[HPforGrownups] Re: Twins, Toons, Humor and Instinct

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43423


Porphyria commented on a post of Abigails which reflected (rather more 
eloquently) some things which I have tried to say over the course of this 
discussion.
I'm sorry, it delves into authorial intent. I know I'm not supposed to worry 
about that, but in this case, I do.

Porphyria:

> Abigail wrote a very interesting post about why criticizing the twins 
> hits a nerve with some readers, and while I think her discussion of 
> how to resolve the issue usefully points to the wide variety of 
> interpretations people have, I still have to reply to her assessment 
> about how we read whether JKR "approves" of a character or not. 
> 
> Abigail said: 
> 
> <<
> See, I don't think the problem is whether we like or dislike a 
> character, but whether JKR does, or rather whether she approves of 
> that character's actions. I think the main problem plaguing most of 
> the F&G defenders out there is not the fact that they find F&G's 
> antics funny, but that JKR seems to. It is an author's job to pass 
> moral judgement on the characters that he or she writes, to indicate 
> to the readers in means of varying subtlety whether or not this 
> character is doing a good thing or a bad thing.
> >>
> 
> See, I disagree here. I think that the mark of a great author is that 
> she can create characters who are complex enough that they provoke 
> debate, and present enough of their behavior to let readers make 
> their own decisions. Authors who hammer in a moral point tend to turn 
> me off. I like JKR because I don't think she does this. If there was 
> only one right answer to whether a character is doing something good 
> or bad then discussion groups like this would have no purpose and 
> reading would be boring. Plus, as Elkins pointed out a while ago 
> (#39058), books would never age well if we had to agree with the 
> author's moral perspective; great books have a habit of lasting 
> hundreds or thousands of years and in that time our sense of good and 
> evil shifts, but our love of the books doesn't. In any case, every 
> reader is free to have his or her own moral criteria that might 
> differ from the author's without invalidating anyone's perspective. 

Eloise:

I agree that I would not like to read a book that is hammering home a moral 
point. But we agree that these are *moral* books don't we? I believe JKR has 
said so herself. Those of us with children are happy to encourage our 
children to read them because we think the moral message they contain is a 
good one.

Regarding  the point in question, a number of list members have told us that 
they interpret the twins as bullies. JKR apparently likes them. She 
apparently views their antics as funny. In particular, she doesn't really 
show any significant disapproval of their behaviour and, like Abigail, this 
is what I sense is, rightly or wrongly, at the back of some people's unease. 
It seems to be tantamount to condoning bullying, if that *is* what they do. I 
mean, why does the issue raise such passionate debate, if it's just a case of 
our freedom to interpret complex characters according to our own lights? 

You think they're bullies, I don't. OK, let's agree to differ. It's just a 
matter of interpretation.

Surely it matters because it is touching not just on morality but on the 
morality being endorsed by a writer we admire and whose books we wish our 
children to read.

I think it is also intriguing because if the twins are bullies, then it's not 
just a case of different readers having different moral criteria, but the 
author displaying two sets of moral criteria within the same book: we can 
laugh at the twins bullying, but it's not OK for Dudley or Draco (or, for th
at matter, Snape, perhaps more tellingly) to bully.

<snip>
> Abigail continues:
> 
> <<
> In the Harry Potter books, there are several ways in which Rowling 
> indicates to us her criticism of a character's actions. The most 
> obvious one is to have Harry disapprove of said behaviour, another is 
> to describe the character as unpleasant or disliked or physically 
> unappealing, and a third is simply karma - bad things happen to bad 
> people.
> >>

Porphyria:
I agree that these are some of the ways she does it, but that doesn't > 
> mean we as readers are limited to these ways. For instance, in the 
> TTT incident, we know Harry approves of the twins actions, they are 
> portrayed as jolly and amusing and they don't get much karmic 
> punishment from this incident (actually they do: Molly yells at after 
> Arthur finally tells her). But on the other hand we can look at 
> Dudley's gagging and sputtering, Petunia's screaming, Vernon's 
> desperate china-throwing and Arthur's "brandishing" of his wand and 
> find the whole thing really painful to witness. JKR wrote the same 
> words on the page that everyone is reading; some of us just interpret 
> some parts as more significant or more palpable than others. 


Eloise:
I would say that the disapproval of the incident that we the readers get, 
comes more from Arthur's reaction, rather than Molly's, not least in the 
realisation of how frantic he is to put things right. 
I wrote about my interpretation of this scene yesterday, so I won't repeat it 
here.

Abigail:

> <<
> Now, I'm not suggesting that at every turn in the Harry Potter books, 
> the bad are punished and the good are rewarded, because this is quite 
> simply not the case. What I am saying is that JKR very clearly 
> indicates to us who the good guys and the bad guys are.
> >>


Porphyria:
> 
> Like Fudge and Bagman? Like Crouch Sr. or Snape? Filch, perhaps?
> 
> I think JKR's ethics are more complicated than this. I think there 
> are a lot of things she finds funny, sympathetic or just plain 
> pathetic but that she doesn't wholeheartedly endorse. For instance, I 
> happen to find Crouch Sr.'s story utterly tragic because I think he 
> winds up in such intolerable situations where no matter what he does, 
> it's wrong. Where did he make his mistake? Was it sentencing his son 
> to prison? Was it springing him out again? Was it keeping him under 
> Imperio all those years? I marvel at JKR's ability to depict someone 
> as making the wrong decisions for the right reasons -- or is it the 
> other way around? 


Eloise:
I think perhaps Abigail overstated the point. JKR's ethics do seem to be 
complicated. As we have pointed out before and Porphyria has re-emphasised, 
all the good characters are grey and there are a number whose status is 
indeterminate.
But I think many characters are clearly flagged as being 'Good' whilst there 
are others clearly flagged as 'Bad', usually without benefit of much in the 
way of greyness in the form of redeeming features. We know whose side we're 
supposed to be on, in other words, and, by and large, who is on our (Harry's) 
side. Whilst the 'Good' characters have their flaws, I would venture that 
these do generally seem to be presented as flaws, but the twins behaviour, to 
my way of thinking doesn't seem to be presented as a character flaw, except 
on rare occasions, of which the TTToffee is the only incident I can recall.
This, to my way of thinking contrasts with, for example, the way she portrays 
Snape. We know which side he's on, but his behaviour isn't presented in a 
very kind light.

The person whose behaviour she treats most similarly to the twins' is, I 
think, Dumbledore. We find things to criticise in his behaviour form time to 
time, but his status as the ultimately 'Good' character in the book never 
seems to be challenged within the text. I don't feel he is written as at all 
'grey'. 

Porphyria:
> 
> Anyway, I don't see why the twins can't be a minor version of this. 
> Yes, we can think they are funny and still recognize that their 
> actions are not appropriate -- not mature, not fair, and someday 
> likely to have dangerous consequences. This does not make JKR bad 
> for "approving" of them, just very nuanced. As I think we recognize, 
> she is fond of portraying "good" characters as actually rather grey, 
> and like many of her readers, she has a wicked sense of humor that, 
> while not squeaky-clean ethically, is still very human. And that's 
> how I interpret the twins.


Eloise:
So do I, on the whole.
But I become uneasy if someone wants to convert me to the idea that the twins 
are bullies. I am uneasy simply because to me they seem to be being presented 
positively. If I were to believe that they were truly bullies, then, as I 
know for a fact that my children (and I'm sure they aren't the only ones) 
simply find them funny, what is that teaching them? 
Surely, that bullying behaviour is funny. 

(And yes, I know that as a parent I can discuss the contents of the books 
with my children, but these are not, I think, really books originally 
envisaged to be read aloud to children. These books are read alone by older 
kids however, who will often have no discussion with an adult about the 
contents and are on their own when it comes to deciding the morality of a 
character's actions.)

I become uneasy when I find that people are changing their reading of the 
books, unable to find the twins funny any more because of their bullying 
behaviour. What is that saying? That JKR is is *asking* us to laugh at 
something unacceptable?
Unless we're just not supposed to find the twins episodes funny.
Adding another layer of interpretation, saying 'Yes, the twins are 
superficially funny, but what effect are they *really* having?' is another 
matter.

I have no problem with JKR approving of the twins. I have no problem with her 
approving Snape. I *would* have a problem if I felt, for example, that she 
approved of the way Snape behaves towards Neville, though. That's where I h
ave the difficulty with this whole argument of whether the twins are bullies. 
It's not over the approval of the characters (of course we can hate the sin, 
but love the sinner, I think that goes without saying), it's over the 
approval of their actions.

Pardon the metathinking, but my logic goes,
We know of JKR's concerns for civil liberties, her work with Amnesty, etc,
Therefore JKR would not condone bullying,
Therefore she would not wittingly write about bullying behaviour in a 
positive light.
JKR appears to approve the twins' behaviour (except for the TTToffee 
incident),
Therefore the twins cannot be intended to be bullies.

If those who insist that we should interpret the twins as bullies are right, 
then surely, either JKR must be unaware that she is actually condoning such 
behaviour, or she is guilty of writing in a way which allows her to be 
misinterpreted. That's not, IMHO, the same as creating characters complex 
enough to provoke debate. She's done that with Snape, but I remain to be 
convinced that she's done that with the twins. 

To my simple way of thinking.

Before I post this, I see that someone has actually read one of my previous 
posts!

Elkins:

>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?

I'm beginning to think there's no right answer to any of this! Well, I 
suppose technically, there isn't...

Oh, I don't know, Elkins. I'm so darned confused by all this!
I'm struggling to think of an example of humorous bullying. Give me one, and 
I'll let you know!  Well, you've quoted Snape. I never really thought that 
line about Hermione was one of his best, but yes, of course his evil sense of 
humour is one of his more attractive features.
I guess I would. I do think the TTToffee episode is funny, even though I 
think it crosses the line. But I think my remark was in the context of a 
discussion where it was becoming unclear that one *should* laugh at the twins 
and also, I wanted to make my position clear. I do think they're funny. I 
don't think they're bullies. I'm not sure that I really like them. I need to 
re-read to assess the latter.

Eloise.






 


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