The Screwtape Twins

[sistermagpie]

I was just reading narcissam's thread on When Character Hate Goes Bad and this side topic came up that seems like an interesting thing to get other people's opinions on.

It comes out of the common conversation about the twins' antics, beginning with:

Might they be people who go too far on the other side, a la Crouch, Sr.? Maybe, but they really aren't that serious about anything. Nor will they ever be consciously evil--they're careless and thoughtless, and have an occasionally cruel streak, but they aren't out trying to destroy things and hurt people.

And is followed up by another poster with:

I've seen the argument about F&G being as or more evil than Voldemort before, and I just turned away shaking my head. Thanks for spelling it out; and word on the rest of what you said too.

Now, frankly I'm not so sure the twins aren't that serious about anything--I think at times they are. I don't think they'd ever be consciously evil, but then...not many people are motivated by the urge to be consciously evil. I also in general always think it's silly to compare one character to another in general in this way--like by saying Fred and George are "more evil" than Voldemort, as if evil is something we can really measure that way, and being more or less evil than another person has any bearing on who you are. People can do damage all sorts of ways besides setting out to cause damage. But I'm not really thinking here on how Fred and George will ultimately be used in the series, though. I'm not sure how they will be. When Harry is revolted by his father and Sirius' treatment of Snape he says he had thought they were like Fred and George, indicated *he* sees a big difference between them, but that line could just as easily be signaling to us that they are alike in a negative way (perhaps Fred and George won't get the wake-up call James did, for instance).

The question I thought was interesting, though, was how much one's motivation would matter in this kind of situation, especially to the victim? In general I do think motivation is important--very much so. But you get into a sticky area with motivation when it comes to things like jokes, because what's the motivation, exactly? It's not really accurate to say the twins aren't intentionally hurting people because often they are intentionally hurting people, they're just dong it out of something other than personal malice. In the series, for instance, Fred and George have intentionally caused people to break out in boils, given somebody something to choke them, thrown hexes at them (in fact, twice from behind, I think), and caused one person long-term brain damage. They've also just made people feel silly, stuck a firecracker in a salamander, whacked a puffskein with a bat (iirc), and given somebody arachnophobia.

What I said on the other thread was this:

What does it mean to say they're not out to destroy things and hurt people? I mean, sometimes they are out to do hurt or destroy and even when they're not, if you were hurt by someone would you really feel better about it if they were just kidding around rather than intentionally trying to hurt you? Because I'm not sure I would. That might just add a layer of humiliation to it as well. It's a really awful feeling to have someone do something that hurts or humiliates you, or destroys something you care about, and then feel pressured to laugh at it because otherwise you don't have a sense of humor. At least with a mean bully you might get some sympathy. With the joker bully you have to hear how he's a great guy!

Like I said, I'm thinking of this more in real world terms, but Fred and George maybe make a good jumping off point, because it seems like sometimes people are dismissive of readers who have a truly negative reaction to them, thinking those readers just don't "get it" when in fact they maybe do get it and just can't help but identify with the person who's the butt of their pranks.

This subject probably wouldn't be complete without C.S.Lewis' thoughts on the subject, from The Screwtape Letters. Happily, pharnabazus was nice enough to quote the exact passage today in another thread, so I can just cut and paste it:

"The real use of Jokes or Humour is in quite a different direction, and it is specially promising among the English who take their "sense of humour" so seriously that a deficiency in this sense is almost the only deficiency at which they feel shame. Humour is for them the all-consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame. If a man simply lets others pay for him, he is "mean"; if he boasts of it in a jocular manner and twits his fellows with having been scored off, he is no longer "mean" but a comical fellow. Mere cowardice is shameful; cowardice boasted of with humorous exaggerations and grotesque gestures can be passed off as funny. Cruelty is shameful-unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man's damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a Joke. And this temptation can be almost entirely hidden from your patient by that English seriousness about Humour. Any suggestion that there might be too much of it can be represented to him as "Puritanical" or as betraying a "lack of humour"."

Pranks are often very important in stories where characters were at school together in just this way. Pranksters often wind up getting stalked and terrorized by victims of their funny jokes. Nero Wolfe dealt with the aftermath in "The League of Frightened Gentlemen." HP has already dealt with it with Sirius' Prank on Sirius. HP appears to have given us a prank with an even more serious result with Montague, but it's not really addressed.

Comments

[januarylight.livejournal.com]

I find the idea of people being consciously evil very disturbing, because what do people think that means, exactly? That, say, Stalin didn't care about politics at all; he just wanted to kill as many people as possible, because his ultimate goal was to be wicked? That line of argument is something I just don't understand, and that troubles me. Mainly, I think, because the logical thing to do seems to be to extend conscious wickedness to everybody who believes that the end justifies the means, and that feels insanely judgmental and -- why am I even letting myself think about this? It is so disturbing, and honestly, the fact that it seems a natural extension of the series' morality is the scariest thing of all. At this point, I can't really view the wizarding world as anything but a dystopia, and I don't know how to feel about the fact that the window-dressing seems to override the shop's contents, as it were. Or, er, yes. Word, as always.

Uh, topic. The problem I have with people elevating carelessness above malice is that I don't see that careless people change once their inadvertent cruelty is pointed out to them. Initial motivation is a sidenote, really, because once you tell someone that they're bothering or hurting you they should back off, but practical jokers, as quoted, pinpoint your pain and twist the knife -- and so they become malicious, if only through defensiveness.

And carelessness seems to be predicated on the fact that you don't matter, which can be the cruelest thing of all. At least malice would offer some remnant of dignity.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, you just hit on two things that really strike me about the whole issue. First that the whole thing about a joker is that there's often the idea that if you said something was hurting you, they would just say, "No it isn't, it's just a joke." And then where are you? If somebody has a string of people who are still suffering the ill-effects of something they've done and they still think it's funny, can that really be said to be a joke? Maybe they still aren't really thinking what they get a kick out of is causing pain, but if you break it down they are. And many times you do see just what you described, people getting more malicious in defense.

And carelessness seems to be predicated on the fact that you don't matter, which can be the cruelest thing of all.

Yes, I feel like that's the easy trap to fall into if you focus too much on it being a joke. I mean, everyone's probably had times where they were meaning to be joking and the other person took them seriously; it's not like all humor or all practical jokes come out of the other person not mattering, but it *can* be about other people not mattering, certainly, especially if there's a history of doing things to people and not really caring.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I think it's an interesting issue, especially when considering the teachers. Snape is a malicious teacher. Hagrid is a careless one.
Their interactions with pupils both inside and outside their lessons have dangerous effects, regardless of their intentions, and yet it's bitterly argued over as to who is 'worse', and their presentation in the text varies wildly.

[tasogare-n-hime.livejournal.com]

I don't see F&G as that bad at all but I think that is because I'm holding them to "Wizard's Standards" what I mean by that is it seems so simple to heal some one or fix a problem with magic that the magical world has a very low value on physical safety.

Things Fred and George do can seem down right horrendous to us but when you can mend bones with the wave of a wand, or regrow them with a potion in a day or so giving some one boils you can spell away just looks like harmless mischief. I think what they did to Dudley was out of line, but they may not have spent enough time around muggles to know just how bad a thing it was.

[cheeringcharm.livejournal.com]

The physical problems might be easily fixed, but there is still the mental that needs to be dealt with. I don't know what the cure for humiliation in front of peers would be.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

In addition to the mental anguish, I think the twins really *have* begun to cause damage beyond reasonable wizarding standards. Most injuries can be fixed in a matter of minutes; Harry's bones were regrown in less than a night, and McGonagall recovered from four stunners (near deadly, based on the reactions) in less than a week. Yet F&G shoved a classmate into a vanishing cabinet for no real reason (and not as a joke, either) and weeks later, he still had brain damage. Additionally, with the ton-tongue toffee, they essentially poisoned a Muggle as all the wizards were leaving the area -- it was entirely luck that Dudley happened to eat the candy before Arthur had left. Magical medicine can't do a whole lot to help someone when there are no wizards in the area, and as far as we know, the Ministry wasn't alerted (as w/Marge), so who knows how long it would have been for Dudley to get help. If they didn't realize this would be a problem, I have a hard time cutting them slack for it.

[no-remorse.livejournal.com]

I guess whoever came up with the idea that the Twins are more evil than Voldemort might have a not completely wrong thought. Voldemort has a plan - a better world (although is defined by his terms.) That in itself is not evil. Many people envision better worlds - according to their beliefs. What makes Voldemort evil is how he deals with people standing in the way between reality and his ideal. Voldemort is evil because of the means he uses to accomplish his ends. He is evil for evil's sake.

The Twins have no goal when they do their pranks. The goal is the prank itself - the harm it inflicts on the victim. Their pranks are not comparable to what Voldemort does on his way to a better world, but they are the whole purpose. The Twins do evil - if you define "inflicting harm on unsuspecting and often defenseless victims" that way - for its own sake and that is quite questionable on its own terms.

I suspect that Rowling does think the Twins' pranks are funny and not mean-spirited. If her exposition fairy is allowed to define attempted murder (The Prank) as "stupid trick" then I don't that Ursula Guin will ever have a reason to retract her criticism of HP as "mean-spirited".

[no-remorse.livejournal.com]

And more wankily...

There was an infamous legal case recently where a bunch of teens did some horrible things to another human being, because they thought it was funny. And they taped and showed their friends. Who obviously found it funny, too. One of teens had to lose that tape before any criminal investigation took place. (I am not more detailed, because this would errupt into a huge of fountain of "There is no justice in the world!!!")

These people thought it was funny. And their friends thought it was funny. So funny that they didn't ask about the victim; that they didn't care. Humour seems to be an excellent way to get rid of ethics and empathy.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

If her exposition fairy is allowed to define attempted murder (The Prank) as "stupid trick"

I hope that the exposition fairy will visit us and tell us what the hell actually happened, from the standpoint of simple event sequence. Unless there's some kind of recorded evidence present we don't exactly have full access to motivations for a number of the parties involved anymore, either. What is this one set of events that is deliberately presented as a "stupid trick" from one perspective and "attempted murder" from another? Does a third perspective (Dumbledore's) fall somewhere in the middle to make his actions (and we don't know whether he did anything or what he did; argument from absence in this series is weak) intelligible?

That, everyone, is why Prank threads aren't much fun.

[alice-and-lain.livejournal.com]

Huh. I wish I had something intelligent to say, but I don't really. I love Percy to pieces and thus it makes sense that I am not fond of the twins. But I can't remember really being fond of them at all, as I loathe jokesters. Whether it's practical jokes or spoken jokes, I don't like them. I think it stems from the fact that I have a hard time reading people and have difficulty knowing if they're serious or joking, unless it is really obvious. Plus I am, sadly, very gullible. If I knew a Fred'n'George in real life, I'd avoid them like the plague because I'd be a ridiculously easy target.

I think what bothers me most is that for their brand of humor, it mostly relies on the humiliation of the person getting joked. It'd be one thing if they took the humiliation on themselves willingly and everyone laughed at them. But they're forcing it on others and taking the humor credit and I just don't like it. They almost never set themselves up for the joke, they're safe from it.

I don't think they're particularly malicious, they're just very self-centered. They don't think about how the joke might make their target feel bad, they're after the gratification of having pulled off the joke successfully. And while I might, *might*, be able to forgive that in younger kids, I can't of people the twins' age.

Meh, maybe I did have something to say after all, although I have doubts to whether it is intelligent or not.

~Amber

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think it stems from the fact that I have a hard time reading people and have difficulty knowing if they're serious or joking, unless it is really obvious.

Frankly, I think people often count on that. Many jokes can go one way or the other, so people can hide a lot of cruelty in them. If the person gets upset they can pretend they just meant it as a joke, but erally they can just be mean. The fact that the twins continue to put most of their energy into this stuff at 17 says they just really like causing people discomfort and laughing at them.

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

I am of the opinion that Rowling approves of F&G's brand of humor as well... I don't recall any of their non-Slytherin and/or non-"evil" victims express their hurt or anger for being the receiving end of the twins marvelous pranks (except for maybe Ron, but F&G were little back then thus excused). For example while it puzzles me to this day that Neville's pride and sense of self-worth was delt such a blow(I'm not brave enough to be in Gryffindor *sniff*!)by Draco's leg-lock curse, it was completely laugh-out-loud funny that he got turned into a canary in front of everyone (he must've felt the *benign vibe* from the twins~! They knew he'd be *thrilled* to be turned into an animal and not feel humiliated!)- hey it's not for us readers to decide how Neville must logically feel given his earlier reaction to being the unsuspecting victim of a practical joke in public ;););)

Oh and Nor will they ever be 'consciously evil'? What does that even mean ^^;? Like... deliberately cruel...? In that case I'd be pretty surprised if F&G of all people are completely free of a cruelty streak- since don't most people have it?

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

That scene with Neville laughing along with the rest of the kids, having just been turned into a Canary, is kind of interesting, because it is an excellent proof of the twins being bullies -the kind of popular bullies who get away with everything due to their charm, and they manage to discredit anyone daring to get hurt by their making fun of them, by having that be all about that person not having any sense of humour. It makes sense to me, actually, that Neville realises this and plays along; he knows he will be recognised as "part of the group" if he gives his assent to these people making fun of him, and so he gives it, not because he really thinks it's funny, but because hurt pride is a small price to pay (for him) for the sense of belonging. Otoh, there is no such price when it comes to Draco putting a leg-locker curse on him; Draco doesn't expect Neville to laugh with him, and he will keep looking down on him no matter how he (Neville) reacts, and so, Neville can afford to really feel that blow to his pride and self-worth when this happens. Incidently, I think it's the Fred and George-type of bullying that will really make a number on Neville's self-esteem in the long-run, because it's (IMO) essential to let yourself feel hurt when someone hurts you.

[ackonrad.livejournal.com]

When Harry is revolted by his father and Sirius' treatment of Snape he says he had thought they were like Fred and George, indicated *he* sees a big difference between them, but that line could just as easily be signaling to us that they are alike in a negative way (perhaps Fred and George won't get the wake-up call James did, for instance).

Let me quote this.

OotP, page 575:

... but she had described them as forerunners of the Weasley twins, and Harry could not imagine Fred and George dangling someone upside-down for the fun of it ... not unless they really loathed them ... perhaps Malfoy, or somebody who really deserved it ...

'Unless they really loathed them' and 'somebody who really deserved it' are the key lines here. Let's look at them - have you noticed that the twins do loathe more people than they should? The Slytherins because of their house, Zacharias Smith because he dares not to trust Harry, Dudley because he bullied Harry, Umbridge because she managed to remove Dumbledore from Hogwarts (well, with the DA's help, but let's not go into this). Whether or not everyone else hates Umbridge as well is not relevant, because the twins are the only ones who dare to openly laugh at her authority over them.

According to the twins, Percy certainly belongs to the second category of the people who deserve to be tortured, because... um, because Percy dares to be proud of being made a Prefect and Head Boy, and because he dares to dream of an academic career, I suppose. There was a horrifying line in Book 3 (I hope this is the right one), when Fred and George told Harry they tried to close Percy in a pyramid while the family was in Egypt, but failed because their mother caught them. A harmless joke? Just having a little fun with the pompous annoying elder brother? I'm sorry if I lack enough humor sense, but I don't see anything funny in that.

Ron and Ginny (pre-OotP Ginny, of course *rolls eyes*) belong to that second category as well. Ron 'deserves' to be laughed at because he's an insecure, highly underestimating himself boy who'd never dream to object to his brothers. Did you notice how he didn't want to do anything against them even as a Prefect? I thought that he was afraid of what they would do to him to pay him back - maybe put a tarantula in his bed or something. From what I've seen until now, I totally can see them doing it.

Ginny's case in CoS was similar - Percy had to threaten them he was going to write their mother about her having nightmares to make Fred and George stop teasing her.

I don't know why JKR likes them - I fail to see what's so funny about them. Maybe it's just my humor sense - I've never been a humorous person, and take such things more seriously than some people seem to do. However, I will never be able to see the Dudley and Montague incidents as harmless jokes, and the way the Twins and everyone else reacted to them will always make me think that not me, but JKR has a warped sense of humor.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Well, how far does the apple fall from the tree? Molly is a classic domestic bully, and the twins inherited their bullying natures from her. The certainly didn't get that from their father. The whole Weasley menange for the first five books traces a steadily escalating battle between the twins and their mother. There is a limit to how openly the twins could attack Molly. That's probably one of the reasons for their having adopted aggressive "humor" as their weapon of choice in the first place.

Percy (who also likes to throw his weight around) sided with Molly. Consequently there was no limit to what they felt they could throw at *him*. It's also pretty clear that Molly had staked out a claim on her only daughter, and while the twins hadn't quite the guts to do much about it at home, as soon as Molly wasn't around they intended to take Molly's preference out of Ginny's hide. The whole business of the Riddle diary seems to have spooked them enough that they more or less backed off after that.

Ron, otoh, blindly sided with the twins, and he did NOT inherit a bullying nature. Consequently, he gets rolled over from both sides. The twins let him tag along when they feel like it or take swipes at him when it occurs to him. Molly, by contrast has been *consistently* passive agressive in her relationship and treatment of this particular child. Always *maroon* jumpers, always the sandwiches he *doesn't* like, the gawd-awfull dress robes. If he hadn't managed to immediately strike up a friendship with Harry Potter the aggressiveness might have been less passive. As it is, until he was made a Prefect I cannot off the top of my head remember any statement Molly has ever addressed to Ron that wasn't either an order or a rebuke. Now that her "golden boy" Percy has rejected her, she may well decide that Ron, now a Prefect, is a fitting replacement. We may see some very different dynamics between the two of them in the last two books. Particularly if the twins have moved out and are living over the shop.

But I really do think that a great deal of hunger for recognition that is such a basic part of Ron's character is due to the fact that he has been deliberately denied that recognition from his mother.

Arthur, Bill and Charlie seem to have managed to keep their heads down and stay out of it. Ginny would have as well, but wasn't given the option. She has developed the art of flying under the radar in self-protection.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's really interesting the way these things can kind of get covered over and fudged when they're supposed to be jokes. For instance, while this post is still up I wound up going off on this tangent in a thread about Draco here. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/reddiej/95705.html?thread=1033177#t1033177)

I think you know I find the whole line of reasoning in that thread disturbing, but it comes back to what threeoranges is saying as well, that perhaps the idea is that the twins are good because we should see them as having been giving an "evil detector" by the author, so that everyone they hit turns out to somehow deserve it or at least to have done something not so nice themselves. That, of course, brings me back to a lot of the way compassion is dealt with in the series--there really does seem to be this idea that compassion is something you *earn,* often by being an orphan and a hero and picked on before you get it. But I think looking at the twins the way they are in that thread is important, because they are sort of sadists with a noble edge. Like, you see there how they're always picking on someone who "deserves it" and when they can't be said to be doing that then the hurt they cause is played down.

I guess I just often feel like the books do sometimes seem to lend a noble cast to perfectly selfish impulses. If you wish you could grind the popular kids in school into the dirt we'll make them evil so you're doing something noble by doing it.

[ljash.livejournal.com]

Wow. That turned into a lot of different things.

I think calling F&G "more evil" than Voldemort is misleading and kind of dumb. The two things aren't comparable and I'm not comfortable with the word in the first place. I think this might arise from feeling more visceral about F&G. These are people you might have known. Voldemort can be compared to Stalin and Hitler, but this is kind of abstract and besides that, we aren't really sure what he's up to and we rarely see him.

But I think both Voldemort and F&G have a total disregard for other people--maybe even the same kind of disregard. Voldemort things others can be squashed to suit his purposes, F&G think other people's suffering doesn't really matter. You mentioned that if you're suffereing and someone tells you it's a joke, then it's like you've been erased (not what you said but it's in there somewhere). But the same kind of thing is there in the grand schemes of dictators--the people just don't matter.

It's true, though, that the Wizarding World is a dangerous place and the damage F&G do isn't really remarkable considering what can happen to a student just in class. Also, not just F&G but everybody has no concept of psychological damage. So you can sort of see why they never learned better. But then why isn't everyone like them? The fact remains that they enjoy humiliating people (even if the physical damage is usually reparable) and everyone does comprehend humiliation.

I very much dislike the idea that everyone they hit deserved it, even if just by divine authoral intervention. I don't think they have an unconscious evil meter and just hit the bad guys. I do think, though, that they have a sense of sides and attack harsher on people their friends don't like. I think that mostly they just like being irrepressable. They like feeling free like they can do anything, they like seeing their fingerprints on the world. In their minds they are rebels, scorning rules and courtesy.

A while back I had a conversation with a friend about humor that degenerated into a bad fight. he mentioned the idea that humor basically means a lack of empathy, and that perhaps this is it's purpose, so we don't feel too badly all the time. I hate that. Not all laughter is like that, not all humor is like that. no_remorse obliquely referred to an incident about teenagers doing something horrible to someone, filming it, and showing it to their friends who also found it hilarious. It's things like that which had started my train of thought in the first place which is why I kind of exploded on my friend during our discussion. Because I think things like that piss me off more than Stalin. Even if that shouldn't be, even if Stalin does more damage. Stalin is coldly doing his job. he's terrifying, and he's evil, but someone the disregarding laughter of these teenagers seems worse. Stalin at least sort of knows what he's doing. He probably had all kinds of justifying arguments to himself and perhaps he slept well at night. But these teenagers... they probably don't think about it at all. It's the dumbfounded surprise when you attempt to tell them they're cruel. And they laugh. Somehow that makes it worse. Stalin looks at you and sees a grain of sand to be ground under his wheel. That feels pretty bad... but the teenagers look at you and actually see you on an immediate scale, actually look at you personally, and yet you're still nothing but a fly they pull the wings off of. Somehow that's far worse. Stalin, in a way, is blind. You're a disregarded nothing in the river of history, and that sucks a lot, but it's different from someone walking right up to you and telling you that you're nothing at all.

Blah need another comment.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It really does sometimes seem like they are just a good outlet for a lot of violent impulses. That, I think, is why there's often a good reason for people to question what exactly the WW will be like without Voldemort because would anyone really want to live under the rule of people like Fred and George? In fact, I tend to think this was a big problem with James being Head Boy--why pick someone that you *know* has a history of cruelty even if he's outgrown it, when surely most of the student body was more normal. It just sends a message that if you put a toe out of line you will be nothing. And like you said, this is up close and personal, it's not even like you're just being crushed by a far away evil dictator.

After all, that's why the chapter called Snape's Worst Memory concerns James Potter and not even Voldemort. Sure he probably faced greater horrors, but I suspect that feeling of helplessness and being nothing never went away. The exchange I linked to above in response to adela sort of gets into that too, for me, that there's always this justification for whatever the twins do when most of the time...why do anything at all? Why do you need to cover someone with boils and why woul you find it funny? It's not that the twins immediately have to become Voldemort or be "evil," it's just that they really are something people should, imo, look at closely because they make it so easy to not think about what they're doing because they're just "having a laugh."

[ljash.livejournal.com]

(con't)

Now F&G aren't that bad. There's a limit to what they'll do, and we can bicker about where that limit is and the difference between where it falls in our world and the Wizarding World. But they're still structurally the same. They don't endanger anyone's life. They don't permenantly maim people. But they don't really care about what they do do to people, and you still run into that same blank "huh?" at the idea that they're doing anything wrong, and you still get that same laughter.

Pisses me off. I don't think it's more evil than Voldemort. I don't even think that as a force in the world humorous arrested development malice is more evil than ends-justify-means dictatorship. But it pisses me off more viscerally. And I can see how someone might sigh and say they're the same thing in the end.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

They don't endanger anyone's life.

Dudley. If he'd panicked during the Ton Tongue Toffee prank, he could have chocked to death on his own tongue.

They don't permenantly maim people.

Montague. We don't know that he's permenantly-for-the-rest-of-his-life brain damaged, but his confusion and vagueness lasted at least until the end of the school year.

I'd have to say that they haven't killed anyone *yet*.

[sleeplessmarea.livejournal.com]

Interesting discussion. I have a lot of thoughts, but will restrain myself to a few so not to monster post.

This question "If the rules are wrong and cruel, does following them unquestioningly make you a "good" person?" is key.

And on this topic I've always been fascinated by explanation (though not entirely agreeing with it) put forth by Henry V's Welsh retainer in the Shakespeare play of the same name who put forth the explanation that so far as the soldiers following their latter into battle, it is irrelevent if the cause they are fighting (and dying) for is just. What is of chief importance is that their loyalty and service to their King is just and this alone blots out any problems with the cause. On the other hand, as for the King... well, the King must answer for and take responsibility for the justice of the cause... but not those that follow him. Their duty is clear.

Of course this reasoning taken too far will only get you "we were just following orders" to the Allies at the concentration camp gates during WWII. This reasoning abandoned entirely and you get anarchy.

And it seems like the Harry Potter world is poised squarely between two poles. You have rigid authority imposed by the Malfoy family mindset and the extreme control measures of the Uxbridges on the one hand and the chaos and lack of discipline over either magic or one's desires as evidenced by others: Hagrid, Neville Longbottom... and The Twins.

Which in some strange way may be the point. I haven't gone and checked against all the books (yet), but my hypothesis is that the more heavy handed the laws and regulations become, the more tyrannical and puffed up the leadership, the more Rowling finds it necessary it is to have some fools on hand armed with pins. Whether any of this is meant to be chuckle producing funny, not to mention wondering how much justification makes it okay to cause pain to another is an interesting different and actually much broader question. But I think that if you are able to view The Twins as plot devices first and everything else second it makes their behavior much more palatable.

Or perhaps I just had too much green beer yesterday....

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

What's interesting, I think, is how everybody swings back and forth...like, even the rule-breakers are in fact completely conformist. MWPP and the twins aren't independent agents of chaos but totally loyal to Dumbledore with a big feeling of self-righteousness. When they form their own group, the DA, it's not really revolutionary but even more tightly controlled: it has a leader, Harry, and it's called (jokingly, but it's really true) Dumbledore's Army. When someone breaks a rule they're punished and only one person ever thinks to question the way it worked.

In fact, even more oddly, in some ways the Malfoys aren't even the ones with all the rules. They have their own codes they live to and seem to observe a strict hierarchy, but they also appear to feel their freedoms are being taken away. They seem to want to be free to do whatever they want too.

::sigh:: Well, that's probably people all over. Everybody wants to be able to do what they want. It's those other people who need to be reined in!

[hiddenshallows.livejournal.com]

Hey. Just to let you know I read and was impressed by your comments on teawithvoldy's page (about moral relativism in the potterverse), so I've friended you. Hope that's ok!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

*is behind on responding*

But thank you, I'm glad I made sense (especially with all the typos...) Friend away and welcome!

[pyrocandy.livejournal.com]

Hi, I came here through the daily snitch. I found this to be a really interesting essay, especially because it reflects a lot of ideas that seem to be floating around in fandom as of late. :)

I think that the biggest distinction in our point of views is that I don't see racism as a natural human impulse. I'll give you that we tend to be wary of things and people different from ourselves, but if you put two people together despite their creed, race or gender and have them experience the same things, suffer the same hardships, I think man's natural tendency is toward companionship. In my mind, racism isn't only unnatural but a conscious choice. It is a choice to judge a human being not by their actions but by a label. It is a choice to label a whole group of people as unclean, sub-human, and make them suffer for it. And to me, this is one of the greatest of evils.

Now, as for it being a natural human tendency to dehumanize the enemy. I believe that's true to an extent, though the vocabulary is a little harsh. I think a soldier will allow himself to get a little calloused towards the enemy if that means it will be easier to pull the trigger. I think that is a natural psychological defense. But this tends to be short-termed, and once again if you put two enemies together in a similar situation the tendency is towards companionship. I think atrocities are more likely to happen in situations where power is less even-handed. In example, occupations or prisons. Those situations are less about warfare and more about control. But, I'm wandering. I guess my point is that you can kill your enemy and still respect him. Their is no respect in racism.

With all that said, I really don’t get how people can compare the gryffindor's relationship with slytherins to racism. Yes, slytherins tend to be lumped together under the label of death-eater. And they are all branded as the enemy and are given the attention deserving of an enemy, but I wouldn’t say they are dehumanized. I have never seen anyone describe a slytherin, or Death-Eater for that matter, as unclean. No, that privilege is strictly Draco Malfoy’s. And we have to keep in mind that Hogwarts isn’t exactly the best place to promote companionship. Competition amongst the houses is a method of control at Hogwarts and is encouraged by tradition, in the rules, and most importantly by the staff. I think incidents like the Weasley twins teasing the first year slytherins are a product of this and are unfortunate. Still, if a gryffindor and slytherin were taken out of Hogwarts and forced to work together? Well, lets just say I would see a lot less resistance towards peace, love, and understanding between a gryffindor and a slytherin than say… a death-eater and a muggleborn.

And I think that is going to be given that the other houses’ are going to feel resentment towards the house that most sided with Voldemort. People like Susan Bones didn’t ask for that war, but certainly lost a great deal because of it. But feeling anger and resentment towards a group of people is a lot different than feeling disgust and disdain.

And for Harry, Hermione, and Ron, the struggle is personal. After all, Harry is a half-blood and Voldemort bait, Hermione is an uppity mudblood, and not only is Ron a pureblood and blood traitor, but the boy’s on the wrong side of a class war as well. Rowling has managed to roll all of the conflict the wizarding world has to offer into the tight little bundle of the trio. So when Draco Malfoy wanders over to call Hermione a mudblood, or to discuss Harry’s mother, or to remind Ron that he is poor, no matter how many hexes or fists fly his way, it is Harry, Ron and Hermione who are the victims. Maybe their approach isn’t the most conducive to peace, love and understanding, but maybe peace, love and understanding, is for courtrooms, classrooms, and late night discussions with friends. It’s a little different when the enemy is right in front you and the last thing you want to be is doormat. And you know, the most non-violent of sit-ins still are aimed to disenfranchise. And I think they are doing all right. The fights are always initiated by Malfoy afterall.

Thing is,tolerance is great but even with the grey areas, it should never get in the way of justice.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think that the biggest distinction in our point of views is that I don't see racism as a natural human impulse.

I agree-most people are taught it, and with those that aren't I don't think it's natural to focus on race as a reason to hate anyone. After all, objectively race is a non-issue. It's not like you literally hate the person for looking differently than you do, you just project qualities on them because you need a hate object, or because they are associated with things that trouble you. Unfortunately I think this is something humans tend to do, but I don't think that makes racism itself natural, especially since that implies that it can't be unlearned or we can't do anything about it. But really *not* being racist is perfectly natural too. Often people who hate other groups so much have little contact with them--I'd say that's probably true of Muggles and wizards, for instance. If race isn't made an issue it isn't. But if it is made an issue, I don't think it's going to be unlearned by just saying it's wrong.

But, I'm wandering. I guess my point is that you can kill your enemy and still respect him. Their is no respect in racism.

Good point--I agree. There's lots of examples of soldiers in particular respecting the enemy.

With all that said, I really don’t get how people can compare the gryffindor's relationship with slytherins to racism. Yes, slytherins tend to be lumped together under the label of death-eater. And they are all branded as the enemy and are given the attention deserving of an enemy, but I wouldn’t say they are dehumanized. I have never seen anyone describe a slytherin, or Death-Eater for that matter, as unclean.

I wouldn't really compare it to racism either, though I'd say that when people say the Slytherins are dehumanized they're referring to their being described in less-than-human terms, rather than their being unclean. Like that they look and sound like animals in the way they're described, or that when they get hurt or turned into something non-human it's a good thing. I assume that's what people mean when they think of them as de-humanized since they really aren't described as being unclean.

So when Draco Malfoy wanders over to call Hermione a mudblood, or to discuss Harry’s mother, or to remind Ron that he is poor, no matter how many hexes or fists fly his way, it is Harry, Ron and Hermione who are the victims.

I admit I just can't get into just announcing that they are the victims because Draco insulted them and therefore whatever happens, they are still the victims. Everybody's a victim sometimes, and sometimes victims can be aggressors or be guilty themselves. I don't see much point in an endless exchange of cruelties between alternating tormentors and victims. If I remind somebody they are poor and they break my nose, I don't think I'd consider them the victim. When I say Draco is wrong for starting something it doesn't always lead me to think the reaction to it was justified.

Thing is,tolerance is great but even with the grey areas, it should never get in the way of justice.

I guess that is where we differ. I think justice is great but it should never get in the way of compassion. I don't give justice the highest priority.