sistermagpie | The Screwtape Twins

Current Mood: curious

Entry tags:

The Screwtape Twins

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Don't get me wrong: I dislike the Twins as profoundly as anyone here, since their idea of "humour" is strongly dependent on other people's discomfort. However, what we're forgetting is their context. The HPverse is a universe of casual cruelty both in description and in action, where remarks describing disorientation and pain are casually inserted for a bit of a laugh. Quidditch referees disappearing in the middle of a game and then turning up weeks later in the Sahara Desert? Hahaha. First-years sent out into the Forbidden Forest, with all its dangerous widlife, in the middle of the night as a dentention? Teeheehee. People risking "Splinching" during Apparating, leaving body parts behind them? Oh my sides, that's just too funny.

If this is typical of the HPverse's humour - and I would argue it's mostly like that, hazards and even picturesque death at every turn - then the Twins fit in rather well. Except that they're actually superior to most of what goes on, because whilst the HPverse's cruelty is often random and unwarranted, JKR has written the Twins as meting out Prank Justice to those who objectively deserve it.

Look at the list of their victims:

- Quirrell. F&G send snowballs to pelt the back of his head; since we only retrospectively know who's on the back of his head, couldn't this be interpreted as a sign that F&G's pranks unerringly grativate towards punishing evil?

- Montague. The situation is presented very much as "he was going to snitch on us, it was us or him"; not only does this make it a matter of self-preservation (fair enough) but if the Vanishing Cabinet does cause brain damage, what's it doing in a school where anyone can access it? It's the school's responsibility to provide a safe environment, and it could easily be argued that F&G had no malicious intent beyond getting Montague out of the way before he squealed on them.

- Percy. Most of the Twins' tricks are focussed on him, and it becomes a bit of a chicken/egg situation (did Percy leave the Weasleys because of F&G, or did F&G start playing tricks on Percy after Percy intimated he was too good for his family?) Whatever the truth of that matter is, Percy shows bad judgement generally - his idolization of Crouch in GoF, his pompous letter and support for Umbridge in OotP - and his story arc isn't looking healthy at the moment. I think he probably will turn evil and, if he does, F&G knew it before everybody else.

- Umbridge. Do we deny that she's a valid target for the Twins' pranks? We don't? Good.

- Dudley and the Dursleys. Do we deny that... We don't? Good.

As for their other "victims", the kids who tested the sweets in OotP were volunteers (and the nature of Wizarding medicine and spells made their discomfort short-lived in any case). Finally, they teased Ron and unwittingly gave him the phobia of spiders, but can anyone reading this who has siblings honestly say that there wasn't any that sort of thing going on in their family? Kids are cruel to each other, often unwittingly but also as a means of exploring boundaries. Younger siblings can often be left with lasting traumas as a result of what their elder siblings did to them at a tender age. It's life, unfortunately. It doesn't excuse F&G, but it doesn't make them calculating sadistic monsters either.

What I get from Fred and George is the uncomfortable feeling that they have inbuilt Evil Detectors, and that their tricks are unerringly directed towards Those That Deserve Them. This leads, in turn, to the even more uncomfortable feeling that we're not supposed to regard them as the bullies they would so obviously be in the real world. I believe JKR likes them, and that because she likes them she's going to ensure that they never do anything objectively Wrong. It's the spectacle of bullying, but with the proviso that the people being bullied deserve everything they get.

Gah. Real Life doesn't work like that.

Do we deny that she's a valid target for the Twins' pranks? We don't? Good.

Depends on what you mean by 'valid target'. Since the twins' actions don't really serve to get rid of her or protect the other students from her, they smack of simple vengeance or two wrongs making a right. That's very human, but valid?

That goes doubly for the Dursleys, whose cruel treatment of Harry is only likely to increase if they have more negative encounters with magic folks. Dursleys + Twins = vicious circle.

Depends on what you mean by 'valid target'. Since the twins' actions don't really serve to get rid of her or protect the other students from her, they smack of simple vengeance or two wrongs making a right. That's very human, but valid?

Who else was going to take a public stand against her? By making themselves mavericks and outlaws, the Weasley twins have ensured that they can afford to show her up when no-one else can. Sure, it's vengeance, but the Umbridge regime was such that someone needed to make a stand. (Pity it had to be Fred & George, whom I personally find annoying, but I would have applauded whoever had done it.)

That goes doubly for the Dursleys, whose cruel treatment of Harry is only likely to increase if they have more negative encounters with magic folks. Dursleys + Twins = vicious circle.

The Dursleys started it by mistreating an innocent baby and shutting Harry in a cupboard for much of his childhood. Had they not been such sadists to begin with, I would agree with you that the Toffee was calculated to wreck Magic/Muggle Relations. However, the Dursleys were the ones to begin that particular process, so I can't shed any tears for Dudley getting "stung" after an act of thievery.

Actually, in the Umbridge situation I would add that they don't really do anything to her, iirc, they just throw a monkey wrench into the works of the school so that all her time is spent controlling the chaos. I'd say their actions regarding Umbridge are one of the few times they don't just seem to be joking and enjoying seeing somebody suffer.

The Dursleys started it by mistreating an innocent baby and shutting Harry in a cupboard for much of his childhood.

That's not really something Dudley can be held responsible for, though, imho.
The WW does seem to have a worrying tendency to visit the sins of the fathers on the children: witness first reactions to Harry, Malfoy and Dudley just for starters.

Yes, but Dudley is still a thief, and gets punished for being a thief. Attempts to steal Harry's birthday cake = gets a pig's tail. Picks up a sweet and eats it without permission = gets a Ton-Tongue. Never mind the "sins of the fathers", what happens to Dudley in every case is payback for his immediate behaviour.

That's actually movie!canon, not from the book.

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

threeoranges.livejournal.com - 2005-03-21 10:30 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

slinkhard.livejournal.com - 2005-03-21 10:35 (UTC) - Expand

In fact they've been in training as mavericks ever since we first met them. Going up against molly is good training for going up against "authorities" like Umbridge.

Still doesn't make it *right* and it did have the effect of giving her an excuse to be even more harsh with the kids she was able to "catch".

True, they've been mavericks since Day One, but then Molly is the sort of Mum one either submits to meekly or rebels against exaggeratedly. Regarding the Umbridge stunt, it may have resulted in her being even more draconian, but the image must have given the Umbridge-haters a nice warm glow and a determination to keep on resisting this suddenly ridiculous-looking tyrant. Rather like the deservedly-famous footage of the student standing in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989, I would suggest.

JKR has written the Twins as meting out Prank Justice to those who objectively deserve it.
Dudley and the Dursleys. Do we deny that... We don't? Good.

I wondered if you could just clarify something please?
I'm not quite clear on whether your argument is that JKR is purposely writing the twins as never hurting (in her own view) 'innocent' victims; or that every character the twins have 'teased' is inarguably deserving and evil.

What I get from Fred and George is the uncomfortable feeling that they have inbuilt Evil Detectors, and that their tricks are unerringly directed towards Those That Deserve Them.

There seem to be a lot of parallels drawn in the books between MWPP and the Twins.
So I guess perhaps this would apply to them - their 'inbuilt Evil Detectors' was set off by Snape and his interest in hexing and gang of friends who eventually became DEs?
And yet JKR presents this as very definite bullying...

I wondered if you could just clarify something please?
I'm not quite clear on whether your argument is that JKR is purposely writing the twins as never hurting (in her own view) 'innocent' victims; or that every character the twins have 'teased' is inarguably deserving and evil.

Probably more the former than the latter, but as far as I can see they never seem to attack the "good guys" (unlike, say, Draco). The "teasing" is what they did to Ron as an infant and a first-year; actual physical contact (pelting a teacher with snowballs; shoving another student into a cupboard; trying to shut their brother inside a pyramid; tempting a greedy boy with a Ton-Tongue Toffee) is what they do to the "bad guys". Hence my remark about their inbuilt Evil Detectors somehow justifying, either immediately or in retrospect, their actions.

There seem to be a lot of parallels drawn in the books between MWPP and the Twins.
So I guess perhaps this would apply to them - their 'inbuilt Evil Detectors' was set off by Snape and his interest in hexing and gang of friends who eventually became DEs?
And yet JKR presents this as very definite bullying...

I can think of one important difference, and that's the structure of MWPP. Sirius and James are the sort of jerks who need a weaker student around to praise them, whilst Remus is the sort who will side with authority on the whole but turn a blind eye to violations of the rule whenever it suits him. Peter - well, either he was a kid with good intentions who got blackmailed or trapped into betraying his friends, or he was an opportunist who hung around with the "popular kids" to avoid being bullied himself, or he genuinely admired MPP only to draw back in loathing once the scales fell from his eyes. Who don't know for sure what exactly made Peter betray his friends; what we do know is that they - MPP - thought very little of Peter and treated him with contempt. MWPP ultimately did not fall because they were bullies, they fell because they underestimated Peter.

Fred and George do not have that problem. Unlike Sirius and James, they're not after adulation from a professional admirer; unlike Remus, they're not wishy-washy when faced with the demands of authority. Sad as it is to say it, F&G have more personal integrity and character than MWPP, and I'll bet JKR factored that in deliberately. That is, I think, why F&G will stay "good guys" whilst MWPP were destroyed from within.

Whatever the truth of that matter is, Percy shows bad judgement generally - his idolization of Crouch in GoF, his pompous letter and support for Umbridge in OotP - and his story arc isn't looking healthy at the moment. I think he probably will turn evil and, if he does, F&G knew it before everybody else.

Percy shows bad judgement in refusing to critize his superiors -- but he is the most law-abiding of the Weasleys.

How do you get 'will probably turn evil' out of that?

How do you get "being good" out of "supporting Umbridge"?

If the rules are wrong and cruel, does following them unquestioningly make you a "good" person?

No, it makes you a dupe.

Percy supported his superior at the Ministry. He *always* supports an authority figure. At school, it was Dumbledore. At the Ministry, it was first Crouch and then Fudge.

He is frightfully willing to be a sheep, but then so are most of the people in the Wizarding World.

Percy is also the one who noticed Ginny was upset in CoS, and the one who jumped in to help Ron out of the lake after Harry rescued him in GoF. He loves his family, he just disagrees with them completely about what is important.

If the rules are wrong and cruel, does following them unquestioningly make you a "good" person?

No, it doesn't neccessarily make you good. If you haven't examined your motives, you're not 'good', you're just compliant.

However, if the rules are wrong and cruel, does breaking them unquestionally make you a good person?

No, it makes you a dupe.

Percy supported his superior at the Ministry. He *always* supports an authority figure. At school, it was Dumbledore. At the Ministry, it was first Crouch and then Fudge.

I suspect we're supposed to notice how Percy changed his view of Dumbledore from "best wizard in the world" (PS/SS) to "best avoided, Harry, I have to say" (OotP). The last is paraphrased, as I don't have my copy of OotP with me. However, it is a 180-degree turn which suggests that Percy doesn't have any firm opinions of his own, he'll just go along with the group he perceives to be "in charge". This isn't a good sign.

He is frightfully willing to be a sheep, but then so are most of the people in the Wizarding World.

Does that make him any better? Should he be called to account for supporting Umbridge, would an argument of "Everyone else went along with it!" serve to justify him? Depends - we might just cut him some slack, as he's so young - but we all know that "sheep mentality" isn't the highest one can aim for in life.

Percy is also the one who noticed Ginny was upset in CoS, and the one who jumped in to help Ron out of the lake after Harry rescued him in GoF. He loves his family, he just disagrees with them completely about what is important.

Well, to be fair Percy seemed just as concerned that she was going to let out his secret (that Ginny caught him kissing Penelope Clearwater) as he did about her personally, but that's a very good point about Percy rushing down to the water to see how Ron was. Perhaps that will ultimately redeem him in spite of his current record!

If the rules are wrong and cruel, does following them unquestioningly make you a "good" person?

No, it doesn't neccessarily make you good. If you haven't examined your motives, you're not 'good', you're just compliant.

However, if the rules are wrong and cruel, does breaking them unquestionally make you a good person?

Nice one! :-) I wish we could see an example of the Twins breaking a rule which ended up having serious, long-term consequences. Some amazing sixth-sense (or authorial wish) has ensured that every time F&G break a school rule it turns out to have harmless or positive consequences. Rather like much of Harry's career, in fact, where the only harmful mistake was the Occlumency business (and even that mistake can be put down to Dumbledore in the end). JKR does seem to like her rebels.

I phrased that badly and emotively: sorry!

What I meant to say was that right now the Fudge faction of the Ministry doesn't look great. I know Fudge changed his mind about Lord Voldie's return at the end of OotP, but I still don't trust him. He was the one who summoned a Dementor in to give Barty Crouch Jr. the Kiss, which suggests to me that Fudge wanted BC Jr. silenced. He was the one who tried to get Harry imprisoned on a false charge, and then sent Umbridge to be a spy within Hogwarts. That Percy is following the Ministry blindly is not a good sign, for me.

I didn't get the impression that Fudge *summoned* a Dementor in to give Crouch Jr. the Kiss. After all, Minerva was right there, witnessed the whole thing, and yet only accused Fudge of bringing the Dementor with him and letting it get out of control.

Fudge is admittedly obstructionistic, but that seems to me to be his reaction to Dumbledore's (apparent) attempt to expand his power base, from Fudge's POV.

That Percy is following the Ministry blindly is not a good sign, for me.

I'm not happy with the lad either. He doesn't think critically about those with authority. But that seems to be failing in his family, because his parents and brothers are certainly falling right in line with Dumbledore in OotP, with vary little critical review of Dumbledore's methods and modes of operation.

I didn't get the impression that Fudge *summoned* a Dementor in to give Crouch Jr. the Kiss. After all, Minerva was right there, witnessed the whole thing, and yet only accused Fudge of bringing the Dementor with him and letting it get out of control.

Well, both Snape and Minerva give an account, and their words are:

SNAPE: "When we told Mr Fudge we had caught the Death Eater responsible for tonight's events, he seemed to feel his personal safety was in question. He insisted on summoning a Dementor to accompany him into the castle. He brought it up to the office where Barty Crouch -"

MINERVA: "The moment that - that thing entered the room, it swooped down on Crouch and -"

Now Snape's tone ("seemed to feel that", "insisted on") sounds more than a little cynical as to Fudge's motives for bringing the Dementor with him. With good reason: why bring a Dementor as a bodyguard when you're already in the company of one or two teachers and the Death Eater in question is already bound and imprisoned? Furthermore, Minerva's words suggest not so much that it got out of control as that it picked its target and swooped instantaneously. Which suggests that it was given orders previously, doesn't it? We know Dementors follow orders, we saw that when Umbridge "sent" Dementors to Harry's home. I think it's fairly clear from that and Dumbledore's reaction ("He was staring hard at Fudge, as if seeing him plainly for the first time") that Fudge fully intended Crouch's mind to be wiped. Whether Fudge did it as a favour to Lucius, or whether he did it from ostensibly public-spirited motives ("mustn't cause a panic! Wipe his mind and the whole thing will go away quietly!") is something we will probably find out later on.

I call highly suspicious, however.

Fudge is admittedly obstructionistic, but that seems to me to be his reaction to Dumbledore's (apparent) attempt to expand his power base, from Fudge's POV.

By sending The Boy Who Lived to Azkaban and ensuring that your spy refuses to teach the kids how to practice magic? Nice one Fudge! :-) He's either evil or so incompetent that he's a gift to the Dark Side.

I'm not happy with the lad either. He doesn't think critically about those with authority. But that seems to be failing in his family, because his parents and brothers are certainly falling right in line with Dumbledore in OotP, with very little critical review of Dumbledore's methods and modes of operation.

Well, when you have a polarization of "Dumbledore versus Umbridge" in your school, you have two very clear choices. If they didn't have to think long and hard about it, it might just be because it was an easy decision to make.

And why did Fudge summon a Dementor? It was an arrest, not an execution. The ww has been at peace for a decade and the news that Voldemort is back hasn't escaped yet. Even captured DEs are entitled to a form of trial.

Azkaban escapees are not.We saw that precedent in the previous book. All an Azkaban escapee is entitled to is the Kiss.

And just who was sent to fetch Fudge and an Auror to take Crouch into custody, Hm? Someone who I am pretty sure was also at the graveyard meeting and as soon as Harry escaped was sent back to perform damage control. And boy howdy did he perform damage control!

All Snape had to do was whisper to Fudge "Escaped from Azkaban." and a Dememtor was assured. Fudge is a patsy. He was played.

Umbridge went behind his back to send out those Demetors to get Harry expelled at least, and possibly permanently out of everyone's hair at most (she didn't know the kid could cast a Partonus). She admits as much when she catches him in the office trying to contact Sirius.

Actually, Percy is a lot *like* Fudge in his bad judgement of other people's motives and his willingness to let himself be jerked around. Unless there is more to the picture than Rowling is overtly showing us.

Even captured DEs are entitled to a form of trial.

Sirius Black very specifically did NOT get a trial. He was tossed into Azkaban as a DE post haste.

And why did Fudge summon a Dementor? It was an arrest, not an execution. [...]

All an Azkaban escapee is entitled to is the Kiss.

Barty Crouch Jr. *was* an Azkaban escapee. No one denied that, so why are you saying that Snape set the idea of the Kiss into Fudge's mind?

I'm not sure about your other points -- perhaps you could break them up so that the ones that aren't related to each other are in different comments?

As to *why* Snape saw to it that a Dementor was set on Crouch Jr; he was sent after Harry to perform damage control. Neutralizing Crouch brought down the number of eye-witness testimonies that Voldemort was back to Harry alone, and the people who believed him but had not seen Voldemort himself. (Plus Snape, who for all that he filled Fudge in on the Dark Mark cannily did not admit that he was present at the gathering and had seen Voldemort himself. Thereby backing up Dumbledore, while still enabling a DE cover-up.)

Sirius Black was arrensted and consigned to Azkaban the day after Voldemort fell. The ww was still operating under "war" mentality. He states that he was not the only person to have had this happen to him, but I think he is talking about during the war. Once he was inside he only saw others being brought in. He would have known little about the circumstances of their arrest or whether or no

Given Fudge's level of information once Snape mentioned "Azkaban escapee" Fudge would have immediately leaped to the conclusion that they had recaptured Sirius Black! WHat other Azkaban escapees did Fudge know about? Furthermore, what other Azkaban escapee did Fudge know about who had a history of having nefarious designs on Harry Potter?

It was Dumbledore's refusal to take any action on the kids' information regarding Pettigrew which is leagely at fault here. I agree that he couldn't well have followed through on it at the end of Year 3 while everyone was in an uproar over Sirius's escape, but he had a year during which he could readily have sat Fudge (or Crouch Sr!) down and filled him in on the *possibility* of a long-standing injustice having been done. With the kid's testimony as an item to be investigated, or at least one to promt a reexamination of the evidence against him.

But Dumbledore is very good at not taking action until it is virtually too late. It is an established pattern for him.

As for Umbridge. She openly admits, before witnesses, that she sent the Dementors after Harry on her own authority. Fudge had nothing to do with it.

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

neotoma.livejournal.com - 2005-03-21 02:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Devil's Advocate Time

jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com - 2005-03-21 08:32 (UTC) - Expand

Except that they're actually superior to most of what goes on, because whilst the HPverse's cruelty is often random and unwarranted, JKR has written the Twins as meting out Prank Justice to those who objectively deserve it.

Look at the list of their victims:

[snipping list of "objectively deserving" victims]

I'd like to know what Ron did to "objectively deserve" having his pet puffskein Bludgered to death by Fred. I've asked this question to several Twins defenders, but they do not seem interested in answering. Perhaps you will. What could their "inbuilt Evil Detectors" have found objectionable about "a docile creature" that eats leftovers, spiders, and bogies/boogers?

At first I was "Ron's puffskein? Killed? Whaa? Don't remember THAT!" Fortunately, Google informed me that this incident occurs in FANTASTIC BEASTS, which is a corner of canon I have not as yet explored.

In Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them, next to the entry for ‘Puffskein’, Ron has written: ‘I had one of them once, what happened to it? Fred used it for Bludger practice’ (FB&WTFT, p.34). (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-devlina.shtml)

On the surface of it, my reaction would be - how horrible! Deliberately killing someone's PET?!? That is an abysmal thing to do! However, I can't say that for sure. One has to wonder how old Fred was when he used it for "Bludger practice", and that's not given. Was he necessarily at Hogwarts then, considering that Quidditch is a well-known sport and that the positions could have been emulated by pre-Hogwarts children, much as cricket or baseball is in our world? If he were quite young at the time, say eight or nine, isn't it just possible that he thwacked the furry ball-like creature for "a bit of a laugh" and still expected it to be OK afterwards? (A mental image occurs of the Puffskein exploding into a cloud of crimson mist upon impact, with Fred looking sheepish and perhaps allowing himself the word "Oops". Whilst merely my conjecture, this sounds more in keeping with the Potterverse to me than the image of Fred setting out with malice aforethought to kill a fluffy adorable animal.)

All this doesn't answer your original question of their hypothetical Inbuilt Evil Detectors, of course: either Fred was stupid in killing the Puffskein or he was evil, there's no possibility of any other option. However, I would like to argue that when he did it he was probably a kid with no idea of the resilience of Puffskeins. Stupidity at pre-school age is just about pardonable in my view, and until JKR pronounces one way or the other I consider my "stupid accident" interpretation as valid as the "deliberate murder" one.

How old does one have to be before understanding that hitting a soft animal with what is basically a club will harm it? Age eight or nine is too old not to know that.

Yes, it may be soft, but the key question we should be asking is whether a Puffskein feels resilient or not. For all we know, underneath all that fluffiness it might feel exactly like a rubber ball! Look at the description of a Puffskein, for instance:

Puffskein: The puffskein is spherical in shape and covered in soft, custard-colored fur, it is a docile creature that has no objection to being cuddled or thrown about. The puffskein is a scavenger that will eat anything from leftovers to spiders, but it has a particular preference for sticking its tongue up the nose of a sleeping wizard, and eating their boogies.

Notice the words "has no objection to... being thrown about". Fred may well have seen it being thrown about by Ron, decided that it was a pretty resilient animal and felt no pain, and thus decided to use it in the manner of a rubber ball. A perfectly understandable mistake to make if you consider that Fred may not have seen a Puffskein before and didn't know that it could withstand hand-to-hand throwing/catching but not a whack with a bat.

We don't know all the facts in this case, so I would suggest it is a bit much to extrapolate "vicious animal killer" from the meagre evidence available.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only