OVERANALYZING THE TEXT

I asked:

Is there some language short of profanity that is unacceptably vituperative to direct towards fictional characters in this forum?

HF replied:

Well, one would certainly hope so :-)

Darn!

Oh, sorry. I guess I was just hoping for a different response. You see, I like vituperative language.

But only when it's directed against fictional people. So tell me, then, is "cad" okay?

I had thought that Pippin had objected to my use of the word "cad," but she corrected me:

IIRC, I objected to the word "bullies".

Oh, was that it, Pippin? I'm sorry. The part of my post that you had snipped was the part in which I referred to them as "thuggish cads," so I'd assumed that "cads" was the word you were objecting to, possibly in part because that was the word with which Catherine had taken issue.

"Cads" is much more suitable, IMO, if you are looking for a derogatory term for the Terrible Two.

Yes, I think so as well. Certainly it is more justified than "thuggish." ;-)

Really, I don't know if I even consider "cads" all that derogatory. I tend to think of the word as rather endearingly archaic. Charming, even. If someone called me a 'cad,' I can't imagine feeling injured. I rather suspect that I'd smile.

They do put Percy at his wits' end, but unlike Elkins's friend, Percy has not been driven away from his home, nor is there any indication that he'd prefer to live elsewhere.

Well, I think that he should live elsewhere. I think that it would do him good to get away from the clan for a while. But you are right in that I don't see any sign that Percy himself has ever considered this a possibility. We never, for example, are given the slightest indication that the family is dependent upon his income, or anything like that, and given how often the Weasley financial situation is alluded to in GoF, I rather suspect that we would have, if we were meant to understand this to be the case. So probably Percy really could move out of the Burrow, if he were so inclined.

Except perhaps at the Office. But I took that as more an indication of incipient workaholism than Twinavoidance. He seems to be just as obsessed with his job after the Twins go back to school.

True. It's tricky, that, though, because his workaholism does seem to me to be in large part a symptom of his growing feelings of alienation from his family. His devotion to Crouch is filial in nature, and the beginning of GoF is where we first see Percy in conflict not only with his siblings, but also with his parents. So there does seem to be a good deal of displacement going on there, IMO.

In this respect, I tend to read Percy in GoF as a (far more harmless!) double to Barty Junior, whose response to a schism with his family is similarly to seek a substitute father figure in Voldemort. Pippin has written some truly fantastic stuff in the past about the series' focus on the missing mother figure (which the ban on 'me toos' and 'oooh, neat!'s has previously prevented me from praising). In GoF, with its motif of parricide, its thematic emphasis on individuation and volition, and its focus on the trials of male adolescence, I perceive a much stronger emphasis on the role of the absent or otherwise disappointing father.

But of course, that can't all be placed at the Twins' door, by any means. It's the entire family dynamic that I see as a spiritually eroding influence on Percy, and the twins are just one manifestation (if a particularly abrasive one) of that dynamic.

I admit that the twins can be pretty obnoxious, but I resist calling them bullies, because if they are bullies, then what do we call Draco, Dudley and Snape?

Er...bullies? ;-)

Really, I think that much of the problem in this entire discussion has been one of definitions: clinical vs colloquial, for example. It's also been muddied by the conflation of "bully" with "evil," not to mention with "I think they act like bullies" with "I don't like 'em" -- which was my own fault.

As Shaun points out in his post, the Twins may be bullies in some technical sense, but they aren't bullies of the same order as DDS, and they require a different kind of intervention, which, in fact, they usually get.

I agree that they are a different animal from Draco, who in turn is himself a very different type of bully than Snape. Draco has a monstrously high self-esteem and suffers from a thwarted sense of entitlement. I don't really think that Snape's got the same issues at all. For that matter, I dare say that Crabbe and Goyle probably have completely different issues all their own, too. Although I doubt somehow that we'll ever get to hear about them. ;-)

It would be a pretty lame anti-bully intervention program that cracked down on F&G and let Draco and Snape get away with everything...which is, of course, exactly what's happening. *g*

Heh. Well, it wouldn't be a very interesting discussion if we talked about all the ways in which Draco is shown acting like a bully in the canon, would it? I mean, who on earth would bother to dissent?

<waits with bated breath for the "Draco is NOT a bully!" contingent to come out of the woodwork>

Besides. If they did, then how on earth would they frame their argument?

HF wrote:

I think it's habitual in any discussion of polarized views for the individual in the minority, or, as the case may be in some instances, the silent majority, to possess the burden of proof.

"Over-analyzing." "Over-intellectualizing." "Reading too much into the text." "Speaking too stridently."

Typically, the minority has had to approach their argument with far more delicacy and tact than one of the majority would, or risk being labeled a disturber of the peace

"Non-canonical." "Misreading." "Distorting the story." "Speaking from emotional bias."

Yes. Well. You see the difficulty here, I trust.

Nope. If I were someone who didn't think that "bully" was an appropriate term to describe Draco Malfoy, I'd be feeling pretty leery of speaking up after the way that this debate evolved. And that's a pity, really, because I, for one, would very much have liked to hear their reasoning.

Cindy wrote:

This discussion of the twins is not the first time criticism of a character has touched off controvery on the list, BTW. . . . . For instance, I adore Moody, and the first time someone pointed out that Real Moody behaves like a Rogue Cop, I felt a bit defensive.

::shifts uneasily in seat::

Yes. Well, er, that was me too, wasn't it?

Heh. Sorry. I don't do this sort of thing on purpose, you know. Honestly, I don't.

But at least I don't go around bashing Hagrid. I mean, that's just plain mean. ;-)

Cindy:

I wonder if it is because people feel threatened somehow, perhaps for the same reason that people might feel threatened when the twins' behavior is questioned. Maybe they found Hagrid's alcohol abuse and general irresponsibility cute or endearing, and my remarks are making them question their affection for Hagrid? I still don't know.

I don't know either. I still don't get it. As it happens, I still find Hagrid's tippling and irresponsibility kind of cute and endearing, myself. But the things that you and Jenny have written about him here in the past have indeed led me to realize that there is a darker side to his irresponsibility, one that I just honestly had never considered before I read your posts. It has occurred to me, for example, that if I were a parent, I might well feel very differently about Hagrid's drinking and poor judgement, especially his lack of caution with dangerous animals.

Similarly, Amanda's posts explaining why, as a parent, she absolutely would not have wanted Lupin to remain as a staff member at any school attended by a child of hers were real eye-openers for me. I'd just never really thought about the issue from that perspective before. I had written it off as "discrimination," and left it at that. But of course, it isn't really all that simple, is it? Lupin really is a threat, and his forgetfulness when it comes to his Wolfsbane Potion really does suggest that he may indeed have a few non-compliance issues that make him even less someone a concerned parent would want around their children.

So have those discussions changed my reading of the text? Oh, yeah. They sure have. And Lupin is one of my favorite characters, too, so of course it was a bit of a wrench to concede that those nasty parents who would have wanted him to be fired really did have a valid point.

But I like it when that happens. After all, if I didn't want to expose myself to other people's readings of the books, then why on earth would I be here?

Cindy:

I imagine that some people don't welcome having their reading experience changed in this way. I can understand that.

I guess I'm having some difficulty understanding that. Isn't that what this forum is for?

I'm also still struggling to understand why being led to revise their interpretation of the twins' character might actually lead people to try to alter their sense of humour. That's sort of creeping me out, to be perfectly honest with you. Why on earth would anyone try to do that?

Cindy, for example, wrote:

Elkins, Eileen, Debbie and a few others have indicated that the twins' behavior never struck them as funny. . . . . As you all may know from my posts on this thread, I agree with them that some of the twins' behavior is bullying behavior.

But I have to admit that I didn't always view it that way. Nope, not me. I found the Ton Tongue Toffee thing hilarious the first time I read it.

But can't it be both? Why can't it be bullying behavior and be hilarious?

I guess that I'm just not seeing how these two issues get conflated. Someone's behavior can be perfectly loathsome, yet still strike you as funny.

Snape's behavior, for example, is definitely bullying. It's just awful, IMO, the way that he treats his students. That "I see no difference" line in GoF, for example, I thought was just dreadful. What a terrible thing to say to an adolescent girl! Poor Hermione!

But you know, I did find it funny.

Nor, I would add, do I feel the slightest bit of guilt over having found it funny. In real life, of course, I would. If I were a witness to such an event in real life, then I would certainly endeavor to show no signs of amusement, no matter how amusingly vicious I found the line to be, both out of consideration for the student's feelings and to avoid encouraging such behavior in the teacher. But while reading a work of fiction?

Nah. It just doesn't bother me. When I grin at Snape's meaner comments, it's not because I condone his behavior. It's just 'cause I think they're funny. I feel no guilt over this. No one is harmed in the slightest by my laughing.

Eloise wrote:

I can see why others interpret them as bullies, yet I still find them amusing.

But, but, but...but couldn't you still find them amusing even if you did interpret them as bullies?

See, this is the thing that I just don't understand, perhaps because my own sense of humour is extraordinarily dark. It's just never occurred to me that finding a comedic scene funny implies any moral approval of the behavior being depicted in said scene. I mean, good heavens! What does it say about me, then, that I snicker at Voldemort and his Death Eaters in the graveyard scene? I see nothing in the least bit moral or upright about anyone's behavior in that sequence. But I sure do find it funny.

Cindy explained it thus:

Imagine that someone tells a racist joke, and you laugh. Then someone else points out that they think the joke was racist and therefore not funny.

Personally, I would feel defensive and embarrassed.

Oh, dear. Yes. I suppose that I would as well.

In that case, then perhaps this was my fault again. Did I imply that the reason that I don't find TTT funny is because it's a comedic depiction of bullying?

No. That is why it makes me cringe, but it's not why I fail to find it funny. I can easily cringe at something while still finding it funny. I do that all the time. In fact, my favorite type of humour is the type that makes you cringe and laugh at the same time.

No, what makes TTT unfunny is that it is slapstick. It's Dicey's "Danger Averted" comedy. It is cartoonish, and that's precisely why it's not funny. Cartoon slapstick has just never amused me in the slightest. I find it exceptionally tedious and irritating. (I've never been able to stand Warner Brothers cartoons either, as it happens.) But that has nothing to do with what is being depicted in the scene. It has everything to do with the nature of the depiction.

So I don't really think that the "the joke is racist and therefore not funny" analogy holds up very well here. If the TTT scene had been written as black humour, rather than as cartoonish slapstick, then I likely would have found it very funny indeed. But that's a matter of comedic preference. It's a question of aesthetics, not of ethics.

Yet this whole humour issue really seems to be upsetting people, and I'm still trying to understand the reasons for that. Let me try this as a proposal, just to see if it resonates with people.

Dicey has identified a type of slapstick which takes as its operative principle: "Only if the victim isn't realistically enough depicted for us to take his pain too seriously is it funny."

Could it be, perhaps, that there is a related form of humour, one which takes as its operative principle: "Only if the aggressor is morally clean is it funny?"

In other words, is it true that for some people the morality or ethics of the characters really does have direct bearing on whether or not they find a scene that involves violence amusing? Is THAT why people were conflating the issues of whether the twins are funny and whether their behavior is bullying?

I hadn't realized that there were people who held that view of humour. In my conception of comedy, the moral positioning of the actors doesn't really have very much to do with whether or not something is funny (although the moral positioning of the author sometimes can: a dark comedy about the Klan, for example, I really would consider funny or not in large part based on what I perceived the author's attitude on the subject to be).

Immoral actions can be (and very often are) portrayed in a humorous light. Very many forms of comedy involve some form of harm or discomfiture. Nor is "Danger Averted" comedy the only type of humour out there. Sometimes things are funny not because no harm is done, but because in fact a great deal of harm is being done.

So I think that we might want to be careful about saying that it's not okay to laugh at certain things when we see them depicted in fiction. If we were to declare all forms of comedy which involve people being unkind each other or people getting hurt off-limits, then that really wouldn't leave us with very much to laugh at, would it?

But surely the question of humour is a different one from the question of characterization, isn't it? That Voldemort's actions are occasionally played for very dark humour doesn't make him any less of a sadist. That Snape's verbal abuse is often quite funny doesn't make him any less of a bully. That the Dursleys' locking Harry in the cupboard beneath the stairs or feeding him on nothing but watery soup is a comedic depiction of child abuse doesn't make the Dursleys admirable models of good parenting.

What the characters' behavior reveals about them is a completely different issue than that of whether or not we find them funny.

Then, perhaps I am merely oversensitive on this subject because, uh, well, because see, I actually do find it kind of funny when Voldemort tortures Wormtail. Not the Cruciatus, no. That wasn't particularly funny. But the fact that he'd been threatening to feed the poor wretch to Nagini?

Er...well, uh, yeah. See, that really is funny. It's funny, see, because Pettigrew is a rat animagus. He's rodent-like by nature, and he's spent far too many years of his life in his rodent form. And so Voldemort threatening to feed him to a big snake is funny. It's funny because someone who is at heart a rat can be reasonably expected to have some rather strongly phobic feelings about snakes. It's funny because the precise nature of the threat is so very appropriate. It's funny because the nature of a rodent's feelings about snakes relates in a direct fashion to Wormtail's own ridiculously untenable moral position in regard to Voldemort. It's funny because as readers, we realize that it had to have been an idle threat, and yet Wormtail himself does not seem to have had the presence of mind to have reached this same conclusion. And it's funny because Voldemort himself seems so devestatingly aware of all of these factors.

It is funny. It's just not slapstick. It's black humour instead, which is a different form of sadistic comedy, and one that follows a completely different set of narrative rules.

Am I really supposed to feel guilty for appreciating that form of humour? Because I have to say that I just plain don't.

Cindy wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing the link between whether a character is fleshed out and our willingness to look the other way when they do something wrong or mean-spirited or whether the pain they suffer ought to trouble us.

Well, again, I think that we want to draw a distinction between something being funny and something being morally condoned. That I can get a smile out of Voldemort's sadism doesn't make him any less of a sadist. That I can see humour in Wormtail's situation doesn't mean that he isn't really suffering. That there is black humour written into that scene doesn't mitigate anyone's flaws or change anyone's nature. And the fact that I can find things like that funny doesn't mean that I don't recognize wrongs as wrongs, or pain as pain.

Voldemort really is cruel, and Wormtail really is suffering.

And it's funny.

What I suppose that I don't get is why people feel that they can't continue to find scenes like TTT funny just because they've decided that the twins are acting like bullies. What happens to make it suddenly "unfunny" if you come to believe that?

—Elkins