Why I Dislike The Twins/Toon Talk

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 43422

I asked:

> Is there some language short of profanity that is unacceptably 
> vituperative to direct towards fictional characters in this forum?

HF replied:

> Well, one would certainly hope so :-)

Darn!

Oh, sorry.  I guess I was just hoping for a different response.  You 
see, I *like* vituperative language. 

But only when it's directed against fictional people.  So tell me, 
then, is "cad" okay?

I had thought that Pippin had objected to my use of the word "cad," 
but she corrected me:

> IIRC, I objected to the word "bullies". 

Oh, was that it, Pippin?  I'm sorry.  The part of my post that you had
snipped was the part in which I referred to them as "thuggish cads," 
so I'd assumed that "cads" was the word you were objecting to, 
possibly in part because that was the word with which Catherine had 
taken issue.

> "Cads" is much more suitable, IMO, if you are looking for a 
> derogatory term for the Terrible Two. 

Yes, I think so as well.  Certainly it is more justified 
than "thuggish."  ;-)

Really, I don't know if I even consider "cads" all that derogatory.  
I tend to think of the word as rather endearingly archaic.  Charming, 
even.  If someone called me a 'cad,' I can't imagine feeling 
injured.  I rather suspect that I'd smile.

> They do put Percy at his wits' end, but unlike Elkins's friend, 
> Percy has not been driven away from his home, nor is there any 
> indication that he'd prefer to live elsewhere. 

Well, I think that he *should* live elsewhere.  I think that it would 
do him good to get away from the clan for a while.  But you are right 
in that I don't see any sign that Percy himself has ever considered 
this a possibility.  We never, for example, are given the slightest 
indication that the family is dependent upon his income, or anything 
like that, and given how often the Weasley financial situation is 
alluded to in GoF, I rather suspect that we would have, if we were 
meant to understand this to be the case.  So probably Percy really 
*could* move out of the Burrow, if he were so inclined.

> Except perhaps at the Office. But I took that as more an indication 
> of incipient workaholism than Twinavoidance. He seems to be just as 
> obsessed with his job after the Twins go back to school.

True.  It's tricky, that, though, because his workaholism does seem 
to me to be in large part a symptom of his growing feelings of 
alienation from his family.  His devotion to Crouch is filial in 
nature, and the beginning of GoF is where we first see Percy in 
conflict not only with his siblings, but also with his parents.  So 
there does seem to be a good deal of displacement going on there, 
IMO.  

In this respect, I tend to read Percy in GoF as a (far more 
harmless!) double to Barty Junior, whose response to a schism with 
his family is similarly to seek a substitute father figure in 
Voldemort.  Pippin has written some truly fantastic stuff in the past 
about the series' focus on the missing mother figure (which the
ban on 'me toos' and 'oooh, neat!'s has previously prevented me from 
praising).  In GoF, with its motif of parricide, its thematic 
emphasis on individuation and volition, and its focus on the trials 
of male adolescence, I perceive a much stronger emphasis on the role 
of the absent or otherwise disappointing *father.*

But of course, that can't all be placed at the Twins' door, by any 
means.  It's the entire family dynamic that I see as a spiritually 
eroding influence on Percy, and the twins are just one manifestation 
(if a particularly abrasive one) of that dynamic.

> I admit that the twins can be pretty obnoxious, but I resist 
> calling them bullies, because if they are bullies, then what do we 
> call Draco, Dudley and Snape? 

Er...bullies?  ;-)

Really, I think that much of the problem in this entire discussion 
has been one of definitions: clinical vs colloquial, for example.  
It's also been muddied by the conflation of "bully" with "evil," not 
to mention with "I think they act like bullies" with "I don't 
like 'em" -- which was my own fault.  

> As Shaun points out in his post, the Twins may be bullies in some 
> technical sense, but they aren't bullies of the same order as DDS, 
> and they require a different kind of intervention, which, in fact, 
> they usually get. 

I agree that they are a different animal from Draco, who in turn is 
himself a very different type of bully than Snape.  Draco has a 
monstrously high self-esteem and suffers from a thwarted sense of 
entitlement.  I don't really think that Snape's got the same issues 
at all.  For that matter, I dare say that Crabbe and Goyle probably 
have completely different issues all their own, too.  Although I 
doubt somehow that we'll ever get to hear about them. ;-)

> It would be a pretty lame anti-bully intervention program that 
> cracked down on F&G and let Draco and Snape get away with 
> everything...which is, of course, exactly what's happening. <g>

Heh.  Well, it wouldn't be a very interesting discussion if we talked 
about all the ways in which *Draco* is shown acting like a bully in 
the canon, would it?  I mean, who on earth would bother to dissent?

<waits with baited breath for the "Draco is NOT a bully!" contingent 
to come out of the woodwork>

Besides.  If they did, then how on earth would they frame their 
argument?

HF wrote:

> I think it's habitual in any discussion of polarized views for the 
> individual in the minority, or, as the case may be in some 
> instances, the silent majority, to possess the burden of proof. 

"Over-analyzing."  "Over-intellectualizing."  "Reading too much into 
the text."  "Speaking too stridently."

> Typically, the minority has had to approach their argument with far 
> more delicacy and tact than one of the majority would, or risk 
> being labeled a disturber of the peace

"Non-canonical."  "Misreading."  "Distorting the story."  "Speaking 
from emotional bias."

Yes.  Well.  You see the difficulty here, I trust.

Nope.  If I were someone who didn't think that "bully" was an 
appropriate term to describe Draco Malfoy, I'd be feeling pretty 
leery of speaking up after the way that this debate evolved.  And 
that's a pity, really, because I, for one, would very much have liked 
to hear their reasoning.

Cindy wrote:

> This discussion of the twins is not the first time criticism of a 
> character has touched off controvery on the list, BTW. . . . . For 
> nstance, I adore Moody, and the first time someone pointed out that 
> Real Moody behaves like a Rogue Cop, I felt a bit defensive.

<shifts uneasily in seat>

Yes.  Well, er, that was me too, wasn't it?

Heh.  Sorry.  I don't do this sort of thing on *purpose,* you know.  
Honestly, I don't.

But at least I don't go around bashing *Hagrid.*  I mean, that's just 
plain mean.  ;-)

Cindy:

> 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.

I don't know either.  I still don't get it.  As it happens, I *still* 
find Hagrid's tippling and irresponsibility kind of cute and 
endearing, myself.  But the things that you and Jenny have written 
about him here in the past have indeed led me to realize that there 
is a darker side to his irresponsibility, one that I just honestly 
had never considered before I read your posts.  It has occurred to 
me, for example, that if I were a parent, I might well feel very 
differently about Hagrid's drinking and poor judgement, especially
his lack of caution with dangerous animals.  

Similarly, Amanda's posts explaining why, as a parent, she absolutely 
would *not* have wanted Lupin to remain as a staff member at any 
school attended by a child of hers were real eye-openers for me.  I'd 
just never really thought about the issue from that perspective
before.  I had written it off as "discrimination," and left it at 
that.  But of course, it isn't really all that simple, is it?  Lupin 
really *is* a threat, and his forgetfulness when it comes to his 
Wolfsbane Potion really *does* suggest that he may indeed have a few 
non-compliance issues that make him even less someone a concerned 
parent would want around their children.  

So have those discussions changed my reading of the text?  Oh, yeah.
They sure have.  And Lupin is one of my favorite characters, too, so 
of course it was a bit of a wrench to concede that those nasty 
parents who would have wanted him to be fired really did have a valid 
point.  

But I *like* it when that happens.  After all, if I didn't want to 
expose myself to other people's readings of the books, then why on 
earth would I be here?


Cindy: 

> I imagine that some people don't welcome having their reading 
> experience changed in this way. I can understand that.

I guess I'm having some difficulty understanding that.  Isn't that 
what this forum is for?

I'm also still struggling to understand why being led to revise their 
interpretation of the twins' character might actually lead people to 
try to alter their sense of *humour.*  That's sort of creeping me 
out, to be perfectly honest with you.  Why on earth would anyone try 
to do that? 

Cindy, for example, wrote:

> Elkins, Eileen, Debbie and a few others have indicated that the 
> twins' behavior never struck them as funny. . . . . 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. 

But can't it be both?  Why can't it be bullying behavior *and* be 
hilarious?

I guess that I'm just not seeing how these two issues get conflated.  
Someone's behavior can be perfectly loathsome, yet still strike you 
as *funny.*

Snape's behavior, for example, is definitely bullying.  It's just 
awful, IMO, the way that he treats his students.  That "I see no 
difference" line in GoF, for example, I thought was just dreadful.  
What a terrible thing to say to an adolescent girl!  Poor Hermione!

But you know, I did find it funny.

Nor, I would add, do I feel the slightest bit of guilt over having 
found it funny.  In real life, of course, I would.  If I were a 
witness to such an event in real life, then I would certainly 
endeavor to show no signs of amusement, no matter how amusingly 
vicious I found the line to be, both out of consideration for the 
student's feelings and to avoid encouraging such behavior in the 
teacher.  But while reading a work of fiction?

Nah.  It just doesn't bother me.  When I grin at Snape's meaner 
comments, it's not because I condone his behavior.  It's just 'cause 
I think they're funny.  I feel no guilt over this.  No one is harmed 
in the slightest by my laughing.  

Eloise wrote:

> I can see why others interpret them as bullies, yet *I* still find 
> them amusing.

But, but, but...but couldn't you still find them amusing even if you 
*did* interpret them as bullies?

See, this is the thing that I just don't understand, perhaps because 
my own sense of humour is extraordinarily dark.  It's just never 
occurred to me that finding a comedic scene funny implies any moral 
approval of the behavior being depicted in said scene.  I mean, good 
heavens!  What does it say about me, then, that I snicker at 
Voldemort and his Death Eaters in the graveyard scene?  I see nothing 
in the least bit moral or upright about *anyone's* behavior in that 
sequence.  But I sure do find it *funny.*

Cindy explained it thus:

> 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.

Oh, dear.  Yes.  I suppose that I would as well.  

In that case, then perhaps this was my fault again.  Did I imply that 
the reason that I don't find TTT funny is because it's a comedic 
depiction of *bullying?*  

No.  That *is* why it makes me cringe, but it's not why I fail to 
find it funny.  I can easily cringe at something while still finding 
it funny.  I do that all the *time.*  In fact, my *favorite* type of 
humour is the type that makes you cringe and laugh at the same time.

No, what makes TTT unfunny is that it is *slapstick.*  It's 
Dicey's "Danger Averted" comedy.  It is cartoonish, and that's 
precisely why it's not funny.  Cartoon slapstick has just never 
amused me in the slightest.  I find it exceptionally tedious and 
irritating.  (I've never been able to stand Warner Brothers cartoons 
either, as it happens.) But that has nothing to do with *what* is 
being depicted in the scene.  It has everything to do with the 
*nature* of the depiction.

So I don't really think that the "the joke is racist and therefore 
not funny" analogy holds up very well here.  If the TTT scene had 
been written as black humour, rather than as cartoonish slapstick, 
then I likely would have found it very funny indeed.  But that's a 
matter of comedic preference.  It's a question of aesthetics, not of 
ethics.

Yet this whole humour issue really seems to be upsetting people, and 
I'm still trying to understand the reasons for that.  Let me try this 
as a proposal, just to see if it resonates with people.

Dicey has identified a type of slapstick which takes as its operative 
principle: "Only if the victim isn't realistically enough depicted 
for us to take his pain too seriously is it funny."

Could it be, perhaps, that there is a related form of humour, one 
which takes as its operative principle: "Only if the aggressor is 
morally *clean* is it funny?"

In other words, is it true that for some people the morality or 
ethics of the characters really *does* have direct bearing on whether 
or not they find a scene that involves violence amusing?  Is THAT why 
people were conflating the issues of whether the twins are funny and 
whether their behavior is bullying?

I hadn't realized that there were people who held that view of 
humour.  In my conception of comedy, the moral positioning of the 
actors doesn't really have very much to do with whether or not 
something is funny (although the moral positioning of the author 
sometimes can: a dark comedy about the Klan, for example, I really 
*would* consider funny or not in large part based on what I perceived 
the author's attitude on the subject to be).

Immoral actions can be (and very often are) portrayed in a humorous 
light.  Very many forms of comedy involve some form of harm or 
discomfiture.  Nor is "Danger Averted" comedy the only type of humour 
out there.  Sometimes things are funny not because *no* harm is done, 
but because in fact a great *deal* of harm is being done.  

So I think that we might want to be careful about saying that it's 
not okay to laugh at certain things when we see them depicted in 
fiction.  If we were to declare all forms of comedy which involve 
people being unkind each other or people getting hurt off-limits, 
then that really wouldn't leave us with very much to laugh at, would 
it?  

But surely the question of humour is a different one from the 
question of characterization, isn't it?  That Voldemort's actions are 
occasionally played for very dark humour doesn't make him any less of 
a sadist.  That Snape's verbal abuse is often quite funny doesn't 
make him any less of a bully.  That the Dursleys' locking Harry in 
the cupboard beneath the stairs or feeding him on nothing but
watery soup is a comedic depiction of child abuse doesn't make the 
Dursleys admirable models of good parenting.  

What the characters' behavior reveals about them is a completely 
different issue than that of whether or not we find them *funny.*

Then, perhaps I am merely oversensitive on this subject because, uh, 
well, because see, I actually *do* find it kind of funny when 
Voldemort tortures Wormtail.  Not the Cruciatus, no.  That wasn't 
particularly funny.  But the fact that he'd been threatening to feed 
the poor wretch to Nagini?

Er...well, uh, yeah.  See, that really *is* funny.  It's funny, see, 
because Pettigrew is a *rat* animagus.  He's rodent-like by nature, 
and he's spent *far* too many years of his life in his rodent form.  
And so Voldemort threatening to feed him to a big snake is funny.  
It's funny because someone who is at heart a rat can be reasonably 
expected to have some rather strongly phobic feelings about snakes.  
It's funny because the precise nature of the threat is so very 
appropriate.  It's funny because the nature of a rodent's feelings 
about snakes relates in a direct fashion to Wormtail's own 
ridiculously untenable moral position in regard to Voldemort.  It's 
funny because as readers, we realize that it had to have been an idle 
threat, and yet Wormtail himself does not seem to have had the 
presence of mind to have reached this same conclusion.  And it's 
funny because Voldemort himself seems so devestatingly aware of all 
of these factors.  

It is funny.  It's just not slapstick.  It's black humour instead, 
which is a different form of sadistic comedy, and one that follows a 
completely different set of narrative rules.

Am I really supposed to feel guilty for appreciating that form of 
humour?  Because I have to say that I just plain don't.

Cindy wrote:

> I'm having trouble seeing the link between whether a character is 
> fleshed out and our willingness to look the other way when they do 
> something wrong or mean-spirited or whether the pain they suffer 
> ought to trouble us.

Well, again, I think that we want to draw a distinction between 
something being funny and something being morally condoned.  That I 
can get a smile out of Voldemort's sadism doesn't make him any less 
of a sadist.  That I can see humour in Wormtail's situation doesn't 
mean that he isn't really suffering.  That there is black humour 
written into that scene doesn't mitigate anyone's flaws or change 
anyone's nature.  And the fact that I can find things like that funny 
doesn't mean that I don't recognize wrongs as wrongs, or pain as 
pain.  Voldemort really is cruel, and Wormtail really is suffering.  

And it's funny.

What I suppose that I don't get is why people feel that they can't 
continue to find scenes like TTT funny just because they've decided 
that the twins are acting like bullies.  What happens to make it 
suddenly "unfunny" if you come to believe that? 


-- Elkins