Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 155897

Katie replies (after staying silent, but lurking in this thread  for days):

In my opinion, I don't care what the  Dursleys do or don't do. They are 
repugnant, bigoted, small-minded jerks. They  are rude, self-absorbed, and 
ignorant. I don't care if Dudley never so much as  made an ugly face at Harry after he 
was accepted at Hogwarts...I thought the  ton-tongue taffy incident was 
hilarious and deserved. 
 
Julie:
I don't care about the Dursleys either. And I don't care about Marietta.  
Whatever
happens to them, they aren't characters in which I've invested much  emotion
or any great expectations. Their general bad behavior doesn't concern  me, as
it is expected. Should they improve, fine, but should they not--eh.
 
I DO however care about the Weasley twins, about Harry, Hermione, and  all
the other "good guys." I've invested emotion in them, it matters to me how  
their
behavior reflects on them. That's why I've sometimes criticized their  
actions;
not because they're comparable to DEs or to Umbridge, but because  they're
NOT. Thus I want their behavior to rise above, even when I know they  too
are only human ;-)
 
Katie:
There has been much talk in this thread of the twins being malicious or  
enjoying people getting tortured...That's just silly. (In my always humble  
opinion) Dudley is a jerk, Fred and George are clowns, and they played a joke on  
him...that they also would have played on wizard, as the Wizarding Wheezes are  
intended for wizards' use. It has nothing to do with him being a Muggle...it 
has  to do with him being a prat, as F&G say themselves to their dad after the  
incident.
 
Julie:
I don't think anyone's called Fred and George liars, or doubted  that they 
played
the prank on Dudley because he'd bullied Harry rather than because he's a 
Muggle. The point was whether Fred and George were misusing their  magic
or not. (As far as liking to see people being tortured, I agree that is a  
bit of
an extreme term. But they certainly enjoy watching their prank  victims being 
discomforted, physically or emotionally. And pranks can be fun to watch,  even
hilarious. Unless the prank is being played on you, of course!)
 
Katie:  
And obviously JKR thinks the twins are good  blokes - silly and goofy - but 
good. She didn't write them as nasty people, just  as people that carry on all 
the time...and I know plenty of people who can't  take anything 
seriously...but they're not bad people.
 
Julie:
I agree that Fred and George aren't bad people, and JKR isn't writing them  
that
way at all. I do think however that she is writing them as human, meaning  
they
can sometimes be insensitive to the pain they may inadvertently cause in  the
name of good fun (I'm not speaking just of Dudley here, but of "first  years" 
who
are often their victims simply because they are first years). 
 
Katie:
 As I see it: Dudley and Dursleys = BAD        Twins and Weasleys = GOOD


Julie:

And I see the varying shades of grey known as being human.  Certainly
Dudley and the Dursleys frequently act on their worst instincts, and are 
very unpleasant people. But even the most unpleasant people are  not
ALL bad--Petunia and Vernon do love Dursley, for instance, even if  they
don't realize what their brand of smothering love is doing to him. 
 
As for the Weasleys, they are indeed good people. But good  people
are not GOOD in the sense of never doing wrong. Even the best  people
sometimes act on their worst instincts, hurting others out of anger, 
jealousy, or indifference. They wouldn't be human otherwise, they'd  be
tediously boring saints. 
 
And that has been one of JKR's central themes, IMO, showing  the
shades of grey in *everyone*, but emphasizing that grey in the  good
characters. Thus the pensieve incident, where the Mauraders  act
quite badly. I believe we are also supposed to realize that the  twins
sometimes go too far, that Harry unwisely lets his anger control
him, that Hermione's self-complacency may be her downfall. It
would be a pretty boring journey for our heroes if they didn't grow
and learn from their mistakes, if they didn't admit their weaknesses
and work to overcome them. That *is* the journey, really.
 
Oh, and regarding the specific ton-tongue taffy incident, Arthur is
also a Weasley, thus a good person. In that scene, I ask again, was
he right or wrong to chastise Fred and George for misusing magic
on a Muggle? Was he being a conscientious father trying to instill  a
strong moral code in his sons, or is he just a  boring old fuddy duddy 
who can't see a good, clean joke when it's in front of his face?
 
Julie, who thinks Arthur is one of the "goodest" of the good guys
 
 






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