[HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George - Prefects?

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 125287

On 26 Feb 2005 at 23:11, a_svirn wrote:

a_svirn: 
> True, but would they behave any differently, if they were NOT 
> appointed prefects? Chances are they would have done exactly the 
> same even without any additional incentive. So what would be the 
> point in appointing them? 

Back to my original post:

"At Hogwarts, Prefects are expected to deal with dangers to other 
students. They are left in charge when there is a need for 
protection from Sirius Black, they are involved in patrolling the 
school when students are being petrified.   

They seem to have some authority over the ghosts... there's real 
powers.   

It seems to me plausible that being a Prefect at Hogwarts might 
actually bestow powers on a student within the school. It may open 
secrets and paths to them."  

It's this last paragraph that is a key component of this theory.

Hogwarts is a *magical* place.

We know that in the Wizarding World, having certain characteristics 
can give an entity particular powers in terms of security over 
magical places:

"'Stand back,' said Griphook importantly. He stroked the door 
gently with one of his long fingers and it simply melted away.

'If anyone but a Gringotts goblin tried that, they'd be sucked 
through the door and trapped in there,' said Griphook." (PS, p.59)

Note - the fact that some is a *Gringotts* goblin (not just a 
goblin) is what gives them this power. It is their association as a 
person of authority in a particular place that bestows this power 
on them.

Hogwarts is one of the most significant Wizarding buildings in 
Britain - it certainly seems plausible that something similar 
applies there.

Those who have positions of power and authority in the school - 
official power and authority - may be able to do things within its 
walls that others cannot.

Is there any evidence for this? Maybe a little.

"'Let me see, let me see...' he muttered, taking out his wand and 
smoothing the map out on his desk. 'Reveal your secret!' he said, 
touching the wand to the parchment.  

Nothing happened. Harry clenched his hands to stop them from 
shaking.  

'Show yourself!' Snape said, tapping the map sharply.  

It stayed blank. Harry was taking deep, calming breaths.

'Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you
to yield the information you conceal!' Snape said, hitting the map
with his wand." (PoA, p.211)

As best I can work out, this is the only time in the first five 
books where a teacher is referred to as a Master (or a Mistress) 
outside of their integration into the terms Headmaster and 
Headmistress. Historically, Master and Mistress were the common and 
most correct terms for teachers in schools like those Hogwarts 
seems to be based on - but the term is quite a formal one today, 
and at Hogwarts does not seem to be in general use.

Snape using it here is being oddly formal. This doesn't necessarily 
mean anything - he seems the type to become rather pompous in the 
situation he finds himself in, but I do wonder if his use of the 
term almost as an incantation may indicate that within the walls of 
Hogwarts, it may be a word of power.

And therefore an indication that having a title, having a formal 
position within the school, matters in some fundamental way.

Perhaps Prefects can freely go places other students cannot - not 
just because they have official authority, but because of the 
nature of magical defences - in the same way that only a Gringott's 
goblin can open certain doors, perhaps only a Hogwarts Master, 
Mistress, Head Boy, Head Girl, or Prefect can travel certain paths 
within the school.

Pure speculation - but offered as a possible reason why there could 
be a reason to appoint someone to the position even if it doesn't 
change what they would do.

Bear in mind that we do know that Fred and George weren't sure 
whether they were coming back to Hogwarts or not:

"'We seriously debated whether we were going to bother coming back 
for our seventh year,' said George brightly, 'now that we've got-'  

He broke off at a warning look from Harry, who knew George had been 
about to mention the Triwizard winnings he had given them.  

'- now that we've got our OWLs,' George said hastily. 'I mean, do 
we really need NEWTs? But we didn't think Mum could take us leaving 
school early, not on top of Percy turning out to be the world's 
biggest prat.'" (OotP, p.205).  

Honestly, I only find that reason for staying only semi-
believeable. It's not out of the question, but considering that 
they've opposed their mother in the past on the joke shop idea. It 
may be true, it may be partly true, or it may just be an excuse. 
Perhaps they planned to leave - and they were asked to stay as part 
of their appointment as Secret Prefects.

Honestly, whether appointed or not, I can certainly see Dumbledore 
having spoken to them at some point and asked them to stay on 
simply as a matter of standing together against the threat.

a_svirn: 
> On the other hand, suppose DD did make 
> them secret prefects in hope that they would contribute to the task 
> of maintaining order, keeping students safe and providing them with 
> some sort of additional leadership. But that would only mean that 
> they failed their task miserably, because they were too busy 
> wrecking havoc instead of maintaining order (moreover they even 
> undermined the authority those official prefects who actually TRIED 
> to bring some measure of control into the Gryffindor common room); 
> they also endangered their fellow-students' health making first-
> years testers for their "skiving snackboxes" instead of ensuring 
> their safety and, finally, they fled the scene leaving all concerned 
> without benefit of their leadership. 

Good points here, but in my view, none are anywhere near fatal to 
the theory.

Personally, I think the idea of maintaining order is overstated. 
It's a fairly important (and rather visible) part of a prefects 
duty at Hogwarts (and at many other schools with prefect systems) 
but it's not really the be all and end all, nor the core of what 
they are - and because it's so visible, it's the first thing that 
would have to go.

Undermining the other prefect's authority - yes, and no. The fact 
is, if they can't maintain their authority in the presence of Fred 
and George, they're never going to be able to do their job in that 
regard. Learning to deal with Fred and George is an important 
learning experience for Hermione - I doubt they intend that, but it 
is. For Ron, it isn't realistic for him to deal with them anyway.

Keeping students safe is important - and really does seem to be the 
core duty of a prefect at Hogwarts - but honestly, I don't think 
that they've done a bad job of that. The Skiving Snackboxes don't 
do any real harm - Hermione doesn't like them (and she certainly 
shouldn't!) doing what they are doing, but there's no real reason 
to suppose there's any real risk associated with them. 

But as for keeping their fellow students safe, which student at 
Hogwarts is probably most in danger. Harry. Who is next - probably 
the members of Dumbledore's Army.

And Fred and George are in the thick of that.

As for their leaving school, the way they did - well, that is a 
problem. Because having accepted such authority and responsibility, 
I can't see them laying it down easily.

Except, I think they simply left a few minutes before they were 
pushed. I am certain Umbridge was going to expel them - the only 
reason she hadn't already done so, was because she wanted to have 
them whipped first.

"It was just like the night when Trelawney had been sacked. 
Students were standing all around the walls in a great ring (some 
of them, Harry noticed, covered in a substance that looked very 
like Stinksap); teachers and ghosts were also in the crowd. 
Prominent among the onlookers were members of the Inquisitorial 
Squad, who were all looking exceptionally pleased with themselves, 
and Peeves, who was bobbing overhead, gazed down at Fred and George 
who stood in the middle of the floor with the unmistakeable look of 
two people who had just been cornered." (OotP, p.593).

It was just like the night when Trelawney had been sacked...

Umbridge had them - they were cornered. Their ability to do 
anything else was gone. I can't prove she was about to expel them 
after they were whipped - but JKR does invoke the scene where 
Trelawney was dismissed, and Fred and George have nobody at the 
school to save them - and Umbridge has the audience where she can 
show the other students what will happen to them if they continue 
to defy her. She'll take it. Whipping and expulsion - something 
that would cow most students.

Fred and George turn the tables though in the only way they have 
left. They leave the school in a dramatic fashion. Rather than 
Umbridge stamping her authority on the school, they humiliate her 
and deny her power.

"Inspired by Fred and George's example, a great number of students 
were now vying for the newly vacant positions of Troublemakers-In-
Chief." (OotP, p.597)

In leaving the school, they caused more havoc than ever before. 
They didn't deprive the school of their leadership - they left it 
as their legacy.

One hundred years from now, when Voldemort is about as scary to the 
students of Hogwarts as Kaiser Bill is to us, students at Hogwarts 
will still be talking about 'doing a Weasley'.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia