Those merry twins

[sistermagpie]

I've been reading ajhalluk's continuing essay on bullying in the Potterverse and the twins came up, specifically, whether or not they have any "real malice." That's made me think about my own impressions of them, which I don't think will be backed up by specific scenes because it's been a while and I don't have Twins scenes imprinted in my memory. However, I do remember what I thought about them in GoF, probably because it was part of one of the things I liked best about that book.



I do feel real malice in the Twins, most definitely so in GoF. This isn't because of any specific thing they've done, such as feeding the salamander the firecracker (although I do always laugh at folks who think they're funny and then hysterically shriek that Malfoy was "abusing" Buckbeak by petting it and they just really feel strongly about animal rights) or playing practical jokes. I do think if I were in school with them I would avoid them as much as possible, and I suspect kids who aren't in Gryffindor (particularly Slytherins) are afraid of them. After all, they are two big guys hissing at 11-year-olds and they do put Montague in the infirmary, think hemorrhaging is funny, etc. I don't think they've got a safety net for any of their pranks.

But my feelings are really just that...impressions I got while reading. Something about the way they're characterized. I think, for instance, that their incessant teasing of Percy does have real malice in it revealed in OotP--meaning I believe that unlike Ron they probably could just consider Percy an enemy now. But I realized that the moments that really got me thinking they were trouble in GoF had to do with their schemes to get money. I was sure in that book that Fred and George were going to wind up being bad guys. I thought they would sell out in some way. I could easily see them betraying Harry for it.

But then, I liked all the stuff about the Weasleys and money in GoF, starting with Ron's humiliation over the leprechaun's gold. I remember it left me feeling JKR was much better at dealing with that sort of feeling than the racism. I've spoken about how the racism parallels just don't really work for me in the books, but more bluntly, when you're dealing with magical races of any kind you're in la-la land. Finding out someone is a half-giant just isn't anything like finding out somebody is any ethical extraction in the real world. Thus, the lessons about tolerance are more intellectual or didactic to me--it's bad that Draco says Mudblood, Ron needs to be more open-minded about werewolves etc. The money issue, though, really worked for me in GoF. I could feel it.

As has been brought up recently on F_W, a lot of discussions of HP bring in class--specifically the British class system. I'm in no way qualified to talk about that, but I can say I don't feel that the books are presenting me with a detailed view of exactly this. What I do think the books often do well is just the more general haves vs. have nots, and that's what I thought came through in GoF. I understood Ron's humiliation over the gold in ways I've never "felt" any of the other stuff with racism. Ron was angry and humiliated; Harry felt sorry for him and was embarrassed for him-even more humiliating. And I liked that Ron's frustration about money came the same year as he had to show up at the Yule Ball in tattered robes and the twins were trying to get funds for their store by any means necessary.

Now, the Weasleys poverty has always been a defining factor. They hate the rich family, the Malfoys. Ron is the only person Draco seems to really be able to upset. So usually I think it's easy to think of the Weasleys as good because they're not snobs and they're poor, which is subtly linked to not caring about many things more than money. Harry and Ron first bond over not having any toys, after all. Harry is handed a vault full of gold as part of the fantasy, but he never uses it. He doesn't use it, but he *has it.* That's important. He might not throw his money around on fancy clothes, but he can wear nice robes to the ball. Obviously the Weasleys have nothing *really* to complain about--I mean, they're clothed and fed. But they have hand-me-downs, can't replace broken wands quickly, have no pocket money. Personally, I'm one of those people who think the Weasleys circumstances are the obvious result of their choices--Arthur and Molly do have a huge amount of children to support on a small salary, Arthur isn't exactly driving himself to make more money, Molly doesn't work at all (even with all her children in school) it seems. So I don't see their relative poverty as some great unfairness of the universe. Nor do I see it as the product of great values. It's just the product of the way they manage money and life.

But for the kids, it's more difficult and I think there was, especially in GoF, an undercurrent of real bitterness and resentment from both Ron and the Twins, a sense of entitlement. Why can't they have the money they need to do the things they want the way everyone else does? In Ron's case, why can't he just have the money to have nice clothes or be able to pay back his friends? It's humiliating to Ron to have Harry pay for him, to not be able to just do whatever other people are doing. None of those Weasleys are about to blame Arthur or criticize his life (the way Percy might), so I think they do instead project it onto the world in general.

That is what I thought the Twins were going to be “about” in GoF. I just remember feeling that this was where we were seeing that now that the Twins were growing up they were beginning to realize this was bigger than not having the best broom, it was about not having opportunities they wanted. (As Charlie Chaplin, I think, said, “I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better.”) The Twins had no intention of being kept from doing what they wanted, and they're not exactly ones to just work earnestly and save their money. I mean, they're Purebloods, they have pretty big egos, they're Gryffindors, and now the world expects them to go to work in some little office? They wouldn't last a day. Nor would they have to, because it's much easier to turn their "prankster" minds towards criminal mischief. It was a little odd for me to have them rewarded in the end, obviously. Here I thought the promise of the joke shop was going to be the thing that led them into some dark territory, and here's Harry giving them money as if they werne't ready to resort to every dirty trick in the book to get the money if he hadn't. Okay.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is ever going to be brought up again. Perhaps GoF was the money book and now everybody's over that and Ron's just sort of worried about Quidditch and the twins are happy and we assume they're set for life. (Just as Ron's resentment of Harry was wrapped up in one of those patented, "And then they weren't fighting anymore, because the author has finished with this theme and is declaring it resolved starting now.") But I think this is a big reason I can't ever see the Twins as merry pranksters who can only go so dark. I really thought the foundations were being laid in GoF for them to turn into flat-out villains of some sort, showing the effects of greed and bitterness about money. It would be wonderfully ironic as well, given their long-standing feud with the Malfoys. But it's also what makes it so natural, imo.

Comments

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

Great post, as always! I haven't anything to add about the Weasleys.

"And then they weren't fighting anymore, because the author has finished with this theme and is declaring it resolved starting now."
Bwahahaha. That's the reasoning to be applied to a lot of things that happen in HP books! We have to consider that some things are there just for book X, without any further implications. I've thought, for instance, that Sirius and Snape's handshaking had a meaning that would be clarified later, that there would be further developments, that they would have to work together or something like that. But I was wrong! Apparently, that was a gesture to have its effect only there, in the end of GoF.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And yeah, there's just a few time in the book that always stick out for me because I was really into them and then I felt like it just ended--like coitus interuptus or something. So I'm never completely trusting that something I'm following is going to go anywhere!

[januarylight.livejournal.com]

Oh, that had never occurred to me! It's a great take. I was really bothered by their product-testing in OotP and wish more had been made of it. I really hope Rowling is going to make a point with them, but I have the horrible fear that she just thinks they're funny. One man's bully is another's protector and all that nasty stuff.

Your thoughts on the Weasleys' poverty are even more interesting to me, because I didn't have much money as a kid and I sometimes feel guilty about not sympathising with them very much. I squirm in embarrassment with Ron, but I squirm in embarrassment at him, too. There's something very obnoxious in the way his perception of his family's poverty is presented, I think. I know we're supposed to feel sorry for him, but usually I just want him to get over himself. I began by identifying strongly with him, and I think I might judge him too harshly because of that, but then I wonder where all that resentment came from. The sense of entitlement is the thing that really gets me; Ron wants to have money but he hasn't done anything to try and earn it, like actually working at school. It feels like a silly little thing but it really bothers me. It's partly why I love Percy so much too: at least he's trying. This is a tangent. Sorry! Loved the post.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes--I think that's just how it is. That, I think, is why the whole things works for me, because I can understand how Ron is supposed to be feeling but also I cringe for him because he is making it so difficult. I mean, he can't pay Harry back so just let it go already! Another person might have been able to soothe Ron's ruffled feathers better than Harry, but it's still just the situation that makes it difficult. Ron calls attention to it more than Harry does.

I am definitely interested in the different ways the kids respond to it too--I think I see Percy much the way you do. I think he probably feels like his father is possibly hindering his own career with the reputation he has, for instance. It's funny...sometimes it reminds me of when I used to watch the show Roseanne and there were times where I just felt like the way the family's finances and life was portrayed was not exactly accurate, because you could see them making choices that led to the things they complained about later. Of course Ron didn't choose the family he was born into, but he can decide which way to react to it. In GoF especially I thought he was struggling with that.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Well, money does seem to be presented as something you earn in HP, not get handed to you.
I can quite understand Draco, for example, annoying the hell out of Ron because it's not fair, dammit - his father's working to make the world a better place and gets squat for it, Draco's father is a Death Eater and it's like they're being rewarded for it.
(Of course, looking at Arthur from an outsider's POV, I find it hard to see him as the hero he obviously is in Ron's view - all those Arthur for Minister badges creep the hell out of me. Yes, vote Arthur, he sees Muggles as almost as good as Wizards! Just ask Mr. Robinson (the guy who owned the campsite), who, as someone recently reminded me; was wishing the gang 'Merry Christmas!' by the end of the World Cup!
(Because I just finished taking Othello at college, I'll flaunt my knowledge and say that in the racism parallels, Arthur would be the Duke - the man who proclaims Othello 'far more fair than black'; thanks to Othello's good character.
Why, good old Othello, he's just like a white man! Makes a good general after all, spear-chuckers always do, and I wouldn't want him marrying my daughter, but hey, he's our buddy, he could almost pass for a gentleman.
Anyway, I've gone off on one about Arthur now!)

So yeah, I can see how privilege and money are presented as rewards for hard work, and how someone being born into good fortune could anger Ron.
But then we have (yet another!) example of hypocrisy within the text - Harry.
Harry didn't earn his fortune, it was left to him.
There's no condemnation from either narrative nor characters that Harry is basically the trust fund baby that Draco is, financially speaking.
So inherited wealth isn't to be frowned on if it's Harry's? Or something.

A theme seems to be: You don't have to be the best. You don't have to be the wealthiest smartest, or the prettiest, or the most talented, or athletic. All that is unimportant and superficial.
You can be an underdog, but as long as you have true friends, you're the winner in the end.

Except Harry is the wealthiest of the Trio. Indeed, I'm willing to bet his fortune equals the Malfoys' and further to that, I would bet my entire fortune, if I had one, on the Malfoy's losing their money in the next two books.
Money is unimportant, mocking people for poverty is wrong, but when it happens to the Malfoy's let's laugh our asses off!
He's also the most talented DADA student in school. And most athletic.
Not that that stuff matters, or anything!

Hermione is the girl who proves you don't have to be a busty blonde bimbo to be a female role model. She's the antithesis to the 'thick' Pansy, who prefers more traditional gender roles of pandering to boys. She's smarter than Ron. And Harry. And the school. She has more on her mind than make up, like girl power!
Except she's also the prettiest belle of the ball.
So looks are unimportant, except when they are in order to fulfill a Cinderella story?

And of course, on the whole 'Money should be earned, privilege destroyed!' theme you have both the meta-level - JKR the socialist billionaire; and the example used in this essay - the twins, who's funding isn't earned but handed to them by their rich friend, in a move that were it carried out by Slytherins (OMG, they want to HEX people with their evil DeathEater-y jokes! I don't know about you, but I'd rather someone insulted my mother than actively tried to choke me!) would be condemned as was the broom situation in CoS.

[mark356.livejournal.com]

I don't think that GoF was just the money book, or the only money book; it's the fourth book in a seven-book series, so it's really the last point at which she could have introduced anything new to the series: therefore, the way she expanded on and brought out the money issues in GoF should be resolved more conclusively in book 6 or 7. It'll be fascinating to see how she carries it through!

[I do agree with your terror of the twins; even Harry vows to never accept so much as a crisp from them. But I think more than anything else, they have a very medievel sense of humor. (I'm trying to think of some centuries-old joke where the narrator gets horribly injured and it's hilarious, or some very violent game from the 1300s and failing miserably because I haven't studied it seriously and because it's almost 5 in the morning for me, but I'm sure they exist.)]

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I do hope she does--like I said above, I've gotten so I'm overly paranoid that things I'm interested in aren't going to go anywhere, but she certainly hasn't closed the door on this story by a longshot. Now that the twins are out in the world plenty of things could happen.

I think one reason their jokes stand out is that there's such a blending of modern-views and medieval views. So sometimes this kind of throw-back mindset is seen as really bad, and other times it's just part of the world.

[ex-lonicera600.livejournal.com]

Well, I've been arguing with AJHall on the subject of the twins, so I'll tell you nothing new if I say that I don't think they're in any way sinister. But that doesn't mean that it's entirely impossible for them to end up as criminals, imo.

This would still not make them *evil* in my mind, though. Mundungus is very annoying and I always cringe when he enters the scene, but he's not evil. And the twins, being much cleverer than he is, would surely have better careers than he, even in crime.

I think I see them as a bit shady. You know the kind of businessman, who sets up a company without sufficient funding? If he goes bankrupt, he's a failure and a thief, who's ripped off his investors. If he succeeds though, he's a financial wizard and a business genius.

Also there's this type of guy in literature, who's a kind of pirate or black sheep, but oh, so charming? I'm not sure I ever met one of those in RL, but they do exist in books and I think I would sort the twins into that category. Ah, well: Think Jack Sparrow of PoC! You were never sure which side he was on just now (except his own), but he wasn't evil, just, well, see above...

Regarding Ron's sense of entitlement: hmmm. I don't think that he expects too much of life if he woud like to have decent robes for once. Or not absolutely everything handmedown. I have a strong sense that every living being *should* have everything it needs to exist contentedly. Sadly, this isn't the way the world functions, but Ron's wishes are fairly modest and I can understand that he's frustrated at not having what everyone else has and uses without thinking.

I do therefore think that Arthur and Molly are pretty irresponsible, spawning more children than they can rise in decent conditions. It's fine if their poverty doesn't bother them, but they can't take it for granted that all of their children will feel the same way. You know those 'cat-ladies'? Little old ladies, who live in tiny flats with 50 cats? That's what the burrow feels like to me.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

The Trickster! Yes--they could very well be, and the trickster is not a "nice" character and shouldn't be.

For me it's not so much that I have a judgment on the twins being just good or bad...I see the potential for sinister in them, definitely, which is at odds with the way other people sometimes see them--as harmless. I feel that way about a lot of characters on the good side, actually, where there's a sinister potential that we should pay attention to. Frankly, I think the twins are more interesting this way as well!

Sadly, this isn't the way the world functions, but Ron's wishes are fairly modest and I can understand that he's frustrated at not having what everyone else has and uses without thinking.


Oh, I agree. I think Ron's pretty easy-going about most things, which is maybe why I like watching him struggle in GoF. He's not demanding the moon there, just a little dignity--he doesn't want to be a charity case, he doesn't want his dress robes to look silly. If he was complaining over not having the best broom or lots of candy I wouldn't be sympathetic, but the fact that he usually just makes do makes his occasional desires more valid. Maybe "entitlement" is too strong a word, but I did feel like Ron was very validly saying that he deserved to have robes etc. as much as Harry did, and Hermione did, and Malfoy did. And there he's right--there's nothing any of these kids has done to earn the money they have; it all comes from their parents. And particularly when you think of their feud with the Malfoys, it seems like they probably do feel like it's ridiculous that their "better" family is poor while the "evil" family has money. Though it seems like Percy is so far one of the only kids who's probably ready to look to his own house for the reason for that, you know?

[darklites.livejournal.com]

I agree about Molly and Arthur, that it is their conscious choices that have led them to be in their situation. This is why I sometimes feel it difficult to muster up too much sympathy of the Weasleys' 'plight' of being poor. I mean, parents often work their asses off at terrible jobs just so their children can have a better life than them, to give their children the opportunities to have the life that they could not have. But Arthur seems to stay in the job he loves because he loves it (and possibly some silly pride thing), and yes -- Molly doesn't work at all, either.

So I just find something rather selfish about all this. I suppose perhaps they'd rather hold to their principles than 'selling out', to teach their children to do the same - ? But I still do not see why sacrificing some things, especially something like pride, to provide a better future for your children is such a terrible thing. Sometimes I get the feeling they are wearing the 'We Are Poor' as somewhat of a martyr flag, although this may be more JKR's voice than their own.

I think that because the Weasleys are poor and unprivileged and unsnobbish I am meant to feel sorry for them, and to wish them good luck because "it couldn't happen to better people". But I often find myself wondering, why aren't they working harder? If they were trying the best to provide for their family I think I'd root far, far harder for them. Right now I just feel that they are bringing it on themselves, that Arthur and Molly are putting themselves first, rather than their children.

No wonder all of their children who are old enough seem to move away, eh? ;) (I remember this is what my friends and I said of the children of all the bad teachers I had back in high school, heh.)

(By all the above I think I am referring mostly to Molly and Arthur, and I do not blame their children as much. Bill, Charlie, and Percy have all seemed to find their own niche in work anyway by working hard for themselves and I really respect that. F&G seem to have done so too, but I agree that the way they were getting there was almost ominous. (I can see them doing black-market trading in a second.) Ron I am not sure about-- he seems to really want to be all these things but doesn't seem to have enough drive to do all of them, to really work for them like his siblings have. Ron's sense of entitlement does tigg at me a little, mostly because I think it's another case of too-much-pride-and-resentment-instead-of-action but the way his parents act I suppose I somewhat understand. Actually I have some huge Ron-issues that I've not managed to sort out even up to now, especially since 'the sidekick' is so often my favourite character, and although I do like Ron more or less, big Ron love leaves me cold, and I have no idea why. Aaand I am babbling now.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, discussing the logical reasons for the Weasleys poverty does seem like one of those things that are Not To Be Spoken Of in this universe, like the idea that CoMC is better when someone other than Hagrid teaches it.

And I think you have hit it on the head with what frustrates people about Ron. As I said above, it's not that Ron asks for much. He's not demanding the best brooms and lots of candy. What he does want is a certain level of dignity--to be able to pay for himself and not look foolish. But what's also true is that he's not particularly ambitious either. Percy seems the one determined to make a career for himself legitimately and nobody wants to be like Percy. Even when given an opportunity it's not really in Ron's nature to push himself--like when he's Prefect he quickly decides not to stand up to the twins, etc.

Probably in our world he'd wind up living a modest life and have fun with his friends on the weekends or whatever. Only in this world he's sometimes confronted with people who have more and that makes him angry but there's only so much he's going to do about it.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

an undercurrent of real bitterness and resentment from both Ron and the Twins, a sense of entitlement.

Now that you mention it, yes, I can really see it. Ron isn't someone whose head I can get into easily, but he is very bitter and jealous of things that are just out of his reach and the Twins just freak me out with how reckless they are.

Oddly enough, the Weasleys don't strike me a *dirt poor*, just cash-strapped with so many children in school at once, and Molly and Arthur not being very good money managers. After all, they do seem to own their home, so it looks like a budget crunch to me, more than outright poverty. Both Molly and Arthur act somewhat like people who *don't* know the value of money -- Arthur with his Muggle-obsession and job going nowhere, Molly without a job of her own (especially with all the kids at school. What does she DO all day?) and her attempts to mother everyone in her sphere. Her idiotic behavior in GoF -- she buys Harry robes that match his eyes (using Harry's money) and is silly enough to give Ron the horrible dress robes right then. She knits sweaters for her entire family, yet she doesn't know enough about sewing to make those robes presentable?

Frankly, Percy strikes me as the one kid who came out of that house with a really good head on his shoulders (to be fair, Charlie and Bill probably did too, but we've seen so little of them that it's hard to tell) and without the creepy sense of entitlement. He seems to want the same things that Ron and the Twins want -- prestige, autonomy, power -- but he's willing to *work* at it.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's exactly how I see them, I think. Certainly not dirt poor and needing food donations, but not good with money at all. It's been pointed out elsewhere, I know, how when they do get some money they take a vacation. On one hand I can understand wanting to splurge with "found" money, and presumably the whole family was excited to go to Egypt. But then when it comes time to get school supplies, you're not going to have it.

That's why I really can see some of the kids having a very difficult relationship with their parents--Percy does seem like the one who deals with things realistically to me, even when he's misguided. He's very different from Arthur and I figure he's determined not to make the same mistakes. It seems to me sometimes, too, that Percy is less bitter about the world because of that--I mean, he probably thinks he's seen he's right in the way he's gotten promotions and Head Boy etc. I think it might be his distance from Arthur, and even his anger at the way Arthur doesn't seem to value his accomplishments, that makes Percy able to criticize things about Arthur the others might find embarassing to suggest.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

Very provocative, as always! But for once I selfishly replied in my own journal, since I don't use it enough. Basically I'm arguing that the Twins are morally ambiguous capitalists rather than simply evil greedheads. It's an interesting topic to think about.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! Evil greedheads!

Though one can lead to the other, of course. I don't think I ever see the twins simply becoming Evil because their nature seems to be more slippery.

[ishtar79.livejournal.com]

Wow, I pretty much agree with everything in this post.

Big WORD on the Weasleys' poverty being a matter of choice. I've discussed this issue at length with adela711, and we both agree that the Weasleys aren't even doing anything to improve their situation. Too many kids, Molly insists on not working, and the one time they came upon some money through the Wizard lottery, they chose to blow it all on a trip to Egypt, rather than spend it on somethin like new robes/books for their kids.

I am also bothered by the way Rowling seems to equate poverty to nobility of character or something. The way the Weasleys are written, we're pretty much expected to go all 'Aw, they are poor, but PROUD and LOVING and that's what's REALLY important, unlike those nasty Malfoys'. It's all very manipulative and just...blah.

Oh, the Twins were certainly down an interesting path in GoF, and I thought it a bit ridiculous that they were 'rewarded' for their schemes. Having said that, everyone criticizes Percy for being ambitious and wanting more than the life Arthur has, yet is willing to overlook the same behaviour from the twins. Yes, Percy certainly didn't go about it the most subtle or clever way, but at the end, the motivation is the same.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I feel like there's just a lot of stuff going on with the family...and probably this is because it's not like Rowling is setting out to write a lesson on the subject. My guess is it's much more instinctual; she created a family (and to her the Weasley family is wonderful and Harry is never happier than when he's staying with them, so immediately I know my views and her views on them are probably different) and the people in it and they just do what they do. So it's probably just that when she thinks of an obnoxious kid he's rich and has mean parents, while her version of a nice kid is that he doesn't have much and has these parents.

It's more left to us to tease some meaning out of it. The trip to Egypt probably is supposed to be just a good thing--it reflects well on them that they want to use the money to visit their child because they love togetherness etc. But then when the time comes for Ron to get robes, you think, "Hmmm...too bad you blew the Egypt money."

This type of family is kind of interesting to me in other ways too, because to me it's an "ideal family" very different from my own idealized family. It seems based more on belonging-everyone looks the same, they act as a group, they support the same things. It's almost like a club. I can't help but sometimes compare it to Will Stanton's family in The Dark is Rising, which is another big family with 9 children, only it's far more my ideal, and very relaxed. Large families can be very smothering when they're more like the Weasleys.

[tehlils.livejournal.com]

I don't think the Weasleys are poor, just that they're on a tight budget. I do think all their children were planned, however, I don't think that they had expected to ever be on such a tight budget. I think Molly, having been a stay at home mother for so many years, has really lost her chance for the job market, as it doesn't seem that there's really odd jobs like we have. Also, as it will just be Ron and Ginny at Hogwarts next year, and only the two of them being financially supported by Molly and Arthur, I see them having more available to them.

Back to the job issue though. I rather think the way things are set up, that you're to go into a career out of school. I don't see any indications of summer jobs in any of the students, and that gives me the impression that the job market is rather impenetrable except for once you get out of school. I think once you're out of the job market for so long, you rather lose your chance and desire to go back in. Most businesses seem to be run by partners or individuals, often without any extra hired help, and when there is hired help, it seems rather like a permanent job, not something to just earn your keep until you find something better.

The job market is very much like it was in medieval times. You have a specialisation and you stick with that specialisation. You don't go and get a career as a nurse when you're specialisation is as a baker. It just doesn't happen, thus if you're out of the market as a blacksmith or a baker, you rather lose your ability to work. So I don't really see it as a choice, I just don't see it as it is for us now.

As far as how they spend the money, the spending habits you learn as a child from your parents is typically how you subconciously end up spending yours unless you really work hard at not following in your parents footsteps. So, whith Molly and Arthur both being Pureblood, I can imagine that they grew up being able to spend money on a whim and are thus not used to the concept of saving up for a rainy day. And with their children in school, most of their money goes to Hogwarts.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's true to really get what's going on we'd need some sense of how the job market works, which is only hinted at. It does seem like people either have a trade or have a specific job. I can see Molly selling things that she's made or something like that, but she's obviously not your modern woman who would have a job on the side.

I like your point about the spending habits too; I hadn't thought about that, but you're right.

[mizbean.livejournal.com]

Great essay, insightful as always.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[earwurm.livejournal.com]

I do love reading your posts. Which would be worse: the twins acting out of overt malice, or the twins just not caring? I doubt they spent two seconds worrying about the brain-damaged kid in OoP. I don't have to work hard to see the obviously malicious characters like Snape and Umbridge as being, definitely not sympathetic, but more human than the twins. At least Umbridge’s actions have a motive; they make her a complex character. The twins are more like objects, like Bludgers, as Woods called them.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's a lot of the way I see them. The brain dammaged kid was one of the things that really gave me pause in OotP. It was the type of thing the twins would do, but I thought surely it was significant that the story went on and on. I mean, it could have been played just for slapstick but instead we get these hints that he's seriously dammaged and this is just a good thing. Yet it's a character we don't know at all. I don't think we ever actually see him except that we know he's a Slytherin, that he tried to take points as part of Umbridge's Squad, that presumably he and Malfoy are allies. And all we hear really is the main characters deciding not only that this was a fitting thing to happen but that they are not going to tell what the twins did to try to help his recovery.

[blankcanvas.livejournal.com]

I love how you notice things like this! I never notice things like this.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL--I'm sure you notice lots of things I don't notice! (I feel that way in fandom all the time):-)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_rp_zeal_/]

Sometimes it's scary to read Harry Potter.. like, what are doing? What are you trying to tell us here? Oh no... you're NOT saying that we should sympathize with the Weasleys, simply because they have more children than they could afford (one of the best line Draco had delivered), right?

It's like Rowling has this wonderful sweets shop, yet everything I crave (Snape, Draco..)she tells me are fake so they aren't really available, and the ones she loves and recommends... *big sigh* I wonder if I'd have stayed, if it weren't because I still have slight hope that one day her fake candies will turn real?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! I know that feeling. I guess this is part of the thing of working with this sort of universe it's like...somewhere I was saying I doubt this is something she's sitting down and working out. She's probably just writing instinctively--which goes along with her own comments where she tends to just sort of respond with, "Why would you like that guy? This guy's cool and he's not!" So she probably just have the characters acting the way they'd be acting. But that doesn't mean it's not ultimately adding up to a very clear view of the world.

[frozen-jelly.livejournal.com]

I think its strange that people criticise Molly for not working, because at the time when she would have been working full-time and climbing that career ladder, instead she was a mother raising seven children and running a household. Its not as if she would be able to count on Arthur for any help around the house is it? He seems like the kind of husband who would put the washing in the fridge and the milk in the tumble-dryer! And as someone mentioned, the wizarding world does seem to have these fixed roles that are very vocational. Its not as if Molly could go to Tesco and fill in an application form!

I think the idea of vocational jobs is important in HP, especially in the case of the twins. For whatever reason the twins like to play pranks on people, and I think this developed from something tehy did as a bit of a laugh, to wanting to develop new ideas and original products based on their copious expeience. Once they realised that their ideas worked and people were willing to buy them they became determined to do this as their job - as well as knowing that they had no other particular skills academically or otherwise (although there is arguably Quidditch) So I don't think that they are greedy, it just they want to be able to fund thsi dream where they have this amazing business that they love wholeheartedly, and that they(and Harry) believe will bring a bit of comic relief to people at a time when they are going to be frightened and threatened.

It seems that its only in the last few days that I have realised that some people see Fred and George as a malicious presence in the books, rather than light-hearted comedians which I would veer towards. I think one of the things that can be used to support the theory that F&G are a bit evil, is their treatment of Percy in OotP.To me though it seemed like they were treating him in a way that reflected the pain and trauma that his actions and behaviour had caused his family. When Percy left teh Weasley's he didn't see what the reaction was, but the twins did - they saw their Mum randomly burst into tears and their Dad studiously avoiding the topic of Percy. To me the Weasley's didn't always have material possessions or the biggest house, but what they did have was love and a belief in the family unit. Yes, they argue and tease but despite that - or maybe because of that - they seemed a very close and strong family, who all genuinely cared for each other.

I can understand the use of the lottery money on a trip to Egypt (aside from the blatant plot device) because it was a way of giving something equal to all the children and also having a 'proper' holiday that will give you really strong memories to look back on. In some ways I think thats better than say... an owl for Ginny, a new wand for Ron, some books for Percy etc

I must say though, taht my views on large family's (families?) may be a bit skewed in the big family favour, because my Mum comes from a massive family (9 children) and I envy that family bond and happiness that her and her siblings have when they reminisce. And while I have heard some complaints, they were far more likely to be about circumstance rather than money or lack of attention that some peope assume come hand-in-hand with a large family.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think its strange that people criticise Molly for not working, because at the time when she would have been working full-time and climbing that career ladder, instead she was a mother raising seven children and running a household.

I don't really criticize her exactly, it's just obviously this is a big family that's getting by on one income--that's one more choice that means they have less money than they could have. It doesn't have to be a bad choice, but it's part of their financial situation. And also maybe in this day and age people just naturally expect both parents to work and if there's a money issue they expect it even more.

So I don't think that they are greedy, it just they want to be able to fund thsi dream where they have this amazing business that they love wholeheartedly, and that they(and Harry) believe will bring a bit of comic relief to people at a time when they are going to be frightened and threatened.

I don't think their wanting to have a business is greedy, but in GoF I wasn't sure how far they would go-and they didn't seem light-hearted about it. They seem more like real Tricksters to me. Tricksters can be funny but they've got bite and can hurt people too.

I think one of the things that can be used to support the theory that F&G are a bit evil, is their treatment of Percy in OotP.

I think many people see them as having been cruel to Percy pre-OotP. Also, their jokes do tend to be about causing people physical pain--in OotP they seem to put one kid out of school without caring. Personally, making somebody bleed a lot or vomit probably wouldn't make me laugh. When it comes to the Weasley family, I think it's just you react to them one way or another. You can see the twins as teasing or you can see Percy as really hurt by a lot of the things they do.

I can understand where Percy is coming from in OotP and I think his family hurt him as well. I can also see the twins protecting their mother. I'm not sure how far they would go in that direction, whether underneath it all they really love Percy or whether they'd truly cut him out of their lives. Families can do that.

In some ways I think thats better than say... an owl for Ginny, a new wand for Ron, some books for Percy etc

I see the point of it too. I see the value in it. But it's also a choice that goes along with the rest of their life. They generally aren't very focused on making or saving money yet they have a lot of children to support. I don't think that means the kids are having terrible lives, but the situation their in is the logical outcome of the choices they make. Like I said, I don't see it as a mark against them or a mark for them.

I mean, I'm like this about my own life as well. I know there are professions where I would make more money, but I'm not interested in those. Therefore I have less money than, say, an investment banker.

I must say though, taht my views on large family's (families?) may be a bit skewed in the big family favour, because my Mum comes from a massive family (9 children) and I envy that family bond and happiness that her and her siblings have when they reminisce.

I think big families are probably different as any other type family. As I said somewhere above, I loved the Stantons in The Dark is Rising, a family with 9 children. I don't think I would want to be a Weasley. They're both families with lots of kids, but the dynamics are different. So the Weasleys are definitely not my idea of an ideal family by any means--for me that's the Stantons. But I don't think the issue is the number of children, necessarily, because it depends on the family. I don't really feel like any of the Weasleys get neglected or that not having enough to go around is really an issue. That is, I'm sure Ron wears hand-me-downs but I don't think that's usually a problem. I had some hand-me-down things too and it didn't bother me for the most part.

[petitesoeur.livejournal.com]

i'm getting wrapped up in nyff preparations -- ALREADY! -- and dreading the impending republican deluge -- what about you -- will you be around or escaping

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ugh--yup, it looks like I'll be here. My brother is going to be in next week too.

I'm kind of in denial. We had a meeting at work where they just said well, let's see how hard it is for everybody to get here.

[rhiannonmr.livejournal.com]

Interesting comments. I do think that the twins were rather ruthless in GoF about the money issue for their shop. 17yr old boys blackmailing a ministry official is just out there if ya know what I mean. Granted it was Ludo Bagman who seemed to be a one note character, but it was still something that had it been in the real world would've been illegal as hell and jail would've been a strong alternative. The whole thing with Weasleys and money interests me. I came from a large family and I wore hand me downs too, but I got new things also. Molly not working is no real excuse here, their money mgt stinks. I get the impression in the wizarding world very few women work at all outside the home. Especially the purebloods. Those that do aren't married or are widowed. I suspect Molly DID work before her first child and then retired quite happily to the home and hearth and her knitting. Obiviously women like Amelia Bones work, but does Amelia have children? My understanding is probably not, and she may not have married either. I get the feeling that the women's lib thing of having it all hasn't hit the wizarding world yet.

The Weasleys and money is an interesting topic and I know I will be thinking about this essay for a while. You gave us lots of food for thought. Thanks

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Molly not working is no real excuse here, their money mgt stinks.

If I recall PoA correctly, they blow their prize money on a trip, when they do get some cash.

I get the feeling neither Narcissa Malfoy nor Petunia Dursley work either.
A mother's place is in the home?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Man, I'd never thought of it that way, but I can see it, definitely. In a sort of 'not in JKR-verse, but it can definitely make perfect sense' way, simply because any sort of pranksters can turn criminal (though honestly, I don't equate 'criminal' or 'thievery' with 'evil' or 'deeply morally wrong', but that's just my own view on things). Has JKR dealt with the wrongs of stealing? I can't quite remember, though I think that the twins wouldn't steal/hurt people outright for 'no good reason', whatever that may come to mean. I don't even think Percy is set up as 'evil' so much as misguided, so I dunno about them being villains, exactly.... It's all about not feeling like anyone can really stop you, and I know all about that feeling ('cause I often go there myself). The twins pretty much feel invincible, and well, they're generally right. I dunno if they care about money as an end in itself except as a way to have more opportunity to do what really entertains them.

I think prankster types in a universe as archetypically heavy as the Potterverse are going to go with the general behavior style, which is given to being morally grey. Laughter isn't necessarily kind-- exposing the foolishness of other people is virtually synonymous with causing them pain, in a way, I would think. I think it's that Gryffindor sense of being careless, the way Sirius is, rather than evil or really -malicious-, which I think in this universe is synonymous with intentionally trying to cause harm or damage as its own end or as a means for power, even if you're unsuccessful like Draco is. It's a different type of malice, is what I'm saying. I identify with it more, probably, 'cause I've never really wished anyone harm (was consciously malicious) in my life, yet I've certainly always had this sense of careless disregard for people's wants/feelings sometimes in the pursuit of truth/amusement/my own unrelated entertainment.

I think to the twins, it's like, there's 'us' (people who're our 'kin' and therefore real in a full sense) and then there's 'them', who're... fodder. Nothing personal, really. No harm meant-- only offense. That sort of thing. Though clearly a lot of people might find 'offense' more... offensive than 'harm', and also -see- it as harm. I'm more talking about intent, there.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Basically? What black_dog said (is what I laughably attempted to say and fell on my face, comparatively speaking). Man, I think I want to be him when I grow up -.-

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of sympathy for people who don't have enough money, but any attempt to tie money to morality loses me. That's a problem I have with other aspects of the story -- Rowling seems to assign moral worth to things that I think are perfectly neutral.

I don't see a moral value in being poor. It's sad, sure, but the message suggested seems to be that the Weasleys are somehow unfairly victimised for their financial problems. I mean, you choose to have seven kids, you have to accept that money will be a stretch!
I think that perhaps having money can lead you to forget other people don't have quite so much, but money's just a tool - you can use it for good or evil, it doesn't have a value of it's own.

I'm not sure why the Unforgivables are unforgivable, or why memory charms are forgivable, and this seems to be more of the same.

Well, exactly. I don't see the difference between casting say, Imperio (sp?) and wiping someone's memory, such as Kingsley did to Marietta in OotP.
But then for that matter, an Unforgivable is named because it's well, unforgivable, presumably!
So here's a contrast I seem to spend a good 80% of my time making - Draco and Harry.

Harry attempts to cast an Unforgivable (and iirc, it was at least partially successful -

"Bellatrix screamed. The spell had knocked her off her feet, but she did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had - she was already on her feet again, breathless, no longer laughing.")

Draco looks keen to see Harry suffer:

'You are forcing me, Potter… I do not want to,' said Umbridge, still moving restlessly on the spot, 'but sometimes circumstances justify the use… I am sure the Minister will understand that I had no choice.
Malfoy was watching her with a hungry expression on his face.
The Cruciatus Curse ought to loosen your tongue,' said Umbridge quietly.
...
'Lead me to the weapon,' (Umbridge) said.
'I'm not showing… them,' said Hermione shrilly, looking around at the Slytherins...
These words had a powerful impact on Umbridge: she glanced swiftly and suspiciously around at her Inquisitorial Squad, her bulging eyes resting for a moment on Malfoy, who was too slow to disguise the look of eagerness and greed that had appeared on his face.

Guess who's condemned by both the text and fans?

Looking at the other Gryffindor boys, though, he might well have seemed the best choice.

The thing is, in my opinion, Dumbledore wouldn't have considered the other boys.
If he couldn't use Harry, why not the sidekick? After all, Dumbledore knows that Ron wants attention and acclaim (the mirror in PS, for example.)
Whether other boys (or girls) in Gryffindor want these things also is unimportant to him, imho.
I mean, he consistently shows a lack of regard for any students other than the Marauders and the Trio, as far as I can tell.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think that perhaps having money can lead you to forget other people don't have quite so much, but money's just a tool - you can use it for good or evil, it doesn't have a value of it's own.

This, as you probably know, is something that really endears Draco to me in the Robe shop. People seem to see him as intentionally being snobby at times when I just think he's a kid who thinks he's being normal--he thinks every normal kid knows that Muggleborns are suspect, for instance. Ever hear fundamentalist Christian kids talk? They say things far more pompous and arrrogant than Draco does in that scene, often when they're older and when they think they're showing what great people they are! It's infuriating, but to them it's probably like other people thinking homophobics are idiots.

Anyway, that's why my favorite moment with Draco is when he says his thing about Hagrid being "some kind of servant..." Harry indignantly clarifies: "He's the head gameskeeper!" and Draco says, "Exactly." Bwahahaha! It reminds me of that character in "Diamond as Big as the Ritz" where a girl says something like, "Imagine all those people--laborers and such--who have to get along with only two maids!"

Well, exactly. I don't see the difference between casting say, Imperio (sp?) and wiping someone's memory, such as Kingsley did to Marietta in OotP.

I'm sure Hermione would consider what Harry threw at Bellatrix as a "Counter-unforgiveable" because, you know, it was in self-defense because she was taunting him.:-)

Personally, I've been swayed by arguments that Dean Thomas would have been the best Prefect.

[ljash.livejournal.com]

You know, one of the things that really bothers me about the books is that Rowling occasionally tries (or thinks she tries) to raise some very important questions or issues, or she brushes up against them, but her stories still have a tacked-on fairy tale ending feel. Of course everything coincidentally ends up great for Fred and George. Good guys always end up OK in the end. There might be some real bitterness on the part of Ron in GoF and he and Harry do honestly have to deal with it, but never to the point of interrupting the overall paradigm of her good characters and bad characters.

I don't recall Fred and George bothering me more in the fourth book than in the others, but then I didn't see the money issue the way you had. I didn't see them as suddenly turing their personalities towards the wider world and wondering how to get money using the same tactics--actually I was a bit relieved because they seemed more harmless when trying to get money. They never quite struck me as the sort who would do anything, and they seemed more dangerous when bored than anything else. And it never occurred to me that they might betray Harry for money. In fact, looking at it, if it had occurred to me I would have dismissed it. They still fall into that category of Gryffindors, who have their sense of loyalty, when they notice it. They'd notice betraying Harry. That'd be against whatever code exists in their cavernous heads. Experimenting on Gryffindor first-years is fine, but betraying Harry is a hurt to another Gryffindor that they'd actually notice.

However I could see them hurting non-Gryffindors in some extreme capacity for money. Maybe not as directly as it came out in that sentence (now I'm picturing hit men) but they do seem to have a great disregard for the well-being of anyone who's not an immediate friend. And you're right, they do have a sense of entitlement. Interesting, isn't it? Draco has a sense of entitlement and we all understand why, a pureblood, very rich, hugely powerful father, and his father's in a group who thinks purebloods deserve even more power than they have. Whereas the Weasleys are poorish (and that's another thing, they're not really very poor. Their house is stocked with riches and goodies. The older Weasleys seem to have good jobs and enjoy life. They just can't afford most of what other wizards enjoy without having to think about it, mostly because there's so many of them. Ron gets picked on and told he lives in a one-room house and has no clothes but this is just taunting that gets under his skin because he's upset about not being as rich as everyone else. He's not poor. He's just not doing as well as everyone around him. Which understandably bothers him, but it's not like they're destitute or deprived of all enjoyment.)


Um. Where was I. Ok, Weasleys, they're not the richest family, they obviously have a more open-minded view towards muggles and muggleborns, and Arthur at least doesn't seem to like the way some wizards are more powerful and can tread on others. And I don't think (in specifically Arthur's case) this is because he isn't one of the powerful ones. I get the impression that he doesn't like that structure where some can just break rules and get away with it. They're pureblood but aren't told daily that this makes them better than others. Yet still they have a sense of entitlement. The twins maybe have as big a sense of it as Draco does. What's that about? In fact the twins are really quite like Draco, both talking out their ass when it comes to power and bullying, both seemingly unaware that they could possibly be hurting anyone or that anything could possibly be wrong with what they're doing. They have some different methods but that means little to me. (though I wonder if it means something to Rowling. Draco tries to use the power he has with adults --though it has been pointed out that this usually fails miserably because Harry can do the same and his adults are usually more powerful-- and the twins are Fun-Loving Rebel types. They're the outlaws, the rebels. Is that why we're supposed to like them more?


this was not terribly organized, was it?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That's a great point about their being more dangerous when bored! I think what I might have been thinking in GoF was that they *wouldn't* get the money they needed for their shop and that would leave them resentful and also umemployed. I can't ever see them turning on Harry...it was more that I could see them thinking they could get something for themselves in a way that had nothing to do with Harry, or maybe skirted close to hurting Harry but wouldn't because they took care of it. Only it would come back to have bad consequences, things like that.

And yeah, I do get frustrated when it seems like JKR really hits on an emotional arc that I'm into and then it seems kind of swept under the carpet. Ron's feelings in GoF definitely do that for me. It's not that I had a problem with him becoming Harry's friend again, it was that then it seemed like it had never really happened, or that Ron was just wrong. And Ron was wrong, obviously, about how Harry got into the tournament but I thought a lot of what he was feeling was very valid, even if it wasn't Harry's fault. Harry even got that great moment when he accused Ron of wanting a scar--that moment seemed very emasculating for Ron and not something that he could just forget about. It seemed like an issue that would have to really be resolved, with Harry looking at himself as well as Ron looking at himself. Because it's not like Harry didn't mean what he said. On Harry's side this kind of just got worse in OotP because he was very wrapped up in himself and embarassed for Ron in a vague way, much as he was in GoF. Only now Ron wasn't really blaming Harry for it. I hate to think that's where their friendship would end up, with Ron always being aware that he wasn't as good as Harry. Ron just seemed very sad and too accepting in OotP to me.

Also word on how the Weasleys are with money--they're not poor and in fact their house comes across like a castle to Harry in some ways. They're an important family who sometimes do trade on their own name--as someone pointed out above, Arthur called in a favor in GoF. They're even in the newspaper regularly--moreso than Malfoy seems to be, or maybe we just don't see that.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

This is great. Glad I followed you here from my Hermione post. *grin*

Two thoughts, no canon:

One is that we only have the evidence of the Malfoys that the Weasleys have always been poor. I have a feeling they were quite well off right up until Voldemort fell. (Which was a few days before Ginny was born, I believe.)

The connection? There's some evidence that Arthur was one of those wizards who was put under Imperius during the first war, and wouldn't Lucius have jumped at the opportunity? I have a Theory that Arthur was never charged for his crimes, but he did have to pay restitution, which took most of the Weasley's family money.

The other thought is just that we don't have enough information to judge Molly's employment status. For all we know, the job market is lousy, or she's caring for elderly relatives.

But I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, with no actual leg to stand on.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

But quite an interesting leg there--thanks! The Weasleys definitely aren't poor in the sense of being working class, so I think it's completely open when they stopped being a landowning family with money.

With Molly's employment I feel like there's plenty of things she could be doing to bring in money without having a career as well.

[gramarye1971]

I'm still going through the comments in this post, so if it's been said already I do apologise, but I wonder how much of the 'Weasleys' noble poverty' thread running through the books has to do with JKR's financial status prior to the publication of the first book?

So much has been made of the fact that JKR was a not-well-to-do single mother who could only afford to linger over one pot of tea in the tea shop where she worked on writing Philosopher's Stone -- or at least, that's the fairy story that's spun up around her origins. And when reviews and the media started to make so much of the fact that she'd struck it rich, so to speak, and that her history had more than a little fairy-tale romance to it...well, it would be hard to resist that influence to really ennoble poverty.

After all, it's in CoS where so much is made of the fact that Ginny's robes are secondhand and her books are tattered and Ron can't afford a new wand, but by golly, they're the Weasleys, and Harry's never been so happy as when he gets to spend time at the Burrow. Isn't it great how they can be so poor and down-at-heel, and yet be so loving and such a tightly-knit family?

HP is a fantasy, and one of the strongest fantasy archetypes is the merit of the virtuous poor over the wicked rich. Moreover, it's an archetype that's obviously personal to the author -- what better way to look back on the lean years than by thinking yourself a noble sufferer, and by turning the model family of your novels into the 'keepers of the flame' of the British literary tradition of the genteel poor, a la the Bennetts and the Dashwoods and other well-known Regency-era literary families?

(All this is said without malice, by the by. I'm not bashing JKR's depiction of poverty -- I'm merely giving a reason that's not so much to do with the text itself.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ooh--excellent point. Especially not I remember a friend of mine who's only read the first two books, had a similar feeling about CoS and fame. She felt like what Harry was dealing with very much mirrored Rowling's own sudden experience with fame.

I do think, too, that the rags to riches story is appealing, and really, what's not to like about somebody who makes do on very little and doesn't care? I think that's why I really appreciate it when we see the Weasleys being more resentful about it, because while it's fun for a fantasy it's really annoying in real life to not be able to just buy what you need. When I imagine being fabulously wealthy I can't even fathom the kinds of things truly wealthy people spend their money on--$75.00 tee-shirts, boats and things. I mostly just picture living somewhere with reliable hot water.

She doesn't really seem like an author who gets into describing the opposite as much, with Harry getting great stuff. There doesn't seem anything particularly nice about Malfoy's life at all, and Harry and Ron never really have much to envy about his wealth beyond, in Ron's case, his ability to have the basics he lacks.