(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

[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.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

My desire is not to classify this girl as Other but to give her the benefit of the doubt before deeming her to be a terrible human being. She may have experienced abuse that she has yet to reveal to anyone, never mind Dr. Phil with his 3 inches thick notebook. She may have a personality disorder that has yet to be diagnosed because DSM guidelines state that a patient shouldn't be diagnosed with one before the age of 18.

Moreover, a talk show is a less than ideal setting in which to gauge what a person is truly thinking and feeling because there is a lack of confidentiality and because s/he may be putting on an act for the live audience and television cameras.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Maybe, but I doubt it. Her own parents said her behavior on the show was typical for her. Nice bit of sarcasm about the notebook, BTW. ;-)

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

"My desire is not to classify this girl as Other but to give her the benefit of the doubt before deeming her to be a terrible human being. She may have experienced abuse that she has yet to reveal to anyone, never mind Dr. Phil with his 3 inches thick notebook. She may have a personality disorder that has yet to be diagnosed because DSM guidelines state that a patient shouldn't be diagnosed with one before the age of 18."

She might not have to. Over my winter break I read this really interesting psychology book called "The Lucifer Effect," which basically put it out there, based on experiments and the like, that there is no inherent distinction between those who do evil and those who do not, because just about anyone can do evil (or good) if the circumstances lead to it- and the circumstances are not always anywhere near as obvious as blatant abuse, as long as there's the potential to think of other people as objects. By that logic, that this person could be spoiled by her upbringing and also old enough to cause real damage is no big stretch.

By the way, expect to see me referencing this book A LOT in my upcoming HP parodies and commentary.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, that book was promoted on a Dr. Phil episode several months ago. Its author, Philip Zimbardo, was on the show. Zimbardo is the psychologist who designed and carried out the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Thanks for reminding me of that book. I intended to read it but forgot.

While you're referencing The Lucifer Effect, you might also want to bring up the above experiment, as well as Stanley Milgram's infamous experiment about blind obedience to authority. Those are also highly applicable to the Potterverse. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

It is a really great book. Incidentally, many of the things it suggests are absolute anathema to the teachings of JKR (I actually checked it out in the first place to help me write more effective villains, to avoid falling into that same "some people are just evil, and this guy's one of them" trap that Rowling did).

That kind of "some people are just evil" mentality is a reason why I no longer like the "Complete Monster" designation on TV Tropes. It's supposed to identify villains who do truly horrific things, but it lumps together any villains who commit a certain level of "evil," and then people ignore or mock anyone who sees those villains differently or tries to understand them better. It's also why I don't like people randomly slapping the "psychopath" label on any given villain just for the lulz.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, as a writer, I might need to check out this book. Interesting.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

I highly recommend you do:)

Actually, there's even a segment of the book dedicated to zealot suicide bombers- where he describes the brainwashing process by which the bombers' superiors lead them to believe that killing themselves is the righteous thing. Gee, does that sound familiar? ;)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Come to think of it, those would make great fanfics: The Voldemort Effect, The Hogwarts Prison Experiment, and Dumbledore's Obedience to Authority.