviour if 
this is what they display, by caring action and this, as you say they do 
sometimes display. But you don't accept this in mitigation. Presumably they 
can only be mitigated by making reparation to the injured parties themselves?

This is problematic as, as far as I can recall, the only victims whom we 
truly see as *injured* are Draco et al and Dudley (and by extension his 
family), both of whom have an 'enemy' function within the narrative, at least 
at present. These are the only two incidents which I think are indicitive of 
actual malice and at the same time they are the only two incidents which seem 
to have a motive beyond careless high spirits.
In both cases, the victims are themselves bullies and moreover seem to have 
been set up by JKR to have that fuction within the narrative. I'll come back 
to Dudley.

Much of their humour (or 'humour', if you don't appreciate it) is directed 
against family members and, although I know the Weasley family dynamic seems 
to be changing, there seems to me to be no doubt that they are fundamentally 
involved in and care for their family. They *want* Percy to join them for 
Christmas dinner, no matter how much they taunt him.
(And yes, there may well be a cultural dimension here: they are young British 
males and ragging is a much more comfortable way of showing affection than 
anything which might be interpreted as sentimental.)

Similarly, much of their humour/ 'humour' is directed against other members 
of their House, for whom they are popular team players, both literally and 
metaphorically, in the way Tabouli pointed out.

I don't see them waging a bullying campaign against the weak, which could be 
then mitigated by their standing up for the weak. And in any case, we don't 
know how much they get up to (good or bad) that we don't see. Perhaps they do 
stand up for people a lot and this is part of their popularity, just as JKR 
has told us that Harry *does* give presents to his friends, although we never 
see it.
OK, before you raise that yellow flag, it's not in canon.

In fact I think we're coming back to the fundamental schism between those who 
want to say they *are bullies* and those who don't.

You were right, Cindy, when you said that these discussions alter the way we 
look at the text. Before this started, I was pretty neutral on the twins. 
They amused me and I didn't look much deeper than that. I think I can say now 
that, with the greatest respect, I am firmly on the side of those who say 
they are not bullies. This is partly because of the implication that 
defending them from the charge indicates a psychological desire to run from 
the fact that we might have committed the sin of *liking* bullies. As it 
happens, I'm not sure that I *do* like them; I find them funny and that's not 
the same thing. (As a parallel, some of you may know the British comedy 
series _Bottom_, starring Rick Mayal and Adrian Edmonson. I have to admit I 
find it funny, although I find the characters themselves stomach-churningly 
revolting. Incidentally, it indulges in a lot of Toon-type humour, with the 
most apalling injuries being inflicted, but no-one ever actually hurt. I did 
say British humour often wasn't subtle.) And before anyone can say that I've 
put in a get-out clause there, by saying that liking and being amused by 
aren't the same, as everyone knows already, I am not afraid to admit a liking 
for at least one bully in the series!

I just think that the evidence is simply not there to label them as bullies, 
whilst at the same time disliking labelling.
In RL, if we label someone, the end result is often that they start to live 
up to the label, particularly where children are concerned. In the fictional 
case before us, I think that if we have once decided to label the twins as 
bullies, then we will tend to interpret them in that light. 
Labelling in (IMHO) may also come perilously close to demonising. We tend to 
demonise that which we do not like within ourselves. Look at Voldemort.

Now, about the Toon thing. I think there is a point in Dicentra's and 
Tabouli's and Ali's and my own posts which is not being picked up, which is 
that there is not simply a stark choice between interpreting the twins as 
either Toons, or non-Toons, or between their being bullies, or not bullies. 
There may in fact be several things going on, the different layers, or planes 
of interpretation that we have referred to. My own feeling is that there is 
some inconsistency in their characterisation and that *sometimes*, as Dicey 
has been at pains to emphasise, they function as Toons and sometimes they 
don't. Now this does make it very difficult for the reader who wants to make 
a nice, integrated interpretation of the series,as we tend to here. I think 
perhaps it's just not possible.

As I and others have pointed out, these are not the only inconsistencies. I 
suggested that Harry's lack of psychological scarring from his abusive 
upbringing stems from the fact that that part of the story is 
mythic/fairytale-inspired. Dicey made a similar point, only suggesting that 
the Dursleys are Toons. 

Similarly, Dumbledore is held to be JKR's embodiment of wisdom and goodness 
in the series, yet his actions at the end of PS/SS, argued over at length in 
the the  'Dissing the Slyths' thread are highly partisan. It seems to be an 
inconsistency in his character. I would rather see it as an authorial lapse 
in characterisation, with character being sacrificed for the sake of drama.

But it just seems a shame to me, if we cut ourselves off from one level of 
enjoyment of the books because of an awareness of another way of interpreting 
them.

 **********************************
Right. The Dursleys and the TTToffee.

This is an intriguing incident. I think that it has Toonish elements but 
agree with Cindy that because it has 'real' consequences, it is not. 
Superficially it's a real clash of writing styles, farce that becomes 
serious.

The message seems to be that the twins' actions are to say the least 
misguided, whether sadistic or a justifiable attempt at retribution, it is, 
as has been pointed out, perilously close to Muggle-baiting and this is 
certainly how Arthur treats it. 
I think that underlying what we must be intended to laugh at is a serious 
message. It forshadows the Muggle baiting that we see at the QWC (performing 
the literary function of introducing that topic) and demonstrates how easy it 
is to cross the line.
It's almost as if JKR backpedals: she presents something farcical and then 
demonstrates that it's not funny really. Perhaps she's doing something really 
quite clever, tricking the reader, in fact. Because don't we want to get back 
at Dudley for all the things he's done to Harry? No? OK, perhaps it's just me 
then. So we (because the Weasleys are part of the Harry group with which we 
identify) do get back at him and then she pulls the carpet out from under our 
feet and tells us, via Arthur, that that's just not the way to do it.

I have to say, though that I think Hagrid's treatment of Dudley is even 
worse, given that he doesn't yet know about how Harry has been systematically 
bullied, he does nothing to remedy the situation and is totally unrepentant. 

**********************
Oh, yes. I decided to get my 12 year old's reaction to the question of 
whether the twins are bullies.
After being greeted by initial incredulity, I rephrased the question. On the 
subject of the TTToffee, the reaction was that it wasn't bullying because 
'he's a fat git'. Sorry about that. I will tackle the sizeist (?sp) issue 
there. On the train incident, the justification was that Draco is 'an evil 
git'. Neville and the Canary Creams? 'That's not bullying, that's one of 
their jokes.' Quirrell and the snowballs? 'I'd do that!'  Well, yes. It 
sounds very much like the way almost every child in his class treats one 
particular teacher.

OK, not very well thought out, but I think somewhere on a par with F&G's own 
mentality. And yes, the child concerned does sometimes indulge in behaviour 
which could be interpreted as bullying, without even the mitigation of being 
humorous (within the family only, as far as I am aware. At school he is 
considered thoughful and responsible in his behaviour towards others.) But I 
won't label him as a bully. He's a boy who hasn't finished learning about how 
to treat other people and who exercises least discretion where those closest 
to him are concerned. As I think, on the whole, do Fred and George.

Eloise

Who would like to emphasise here that I do recognise why some individuals' 
personal experiences do make them react strongly against the twins. I have a 
real respect for all the people who have contributed to this thread, even if 
I don't necessarily agree with everything they say and I desperately hope I 
haven't said anything to offend.


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