(no subject)

[mmmarcusz.livejournal.com]

One thing that bothers me about the twins is that no matter what they do, they get away with it. There are never any consequences. When they sneak Harry out of his house, flying a magic car into a Muggle area, there are no legal consequences and Molly blusters but doesn't do anything. When they more or less ignore how badly Ginny's getting on (as do Percy and Ron), and don't notice she's being bewitched, there's no real guilt.

They give Harry the Marauders' Map - what if he disappeared some day - would they have told the authorities that they gave him a method of sneaking out of school? Or just stayed quiet and hoped things worked out?

They slip Dudley Ton-Tongue Toffees - he could have died, but again no consequences. They win their bet with Bagman (it was never explained how they knew it - maybe they used magical means in an early draft) but never face consequences (given that the Ministry is notoriously corrupt, it's surprising that Ludo is always on the defensive, and never tries to e.g. get Arthur fired or have the twins prosecuted for their illegal testing). And then Harry hands them a pile of cash, because there are no more worthy causes.

In OOTP, they spy on Order meetings (how bad is the security?) but no DEs seem to exploit this. They also drop out of school without qualifications - unlike in real life, where this would lead to months of them sitting about in the Burrow doing nothing, they instead become master businessmen.

In HBP, their shop sells stuff that is obviously dangerous if exploited, but even when the DEs use their powder, no-one blames them for selling it, or questions a society that allows such weapons to be owned.

In DH, Fred is killed, but a heroic death in battle. It would be much more likely for him to be killed in one of the twins' experiments gone wrong - this would actually force George to undergo some sort of reflection or growth as a character - but as it is, it confirms that Fred was great and everything the twins did was great.

Comments

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

It's been years since I CoS-ed but I think Percy did notice that Ginny wasn't up to it, in the bathroom incident, no? Yes, he screwed up when he interupted her, but he thought she was fine and was just gossiping. He did get her to take a Pepper-up potion and he tried to assure her Ron wouldn't get expelled, but no one seemed to notice how badly she was doing, and how easy would Riddled Ginny be able to say "It's a female thing" or just chalk it up to being scared of Merlin Knows What petrifying people.

But do you ever think Arthur and Molly are just pretty horrible parents? Seriously, the twins are running wild but no one ever seens to clamp down on them. They kidnap Harry (instead of going to their parents) "That was erm...very wrong, boys, *wink* now go degnome the garden that you were likely going to do anyway as your chore."

They magick Dudley? "BAD BAD, but let's not tell your mother, the one person who you seem to fear."

The one time we hear of actual discipline is when the twins openly and literally endangered Ron's very life in the most horrible way. Besides that, it's hands off.

No wonder Percy is a bit stiff. How many can see Molly asking the poor boy to watch his younger siblings while she tends to the baby? Or cooks?

I've taken care of multiple children (including special needs ones, like autism and serious illness) at one time, for long periods of time. And yes, they got into mischief. They raided the fridges, tried to blow up the microwave once, stole my shoes and hid them and they drove me a little crazy. And I would take them ALL at once before taking on the twins.

The twins are out of control. They have no fear of authority. They revel in showing how little they care for it. They turn their brother's teddy bear into a spider. They bully their siblings. They get lousy grades.

And the world loves them. Adores them. Finds them so hilarious.


It would have been fascinating if Arthur would have lost his job for the car incident as he's GUILTY as all sin of misusing the law to suit his own wishes and you know, breaking it pretty openly, and endangering his underage children by having it when they could get it.

Or if Ludo would have gotten Arthur fired. Or even just cut his budget. He's a guy who can get off at trials on sheer popularity. He could hurt Arthur very easily.

Or Ludo could have just told Arthur.

WHat's most fascinating is that JKR doesn't seem to know how a busienss is run. Inventing stuff is one thing, but managing a business takes a lot of keeping details straight, keeping records, managing accounts, research, and really thinking the small stuff. So...much like someone they despise.

I could see them making products for Zonkos and doing well. But them keeping track of business records?

Ha.

[sunnyskywalker]

Now you've got me imagining Percy sneaking into the shop at night and balancing their ledger, not for their sake particularly, but because he just can't bear the thought of Fred and George ending up in deep debt through carelessness which will ruin the whole family.

Or maybe their shop girl takes care of all those details behind the scenes (and handles their PR schedule, and their dry cleaning...), while Mssrs. Weasley get the credit for having awesome business skills. That's probably the most likely scenario.

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

Actually....I may have a drabble out of that.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

The twins are out of control. They have no fear of authority. They revel in showing how little they care for it. They turn their brother's teddy bear into a spider. They bully their siblings. They get lousy grades.

And the world loves them. Adores them. Finds them so hilarious.

It didn't occur to me until I read this, but there was a girl on Dr. Phil just today who acted exactly like the twins, or any HP protagonist. She was extremely obnoxious and self-centered; literally believed the world revolved around her; everyone existed to accommodate her needs; and if anyone did not immediately give her whatever she wanted, she had the right to retaliate in any way she saw fit. Here is a partial list of the things she's done: duct-taped a handicapped boy's mouth shut; bullied people so badly they left school to get away from her; punched her mother, a principal, and a police officer in the mouth; bitten a principal and a police officer; threatened to cut her mother's throat, cut out her tongue, and burn the house down with her family in it; destroyed the front yard, including attempting to throw a bird bath through the car window, because her parents painted her room the wrong color; gotten drunk and stoned on illegal drugs many times; slept around; gotten raped while she was blacked out.

I want to make it clear that she DID NOT have ANYTHING wrong with her as far as being mentally deficient, developmentally delayed, brain-disordered, or anything like that. She was just a complete spoiled, entitled brat. She showed no empathy and no remorse whatever for anything bad she'd ever done.

Although the audience on that show is required to behave politely, it was obvious they hated her, and were thrilled when the show ended and she was hauled off to a reform school ranch against her will. This is yet another example of how sick these books are: When a real person acts like the twins, she's regarded as a hated and feared monster, not a cuddly, adorable prankster.

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

I googled that episode and while the twins aren't that bad, they have some horrible tendancies.

And I just realized something. That girl's victims were helpless.

Percy, the twin's favorite target is not helpless. You don't get 12 OWLs for showing up. I have no doubt that Percy can hex back if he chose to, but besides acting pompously. He could have nailed them to the wall and he never did.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Percy, pompous or not, ran into the lake in what were likely official robes (he was acting as Triwizard referee in Crouch's place after all) to help Ron out. Percy always prioritized his ungrateful family over everything else.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Heh. Percy: secret badass. I like that. ;) Percy is one of those characters I adore who always gets a bad rap.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

And I just realized something. That girl's victims were helpless.

The police, a school principal, and her parents, one of whom is a police officer, are helpless? I can see where her parents wouldn't want to fight their own daughter, but her other adult victims could certainly fight back.

As for the twins, they also tested their products on little kids who had no idea what they were ingesting, not to mention giving that toffee to Dudley. So I think the parallels between that girl and them is closer than you may realize.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Ah, but see, that shows Percy is just totally deserving of disrespect.

He could have hexed the Twins to pieces for attacking him. But he didn't. You know, like Snape held his fire to keep from hurting Harry in "The Flight of the Prince" chapter in HBP, and to keep from killing Minerva in "The Sacking of Severus Snape" chapter of DH.

You deliberately hold back from hurting someone's who's attacked you?

COWARD! COWARD!

In fact, we see that the rot goes so far that Percy won't even beat up on SLYTHERINS when he has a free shot.

Sigh. The Twins hide their faces in shame and despair. That anyone pretending to be related to them should sink so low....

But it's true, alas for Gred and Forge's sensibilities.

Look at Percy's behavior in CoS ("POlyjuice Potion"): Draco sneers,
"And what are you doing down here [sneaking around the dungeons], Weasley?"

And all Percy does is to say, "You want to show more respect to a school prefect! I don't like your attitude!"

Now our Best Role Model, the Head Boy of "you couldn't really expect James to take that lying down, could you?" fame, would have (at least given that there were no witnesses who had authority to report him to staff or sweet Lily) hexed a stinking Slytherin second year into the hospital wing for a WEEK for questioning his right to sneak around Slytherin territory.

That's the behavior we like to see!

Not that COWARDLY refusal to attack someone weaker.

*

And now for a totally off the wall observation.

Why the hell was a romance between Pureblood-but-blood-traitor Gryffindor swot Percy and Muggle-born Ravenclaw (therefore automatically-swot) Penelope so much of a doomed Romeo-and-Juliet affair that the only place they dared meet was down in the Slytherin dungeons, well away from either of their houses? We know that Ginny, later, wasn't ashamed of dating Ravenclaws... at least, non-Mudblood ones like Michael Corner.

Of course the twins would make unpleasant jests about whomever Percy dated. So what?

Surely... I mean, the Weasleys are a family of blood traitors, right? Surely that must mean they've courted Muggle-borns before? Even though, by sheer random chance and through no choices ever of their own, the current crop of offspring still ranks among the small (1 out of 4) part of the Wizarding population that can be classified as "Purebloods"?

Oh.

There's no canon evidence for any previous Weasley/Prewett marital alliances with non-Purebloods. And in fact, conclusive (crashing) evidence that no previous such courtships (if any tentative outreaches ever occurred) ever resulted in either a marriage or children.

Ron has no Muggle relatives.

None.

None whatsoever.

Or at least, none that he's ever been allowed to meet or know of.

Not a one of his older relatives has EVER married into a family with ANY embarassing Muggle in-laws. Embarassing relatives, yes, he owns the usual plethora, when the family closets are disgorged of people like Aunt Muriel and Uncle Bil. But three-quarters or more of the WW have Muggles in their households somewhere--where were Ron's, when Bill's wedding shakes loose all the family disgraces to haunt the respectables?

Nowhere. They don't exist. Ron has no embarrassingly-Muggle relatives.

The closest he comes is Molly's Squib second cousin who became an accountant. That disgrace to the Prewett (or whatever) name probably did marry a Muggle (what else could he have done?--to what better could a Squib accountant have aspired?), but the Weasley family never talks about (or to) Molly's family shame. They certainly don't recognize the accountant's spawn as FAMILY. Just as, y'know, Draco's family probably didn;t recognize Andromeda's spawn as such.


So Percy is probably the first in his family, ever, to date a Muggle-born, insisting on her merits. And he hides this from his family as the trangression that it is.

How does he justify his overwhelming need of secrecy to Penelope? "No, I'm not ashamed of you, really I'm NOT, but--"

What could possibly follow that "but"?

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Ouch. The twins are mini psychopaths. I never particularly liked them, but Elkins' discussions of them really made me pay attention.

But this girl is...wow. Entitled doesn't begin to cover it.

[Um, one thing though: how is being raped while unconscious AT ALL equivalent to any of those other things? I know it's common to assign responsibility to people who are raped when drunk, but it is not right. It's victim-blaming - no matter who the victim is. I won't turn this into a discussion about why, but I will gladly provide links to posts elsewhere if anyone is interested. I simply want to point out that the only one responsible for a rape is the rapist.

This isn't to point a finger at you; I genuinely don't want to attack you. This line of thinking is a standard trope in contemporary culture and I've been guilty of thinking that way too. So I just try to point it out as BS when and where I see it. Because it is BS - it tells rape victims that getting raped is their fault. Which, no. I think we can all agree on that?]

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

You beat me to it. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose the general idea is a girl goes out to unsavoury places and "gets herself dirty" like she didn't pay attention to her new dress when rolling aroung the meadow or something. With this conception, taking drugs and being raped are practically the same - you sully yourself and thus are to blame.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

[Um, one thing though: how is being raped while unconscious AT ALL equivalent to any of those other things? I know it's common to assign responsibility to people who are raped when drunk, but it is not right. It's victim-blaming - no matter who the victim is. I won't turn this into a discussion about why, but I will gladly provide links to posts elsewhere if anyone is interested. I simply want to point out that the only one responsible for a rape is the rapist.

Believe it or not, I agree with you. However, by the time they got to that point in the show, it was past the halfway mark, and I was so disgusted and enraged at that girl, I found it impossible to have much sympathy for her even when she was the victim. Reading a brief account of her vileness doesn't compare to watching 25 minutes (at that point) of her obnoxious, hateful, condescending, completely unapologetic behavior. When she said she'd been raped, part of me thought, "Even she doesn't deserve that." Another part thought, "Good, you little shit! Somebody finally treated you as badly as you treat everybody else! Now you know how it feels!" Some people, even when they're victims, are just too unsympathetic for me to feel sorry for them., and that came out in my comment.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----I want to make it clear that she DID NOT have ANYTHING wrong with her as far as being mentally deficient, developmentally delayed, brain-disordered, or anything like that.

Many of the commenters on Dr. Phil's site suggested that she might have a mental illness, or a hormone imbalance, or a history of sexual abuse, or some combination of the above.

IMO, such extreme behavior in a child indicates that she might need psychiatric care.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Those commenters must not have paid attention. For every show, Dr. Phil gets a notebook of background information on his guests that's three inches thick. He's had many hateful, unsympathetic people on his show over the years, including child abusers and wife beaters, and every time somebody has the kind of problem you're talking about, that gets brought up as a factor to help explain their behavior. That was not the case here.

At the beginning of the show, I also thought it inconceivable that anybody could be that horrible without having something seriously wrong with them, such as a mental illness, history of abuse, heavy metal poisoning, or my favorite, narcissistic psychopathy. Nothing like that was mentioned. On the contrary, it was made clear that she was just a total spoiled brat with spineless parents who caved in to her demands every time she threw a tantrum.

Murray Strauss and Richard Gelles are sociologists who've spent their careers studying family violence. The first chapter of their book, Intimate Violence, is called, "Because They Can." The gist of that chapter is this: When a person abuses others, particularly their family members, people want to believe there's something that makes the abuser act that way: mental illness, a history of abuse, drug or alcohol addiction, etc. The truth is, that is rarely the case. Nearly every time people abuse others, it is only because they figure they can get away with it. In similar situations where they would suffer consequences for their violence, they don't act out. (They give as one example the business executive who beats his wife for not cleaning the house well enough, but who'd never dream of beating the janitor at work if his office weren't cleaned properly.)

The second chapter, "People Other Than Us," examines the stereotypes of family violence vs. the reality as shown in studies. These quotations are from the book:

page 39: ...By and large, we tend to think of abusers as people other than us. We believe that they are different, almost alien beings; victims are helpless, defenseless innocents....

page 42: The enduring stereotype of family violence is that the abuser is mentally disturbed or truly psychotic, and that the victim is a defenseless innocent. The typical reaction to a description of a case of domestic violence or a photo of an abused woman or child is that "only a sick person" would do such a thing. The stereotype is so strong that unless the offender fits the profile of the mentally disturbed psychotic alien and the victim is portrayed as innocent and defenseless there is a tendency not to view the event as abusive....

IOW, categorizing people who treat others atrociously is a way to make the observer feel better by "othering" the abuser. But the evidence clearly contradicts that belief.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Wow... that does sound a lot like the twins in some respects. I used to love them too. Maybe I just liked the idea of rebellion without negative consequences?

[oryx_leucoryx]

IIRC Ginny's mood was attributed to her being fond of cats. It was after Mrs Norris was Petrified. A young person feeling bad that a cat was hurt so mysteriously makes a lot of sense.

They get lousy grades.

Before PS they still had decent grades, as far as Ron knew. I think once they saw Percy becoming a prefect they decided they were not going to run the risk of either of them becoming one.

Oh and Percy is stuck up and pompous but Fred and George are the ones who demand their one employee address them as 'Mr Weasley'.

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

And just being scared. First time away from home and there's a horror loose in the school.

As for the Twins' grades, this is Ron, who got seven OWLs. "really good marks" is subjective.


Yeah, that scene made me realize that they are just as pompous and power hungry, they just are too cool to attempt to earn respect. Poor Verity.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

It would have been fascinating if Arthur would have lost his job for the car incident as he's GUILTY as all sin of misusing the law to suit his own wishes and you know, breaking it pretty openly, and endangering his underage children by having it when they could get it

I am so irritated that no fans can see the hypocrisy of Arthur being in a department to prevent people using magic on Muggle objects, only for him to do that very thing. Like, sure, there's corrupt people in the Ministry who misuse their power, Lucius Malfoy, etc. etc. but don't make Arthur out to be the lone hero when he's guilty of the same! Put that into real world terms, like a member of the Drug Squad that steals drugs for recreational use on his own time, and see if that person would get away with it. >:[

And I love Molly's reaction to anything to do with Muggle objects- it's not 'stop tinkering with them, it's against the law', but 'Muggle things are useless and stupid, why are you wasting your time on them?' *eyeroll*

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

Because Arthur has no problem bending rules, which is his kids problems. It's hard to be authorative when you break rules and overlook mistakes.

How can you expect kids to behave when you won't?

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I know, right? I mean, I adore Arthur - there is a soft spot in my heart for him - but he's flawed like most everyone in the books. There's the hypocrisy you point out, and his 'benevolent' bigotry against Muggles. (By which I mean he's not malicious or hateful - he simply sees them as inferior to him but worthy of protection. He speaks of them as if they were small children or animals, not his equals.)

Molly is a horror. I do rather like Jodel's theory about the Weasley family though, and it helps me have some compassion for Molly and co. to think of much of the dysfunction of the family being due to a massive trauma like Jodel theorizes.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/And I love Molly's reaction to anything to do with Muggle objects- it's not 'stop tinkering with them, it's against the law', but 'Muggle things are useless and stupid, why are you wasting your time on them?'/

I think that Molly is a prime example of the problems with HP regarding the anti-racism message. We’re supposed to see the Weasleys as a loving, tolerant family because they welcome Harry and Hermione and they’re called blood traitors by fanatic purebloods. Yet Molly is nearly as (or just as) bigoted as the Malfoys are. Sure, she never joins the Death Eaters and is a member of Dumbledore’s Army, but she doesn’t respect Muggles any more than the Malfoys do. She frequently criticizes their inventions as rubbish, she complains that King’s Cross – a train station built by Muggles for Muggles – is packed with Muggles, and she never compliments Arthur on his job or on his interest in Muggle culture and almost seems to be annoyed by them. She may not want to bother Muggles, but she doesn’t seem to like them much, either.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/But do you ever think Arthur and Molly are just pretty horrible parents? Seriously, the twins are running wild but no one ever seens to clamp down on them./

Actually, now that I think about it, do you think that the Weasley parents were modeled after Mr. and Mrs. Bennet from "Pride and Prejudice," since JKR is a big fan of Jane Austen? Arthur as the laid-back father and Molly as the harried mother? Because if so, then I think that JKR missed the point. As witty and amusing as Mr. Bennet may be, the narrative makes it plain that he is just as culpable as Mrs. Bennet when it comes to the irresponsible parenting of their two younger daughters. When Lydia runs off with Wickham, Mr. Bennet readily admits to Elizabeth that the fault was partly his. Yet in HP, we never see Arthur or Molly directly acknowledge they are at least partly responsible for their children's behavior or that any blame should be ascribed to them.

[dungeonwriter.livejournal.com]

I wish Percy wouldn't have had to grovel for forgiveness. If they could have just admitted that they allowed him to be bullied and took for him for granted, that they do love him, I could have lived with it.

But Molly and Arthur never seem to consider themselves as part of the problem in any way. Mr. Bennet gets that shutting himself off in his library was unwise. Mr. Weasley never gets that.

Arthur brutally insulted his own son. Even if it was true, he could have not have hurt his son more if he had set out to do so in the first place. And he never backed down and said he was sorry for hurting him.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do think Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are modeled on the Bennets.* I also agree that Jane Austen is far, far more aware of her characters' flaws than Rowling is.

*(I said this years ago, when someone in another discussion claimed the Weasleys were working class. I said they weren't. Snape is working class; the Weasleys are the Bennets. Yeoman class, essentially, who have fallen on hard times. They are landowners and purebloods; they just don't have any money. In that, too, they are rather like the Bennets.)

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

But I am pretty sure that the Bennets were actually meant to be terrible parents, unlike the Weasleys.