muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 155380

> PJ:
> I don't see that at all.  Where is it written in canon that the 
twins view 
> *Muggles* (Dudley is considered a spoiled, bullying oaf because he 
is, not 
> simply because he's a muggle) as generally inferior and that 
they'd suspect, 
> even for a moment, that the candies would seriously harm Dudley?  
I never 
> read any such thing.
> 
> Look at where the Burrow is... far from everyone with lots of 
fields and 
> trees around.  Not a muggle in sight.  Then look at where the 
twins go to 
> school.  No true muggles there either.  So just how would they 
*know* that 
> muggles are less tolerant of what is child's play to wizards?   
>From their 
> father?  Somehow I doubt it since Arthur honestly has no idea what 
make 
> muggles tick.


Magpie:
All Wizards know about Muggles, no matter how much actual contact 
they have with them.  And they all speak of them, off-handedly, as 
being inferior.  They're entire society seems rather based on the 
idea.  Hagrid says how cute all the stuff that Muggles come up with 
because they don't have magic is.  Ginny scoffs at stitches (and 
Hermione only "fairly" says that they work on non-Magical wound 
while having assumed complete independence from her Muggle parents 
and begun referring to things Muggles have as "substitutes for 
Magic").  The Prime Minister has no say in anything when dealing 
with Wizards.  Arthur routinely zaps Muggles in the head for his job 
and finds them kind of cute and precious. There are Muggles in the 
Weasley's neighborhood.  George leaves the house in HBP to see a 
Muggle girl in town who "thinks his card tricks are great--like real 
magic!"  Iow, his interaction with her is completely unequal, as 
usual.  

For the Twins to not consider Muggles inferior they would seem to be 
unique in all the Wizarding World, and they aren't that. Nor are 
they innocent child giants who don't know what hurts Muggles.  
They're 16-year-old boys brought up to not Prank Muggles who do it 
anyway.  

> PJ:
> Thankyou, I believe you made my point for me very nicely.  First, 
Harry is 
> surprised to see what the candy does to Dudley (and he grew up 
with 
> Muggles!) and secondly the part you neglected to quote was where 
Mr. Weasley 
> explained that it was a "simple engorgement charm" and that he 
could sort it 
> out.  Had the Dursleys not panicked so badly (Petunia probably 
made things 
> worse by yanking Dudley's tongue half out of his head) it would've 
been 
> sorted in a jiffy and, though scary, would not have been dangerous.

Magpie:
One of the results of the candy--an easily forseeable and presumably 
desired result--is the panic (and remember the only reason Arthur 
was able to sort it out "in a jiffy" is because Dudley ate the candy 
on the spot before Arthur had left. Arthur himself, iirc, makes it 
clear that his being there luckily prevents something worse rather 
than the Dursleys panic creating something out of nothing). Leaving 
aside the idea that it's the Dursleys fault for not responding the 
way any Muggle would, the ultimate danger of the charm isn't 
necessarily relevent.  The Muggles at the QWC aren't being hurt 
either when we see them.  The Twins are not trying to kill Dudley, 
they're just playing a practical joke on him, with perhaps a 
slightly higher level of cruelty than your average practical joke. 
The last funny joke placed on Dudley by a Wizard had to be removed 
surgically.  I've no idea if the engorgement charm in the candy 
would have worn off by itself, but it's still kind of silly to brush 
off "a simple engorgement charm" as if that makes it simple to the 
Dursleys.

-m