Re: So where are...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:20:48 -0700, nystulc@xxxxxx wrote:


Sue H wrote:
Nah, they would never have hurt him really;

They do hurt him, REALLY!

[...] they love him and
constantly protect him too.

Perhaps they do, to some extent, but they hurt him too.

They even are in a quidditch fight I
believe at one point protecting their little bro.

You are misremembering. Read the passage again. They are completely
unconcerned while Malfoy is insulting Ron. They start to pay
attention only when Malfoy is insulting their Dad. The attack, only
when Malfoy starts insulting Weasleys generally (in other words --
THEM).

I just pulled this off the net (definition of cruel-exact cut and
paste)
CRUEL
barbarous: (of persons or their actions) able or disposed to
inflict
pain or suffering; "a barbarous crime"; "brutal beatings"; "cruel
tortures"; "Stalin's roughshod treatment of the kulaks"; "a savage
slap"; "vicious kicks"
brutal: (of weapons or instruments) causing suffering and pain;
"brutal instruments of torture"; "cruel weapons of war"

The part that is clearly relevant to the twins, and which JKR clearly
has in mind, is "able or disposed to inflict pain and suffering."

By those definitions, if her characters are CRUEL, I don't see it.
I think either she mispoke, or she visualizes something more than
we know but never conveyed.

I think she is quite conscious of their cruelty, particularly toward
Ron. I cannot see how any reader can identify with Ron in the
slightest, and not notice the constant verbal cruelty of the Twins.

There is a particulary chilling scene in OOTP where Fred and George
actually notice that Ron is at an extremely low emotional point,
during the "Weasley is Our King" Quiddich campaign. They debate
whether they have the heart to continue to "take the mickey out of
him" (in other words, continue taunt, torment, and tear down his self
esteem). They decided that, yes, indeed they do.

Hermione takes explicit note of the fact that the presence of the
twins is damaging to Ron's self esteem. She predicts, to Harry, that
Ron will start to do better at Quiddich after they are gone. Sure
enough, that is exactly what happens.

In fact the definition of "mean" fits them
better except that they are generous. They give out some free
things, they are willing of self-sacrifice and they are good-
natured even when involved in conflict.

This is most evident in Book 7, in which they emerge as heroes, and
which is almost unique in that there are no examples of their cruelty.

If in fact she said that, maybe she
just meant more of an instigator.

She said "cruel," so she probably meant "cruel" -- in other words,
ready and willing to hurt people.

Does anyone here know of an example in any of the books that can
sort this argument out?

Here, from memory, is a brief list of the Weasley Twin's misdeeds:

Attempting to control little Ron by forcing him to take an Unbreakable
Vow, thereby severely endangering his life.

That's the worst thing they ever did, but I assert they were kids at
the time and didn't really think the consequences out totally. It's
kids being kids like when you made those same things saying "cross my
heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye" or "swear on my mother's
life". You don't really mean it!


Giving little Ron an acid pop as a joke, which burned a hole in his
tongue.

which did no permanent harm.

Turning little Ron's teddy bear into a gigantic spider, in order to
punish him for breaking one of their toys, resulting in permanent
psychological damage (in the form of a spider-phobia).

True he's got a fear of spiders, but that's not really harmful to him.
Actually staying away from poisonous spiders is a good thing! so
again, no real harm done.

While a classmate was going crazy studying for Owls, they put (IIRC)
bulbadox powder in his pajamas, causing him to come down in serious
boils.

which didn't do permanant damage in any way.

They intentionally fed Dudley a ton-tongue toffee.

True, but he did deserve it and the tongue was easily put right. No
permanent harm done.

Fed a firecracker to a salamander to see what would happen. I don't
know if this hurt the salamander or not, but this is certainly not
something I would do if I cared about not hurting the salamander.

A lot of people don't think Salamanders have souls. This is a
question of religious belief. Still this is proably the second worst
thing they did.

The big one, from Books 5 and 6, is the near-murder of Montague who,
as we later learn, almost died as a result of their prank.

I don't remember this. But he didn't die. No harm done or probably
INTENDED which is important to consider when calling them mean or
cruel.

Not necessarily cruel, but certainly immoral, were their expriments on
11-year olds, after lying about the nature of the experiment, in
OOTP.

immoral is a matter of your personal opinion here. I also don't think
they lied outright either. They did make them sign a release I do
believe. Everyone knew it was experimental. Though admittingly, using
11 year olds was not very nice. Nobody said they were always nice; I
just don't see that as cruel.

Moreover, anyone who has paid attention to the intentional
misdeads of the twins knows exactly why she singles out Fred as
the crueler of the two.

I don't know abuot this either. George always goes along with him
so if it's true and I am wrong, that they are cruel, they are both
equal as one does what the other does. If two people are
conspiring to kills someone but only one shoots the gun or does
the deed, I think they are equally responsible.

This is quite correct, as a legal and moral matter. I am not trying
to let George off the hook at all. But I still know what she means
when she refers to Fred as being more cruel.

Fred is the one who did the acid pop trick; Fred is the one who turned
Ron's teddy bear into a spider. George is the one who seems to show
most concern for the 11-year olds affected by the fainting fancies.
It is George who suggests showing Ron some mercy during his Quiddich
match lowpoint, and Fred who vetos the idea (though George does not
put up a fight).

I never argued that one might be slightly more the prankster. I just
said they both are about equally culpable for going along with the
other.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So where are...
    ... They do hurt him, REALLY! ... unconcerned while Malfoy is insulting Ron. ... The part that is clearly relevant to the twins, ... There is a particulary chilling scene in OOTP where Fred and George ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: So where are...
    ... Perhaps they do, to some extent, but they hurt him too. ... unconcerned while Malfoy is insulting Ron. ... The part that is clearly relevant to the twins, ... There is a particulary chilling scene in OOTP where Fred and George ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: So where are...
    ... Abu Ghraib never hurt anybody. ... I still don't see Fred and George as ... Surely if they are cruel, ... unconcerned while Malfoy is insulting Ron. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: So where are...
    ... Abu Ghraib never hurt anybody. ... unconcerned while Malfoy is insulting Ron. ... Ron will start to do better at Quiddich after they are gone. ... George is the one who seems to show ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: The Crooked Weasleys! Is Something Dodgy on Diagon Alley?
    ... I've never liked the twins, ... > I think it is unusual for it to be George who interrupts Fred. ... Ron didn't move. ... Certainly the ministry connection is where the potential for real ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
Loading