Screwtape and the Weasley Twins - non-spoilery reassesment

[pharnabazus]

Some months ago, I spotted a passage in the Screwtape Letters which, to my mind, explains the Weasley twins - and Harry's (and the readers') reaction to them too

Comments

[titc]

A thoughtful, argumented post - your case is all the stronger for your measure. I totally agree about the twins - they're so like the 'popular bullies' we've all kknown at school, they can get away with everything.

[no_remorse]

I try to think of something to add, but except for worrying that the George Wickham parallel is unintentional, nothing comes to mind.

You're right, the Twins are cruel and I find it telling that they are never the butt of a joke themselves, but I am not sure if your point of view will be vindicated in the actual text.

[nancylebov]

So, why do people like the books and the wizarding world so much? It's brightly colored and endlessly inventive, it's better than the Dursleys, buta big piece is that it's a place that's fairly livable and comfortable but where children and teenagers can have important responsibility without completely having to hide it from adults.

That last is actually a tricky balance, since the modern idea is that young people shouldn't be allowed to decide anything more important than whether or not to be bullies. The way Rowling gets it to work is partly by having a world which is very irresponsible by modern standards but which has some kindness in it, and partly by offering the contrast to the unremitting cruelty of the Dursleys and Voldemort's tyranny.

The Potter books are starting to remind me of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire. (A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, with A Feast for Crows in the pipeline.) Like Rowling, Martin has a world where there are almost no explicit moral standards, and people have to

[starpaint]

Um. Hi.

I'm a Martin fan, and I think there's a major difference in that he makes the lack of morality incredibly explicit. Most of the time it's condemned by someone or another, even if that doesn't stop anything. There's one case where that's not the case - with Jaime. A major character who we're attached to, and who we can follow the motives of, but there's no way to escape what he does. The problem is that the entire society is out of whack, and a lot of people know it. They're using it as an opportunity to grab power and do what they like, instead of attempting to fix it - that's all.

Whereas with Rowling, the moral ambiguity is obscure, both to the characters and to the readers. It's an accepted part of the wizarding world; no one seems to have a problem with it. And for us, it's all buried beneath the title wave of stuff, just another piece of the puzzle, condoned by everyone, and surprisingly easy to look over and explain away. The books are very strong in presentation... so easy to miss this, and so hard to tell whether you

[strangemuses]

Excellent assessment of the Weasley twins. They seem to confuse indignation with morality. Whatever gets in the way of their 'fun' or their friends is "bad" and therefore fair game for their cruelty. I detest them.

Readers are clearly supposed to love them, and this bothers me immensely. The HP series is undoubtedly entertaining, but IMO it lacks a moral core. It postures and rants about GOOD and EVIL!!1!!, but to date the "good" characters act as badly or worse than the bad characters.

[violaswamp]

I agree, and I think your analysis is very well thought out.

It was actually hearing about what F&G did to Ron's puffskein that put me off them. The spider, even the Acid Pop--okay. But hurting Ron's pet? No wonder Ron has issues. And hurting animals is a sign of future sadistic behavior to humans.

I hope you're right about George's name being an indicator that Harry will reconsider his opinion of the Weasley twins. I'm still not certain that Rowling intends for us to see them as amoral instead of just funny.