bullies? twins, padfoot and prongs

[ginnysthe1]

No: HPFGUIDX 118448


Clare Durina wrote:
I have been feeling indignant at the popular characterization of 
James and Sirius as bullies and the twins as well. Being "cool" does 
not make one bad, and being enviably attractive or talented does not 
make one vindicive. I think that they were immature, carried-away 
boys. And while Sirius does have a mean streak, it just makes him a 
more complex and convincing character.  (snip) Anyway, a bully picks 
on someone because he is weak and squashing him makes the bully feel 
stronger.

Catkind replied:
This is interesting.  It seems to me that a lot of characters in the 
books display bullying behaviour of one sort or another.

I'd agree with Clare's definition of bullying above up to a point: 
she says a bully picks on someone because he is weak.  I think this 
is an oversimplification -- no one is perfect, and that includes the 
victims of bullying. There is often another reason as well. Maybe the 
bully wouldn't pick on the victim if they were not weak, but that 
doesn't mean the victim has to be sweet and virtuous.  I'd say 
picking on someone who is weaker than you is still bullying.

It seems to me that James and Sirius bully Snape, because they carry 
on tormenting him, and humiliating him publicly, when he is 
outnumbered and they are evidently stronger than him.  If we try to 
excuse them we find ourselves saying things like, "he deserved it", 
which sounds rather like a classic bully's rationalisation.  Umbridge 
and Snape bully Harry and his friends.  George and Fred bully some 
rather unpleasant Slytherins.  I'd even say that Harry and his 
friends "bully" Malfoy and co. on occasion -- leaving someone 
dripping from the luggage racks doesn't seem like justified 
retaliation to me, nor does Harry and a Weasley beating someone up in 
retaliation for mere jibes.  They are obviously by far the stronger 
party.  And what about Harry's taunting Malfoy about his father?  
Malfoy is of course himself a bully, although usually more the verbal 
than the physical kind.

Of course, most of these characters have many other sides to their 
personalities (well, maybe not Umbridge and Malfoy).  It would seem 
highly biased to label Sirius, say, as a bully, and write him off as 
that.  On the other hand, the fact that he is a complex character 
and "cool" does not change the fact that he was acting as a bully. 
Dare I say, many teenagers do, at one point or another.

Kim adds:

I think Catkind is right that a lot of characters in HP (as well as 
people in the real world) behave as "bullies" at times.  But the way 
I see it is that some of them are bigger bullies than others, and 
that it also depends on the circumstances where the "bullying" 
occurs.  Sometimes the bullying comes from wanting to get even, as 
when the "good" kids cocooned Malfoy, Crabbe, et al. in the luggage 
racks.  I'm not saying that makes it right either.  And sometimes 
it's purely as a result of the bully wanting to punish someone for 
being something the bully doesn't approve of.  Usually in that case 
it's because the bully is feeling insecure him or herself, but choses 
to punish another person for that insecurity.  They could chose 
anyone perhaps, but it's usually a weaker person or a person who's 
already unpopular for some reason, so the victim has no one else to 
rely on to fight off the bully. with them.

What I saw in the scene by the lake where Sirius and James bully 
Snape was that two teenage boys (Sirius and James) were picking on 
another teenage boy (Snape) at that particular time for a particular 
reason, and that that reason, as Catkind suggests, is not completely 
clear.  Nevertheless in that instance I think Sirius and James were 
very definitely in the wrong.  Why?  Because Snape was apparently 
minding his own business at the time and the two Marauders were bored 
(Sirius) and interested in impressing a girl (James wanting to 
impress Lily).  And there's no good excuse for that.

But what's missing by way of explanation in the text is the reason 
they'd ever chosen to bully Snape at all.  I mean, Snape was the butt 
of their bullying long before the scene by the lake took place.  My 
sense is that years before that they had taken an immediate dislike 
to Snape due to his odd ways, his greasy hair, long nose, etc.  And 
so in that first instance of dislike and their decision to act on it, 
they were also in the wrong.  OK, maybe Snape was understandably hard 
to like, but in that case they should have just left him alone.  On 
the other hand, Snape's bullying behavior may have begun at first as 
retaliation for the nasty way Sirius and James had treated him for 
being ugly, odd, greasy, etc.  And so years went by and it just 
escalated every time they were in each other's vicinity.  And Snape 
appears to have no crowd of his own to hang out with and support his 
side of the conflict.  In any case, I've always objected to 
explaining away cruel behavior as "boys just being boys," which 
people often do.  It seems like a pretty lame excuse to me.  

Kim