Are Fred and George Weasley merely the jesters of the Wizarding World, or is there a darker side to their antics? Join me, Professor Julian Wamble, for a journey through the magical mayhem of the Weasley twins, where we scrutinize their pranks and entrepreneurial exploits to uncover the true nature of these iconic characters.
This episode promises to explore the complexities of familial relationships within the Weasley clan, particularly the influence of Molly and Arthur on their twin tricksters.
Our discussion culminates with an exploration of Fred and George's undeniable charisma, a trait that allows them to charm their way out of trouble and into our hearts. But, does this charisma excuse their transgressions? We'll consider this, and much more!
Episode Discussion Question: Would we love Fred & George as much and forgive them for their mischief as much if they were girls?
Survey for Ron Weasley
Are Fred and George Weasley merely the jesters of the Wizarding World, or is there a darker side to their antics? Join me, Professor Julian Wamble, for a journey through the magical mayhem of the Weasley twins, where we scrutinize their pranks and entrepreneurial exploits to uncover the true nature of these iconic characters.
This episode promises to explore the complexities of familial relationships within the Weasley clan, particularly the influence of Molly and Arthur on their twin tricksters.
Our discussion culminates with an exploration of Fred and George's undeniable charisma, a trait that allows them to charm their way out of trouble and into our hearts. But, does this charisma excuse their transgressions? We'll consider this, and much more!
Episode Discussion Question: Would we love Fred & George as much and forgive them for their mischief as much if they were girls?
Survey for Ron Weasley
Welcome to Critical Magic Theory, where we deconstruct the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, because loving something doesn't mean you can't be critical of it. I'm Professor Julian Womble, and today we are going to be talking about Fred and George's Fits and Giggles. You see what I did there the F and G and F and G. I did something else, but this is a family podcast, and so if you figured out what I did, good on you, and if you didn't, well, it wasn't for you to figure out, and that's okay. Have you ever wondered why Fred and George seemingly have so little fear when it comes to literally anything or anyone, except for, maybe, molly, or why they have so little regard for authority or rules, and why did JK Rowling write them as a unit and not necessarily as individuals? I cannot wait for us to dive into these two. I love these characters so much, and I, in reading your comments, see that you love them too, and so it was a bit tricky, because you know, how can you be critical of two characters that are so lovable? Well, y'all, today we're going to find out exactly how we're going to do that, and let me just say it's going to be a good time, so buckle up and let's get ready to rumble, but first you know what we have to do we have to bop along to the theme song, so let's take the next 25 seconds to do just that. Welcome back. I hope you danced.
Speaker 1:I just want to start off by saying thank you all. So, so, so, so much for the support that you've been giving me and this podcast. I can't overstate how much of a departure this is from my comfort zone, and I think it's a very kind of scary thing sometimes to share something that you're very passionate about and that you love with other people, because you never know how it's going to go. And I feel so fortunate that it is going so well and I have every faith that it will continue to go well and I'm just so grateful to you all for giving me the opportunity to do something like this, for pushing me to do something like this and for respecting and appreciating what it is that I'm putting out into the world with this podcast.
Speaker 1:Someone asked me recently. They wanted to talk, they wanted an episode about a specific character, and I just wanted to highlight the fact that part of the reason why I've structured the podcast away that I have is kind of like a syllabus, right. So, as we continue on this kind of character exploration, I think it's important for us to kind of start from the top with the purebloods and work our way down, so that when we look back and we reflect back on all of the things that we've learned about the Wizarding World and the people in it, when we start talking about other characters, like Voldemort, who we know has this kind of obsession with purebloods, well, the question becomes like why does he care so much about it and what is it that he's actually chasing? And so, in order for us to be able to answer that question meaningfully and thoughtfully, it helps for us to have a foundation in our own understandings of the benefits and the privileges and the downfalls of being pureblood. And I think that by going character by character, based on their classification within the Wizarding hierarchy, we're able to do that in a way that is much more kind of nuanced and intentional. And so I want you to trust me on this. We will get to your favorite characters, I promise.
Speaker 1:But when we get there, I want to make sure that we have something to work with, so that we're not just kind of wandering around aimlessly, but really going in with the intention of thinking critically about them and so that when we get down into that nitty gritty of who they are as a person and what motivates them, if it happens to be something that we've talked about before, we can draw those connections. I'm sorry, y'all, y'all know I'm a professor, and so if we're going to do it, we have to do it with a little bit of order. I am a chaotic person I don't know if you recognize that but sometimes, sometimes, I like a little organization, and so I've organized the podcast in a way that I think will really optimize our ability to really really appreciate the characters that we love, and if we get to the characters that you don't love, hopefully there's still something to learn about them. So this is the time where I want to share one of my favorite moments that involve Fred and George, because there are many, but the one that I want to talk about is from the very first book in the series, when Harry has gotten on the platform nine and three quarters and Fred and George take the initiative to help him with his trunk. I love this moment so much because it's one of the few moments where we get to see Fred and George behave in a way that is very altruistic, which is not out of character for them, but without the necessity for comedy. They see someone who needs help and they go and they help him, and in the moment they don't know who he is. So they're not doing it for any sort of kind of brownie points, if you will, and there's something about that I think you know. I remember reading it recently and being so struck by that, because there's something to be said about Harry entering into the magical world in this moment, being basically left to his own devices by the Dursleys. The Weasleys help him cross into this magical world and now he knows that it is real, and I can imagine that that is both a very thrilling but also terrifying reality to have to grapple with, at 11 years old, by yourself on this platform, with all of these people who seemingly know what they're doing and know where they're going, and he doesn't have anyone to kind of assist in that. And Fred and George take the initiative to go and help him put his trunk on the train and in doing so, find out who he is. I love that because I think it really does set the stage for our understanding of who Fred and George are at the core of their being and also their relationship with Harry.
Speaker 1:Many of you pointed out in your comments how, in some ways, they're a better brother to Harry than they are to Ron, and so much of the behavior that they exhibit towards Harry has the same foundation of simply wanting to help someone in need that they had in the moment where they helped him when he got on that train, and we see that as kind of a thread throughout. If we think specifically about, maybe, the Marauder's map, the whole premise of them giving the map to Harry was that he needed it more than them, and so we can see these threads where they just want to be helpful and they just want Harry to feel seen and heard and appreciated. When you juxtapose that relationship to the one of Ron, which we're going to do a little bit later, it brings up some things that I think we can be a little bit critical of, but for now I just love that moment because I think it really does encapsulate who these two are and I love that.
Speaker 1:Let's get into the words that you all think best described Fred and George. The first one, by a landslide, was mischievous, followed by chaotic and fun. So for this episode, I did something that I normally tell my students not to do when they're writing their essays, which is I went and looked up the word and I'm going to use the definition to kind of lead us into the conversation about these words. So the definition of mischievous which is the word that I kind of want to focus on because it's the word that you all use the most says causing or showing a fondness for causing trouble. What? This is a terrible definition. It says it's coming from Oxford languages dictionary. Ok, well, anyways, causing or showing a fondness for causing trouble in a playful way.
Speaker 1:And it's the latter aspect of this definition that I want us to focus on, which is the playfulness, because most of the moments where we find Fred and George up to their hijinks are playful moments, where we do get to see them just having fun. But there are moments where they are not doing this to be playful. They are trying to send a message, and I wonder if that is still considered to be mischievous or if it's something else. And if it is something else, what do you all think it is? You know what's the line between mischievous and whatever is worse than mischievous but not fun, right?
Speaker 1:I think so often when we think about the idea of mischief it seems like it is just fun and we love Fred and George and so much of the way that we view what they do is through the kind of lens of mischief, right. So we then pay a lot of attention to the playfulness of them and not necessarily what it is that they're doing, and we give them the benefit of the doubt because we know that the Fred and George who are playing all of these jokes are the same Fred and George who helped Harry when he got on the train. So much of it kind of colors the way that we view their behavior. But y'all, I'm sorry, sometimes the stuff that they get up to is beyond the scope of mischief and moving into a kind of messy, not so great place. One comparison that we often see leveraged against Fred and George are the marauders, right, and we know that in order to close the marauders map you had to say mischief managed, and in the fanfiction, all the Young Dudes, a lot of the things that motivate the marauders to kind of do their hijinks and their pranks or whatever, was the desire to kind of cause trouble, but not in a dangerous way. But then you think about what they did to Snape and you're like that is more than mischief. And in that same vein, some of what Fred and George do is just playful and fun and the pranks are innocuous and easily reprobable. But then there are moments like what they do to Montague, when they put him in the vanishing cabinet and no one knows where he is. No one really understands exactly how he got out. They say he kind of had to teach himself how to operate, but no one really knows and Fred and George had very little regard for his safety and his kind of well-being in that moment. I think that there's this line between mischief and something else and something not as good or playful or innocuous that Fred and George kind of tread on. That I think we have to consider when we are kind of assessing them as characters, because I think that there is a streak in them that is not always so nice. We see that in some cases when we think about the way that they play with Ron, the fact that they were going to do an unbreakable vow on Ron when he was a child, or the fact that they turned his favorite teddy bear into a spider which gave him a lifelong fear of spiders. There is something about the way that they quote unquote play that does not always feel playful.
Speaker 1:In the last episode I did something inadvertently because I asked the question of what is the difference between ambition and being driven, and I asked it kind of rhetorically. But many of you actually answered. I got DMs on TikTok, I got emails, I got text messages from friends answering the question. I thought, oh, this is actually something that's cool, that kind of ups the engagement with the episode in ways that I think is really helpful and insightful. So now I want to do it Vertically. Inadvertently means get rid of the end, so now I want to do it advertently.
Speaker 1:Is that a word? I've never heard it used like that, but I'm assuming it has to be a word anyways. I'm a professor and so now, if it's not a word, I declare that it is one, and it is a podcast word that we here at Critical Magic Theory will use here on out, here to foreknown as advertently, which is the opposite of inadvertently. And that is what I'm going to do now when I ask this particular question of you all, which is would we see the mischievousness of Brett and George in the same kind of forgiving way that we do if they weren't boys. I'm going to let it loom in the air and I'm going to add some transition music to let you ponder this while we move to the next section of the podcast. Okay, I looked it up, y'all I looked it up, and advertently is a word I didn't make it up here. To fore was a word before and now it's just a word that we can use in the podcast together, because I really don't hear it use that often. But it I didn't create it and that's okay.
Speaker 1:Anyways, let's get into the arithmetic lesson for today. The first question is our Fred and George good people. About 88% said yes, about 5% said no and about 7% said don't know. Someone wrote to me. Fred and George are good people because they strive to bring humor and light to the darkness of situations and they have just as much ability and compunction to make fun of themselves, each other, as they do others. I think where there is a great area for them as people is when it comes to those they dislike or consider enemies. In Goblet of Fire, they essentially attack Dudley just because they can and on some level also because he's a muggle, further increasing the magical trauma the Dursleys have experienced multiple times at this point, both also pretty callous about almost killing Montague and Half-Blood Prince.
Speaker 1:But even with that said, I would vouch for both as good people who occasionally make questionable decisions. Someone else writes. I would primarily characterize the Weasley twins as disruptive to the learning environment at Hogwarts and to their family and their relationships with their family members, but also to the established social order and society's expectations of them. I don't think that they mean any true harm by their antics at school, necessarily, but sometimes lack maturity and discernment, even when accounting for their age. Another one of us wrote I think Fred and George have made some bad slash, unkind choices, for example giving Dudley that cursed candy but even in those situations they are generally driven by positive values. I hope we keep the same energy when we talk about our bad characters.
Speaker 1:Right, I think that the level of nuance into which we dive in this podcast is one that really invites us not only to think about the good characters as having kind of gray, morally gray areas, but also, when we get to the Malfoys, when we get to other characters throughout the series who are considered villains or bad umbrage, that we can find something about them that doesn't necessarily lean in the direction that we tend to go when we think about those characters. The thing that I find fascinating about this question especially when we're thinking about Fred and George in relation to the results that we got for Percy last episode is that Percy, yes, betrayed his family for the sake of a job, but he never put anyone's life in danger. He never exacted revenge on a non-magical person who couldn't defend themselves, and yet he was seen as a worse person by more people than Fred and George. So what's the barometer y'all? What is it that we're using when we're assessing whether or not someone is good? Because the comments that I read off are ones that highlight the morally gray areas into which Fred and George tend to live, and yet the vast majority 88% of us said that they are good people. Is it something that we know that they ultimately do in terms of the sacrifices that they make in the Second Wizarding War? What is it? What's the thing that leads us to be much more forgiving of the moments where they are actually putting people's mental and physical well-being into danger in ways that Percy just doesn't? Are Fred and George Good Sons? About 65% of us said yes, about 16% said no and about 19% said don't know.
Speaker 1:Someone wrote I also believe Fred and George are good sons, though they certainly cause their parents. Stress specifically Molly. I think they love and respect their parents and, despite not succeeding academically as Molly might have hoped, they turn out to be incredibly successful and both give me the impression that they would support their parents as needed financially. I think we've also established between the last two episodes that Arthur is a pretty hands-off parent compared to Molly, and that must have an impact on the dynamic they have with their parents in some way. Someone else writes they're not bad sons by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn't make them good sons. They cause trouble and provoke their mother at times, but they aren't malicious towards their parents. I'm sure they've caused more gray hairs on Molly's head than all their other siblings combined, but that's a far cry from someone like Voldemort, who literally killed his own father.
Speaker 1:I also think it's important to mention here that much of the animosity that builds between them, and Molly specifically, could be explained as a reaction to her treatment of them. She dismisses their goals, puts down their achievements, ignores the positive effects of the joy they spread and often can't even determine which one is which. Of all her children, they're arguably the one she treats the worst. At what point do they stop trying to be quote unquote good for someone who will always be disappointed in them, no matter what? What these comments bring up for me is a reality that a lot of being a child is in reaction to your parents behavior, to your parents beliefs, to your parents ideas and oftentimes we tend to hear you know, being a child, you are a reflection of your parents, right, your reflection of how you were raised. But some of the way that we behave as children is really a reaction to our parents and the things that they do, the things that they have said, how they've made us feel.
Speaker 1:And what's interesting about Fred and George is that I think having one another makes a much bigger difference in terms of how they react to Arthur and how they react particularly to Molly, because I think that if you're just by yourself, even if you're in a family full of other siblings, and your mother is kind of questioning your motives and questioning your possibility of success, it can feel very debilitating and you might end up like Percy, who we talked about in the last episode, as being kind of a lone wolf in a family of people, but Fred and George have one another and they have each other to bounce ideas off of. They have each other to be able to support one another, even when no one in their family wants to be supportive of them. And so even when Molly is so skeptical of Weasley's Wizard's, weasels, god saying that is such a tricky thing to do, even when she doesn't support them in that, of course I'm sure they would want her support, but they don't necessarily need it because they have one another. And so this is one of these moments that I kind of want to talk about throughout this episode, where we see the fact that they have one another means that they don't really need other people. One of the questions I asked at the beginning of the episode was you know, why don't they seemingly care about authority? And I think that part of that is because they have each other to be able to reify their beliefs and their ideas and the mischief and the mayhem and the chaos. And so they don't need Molly to say this is a good idea, and they don't need Molly to do things that maybe Iran or a Percy or a Jenny might need, because they have one another to affirm and confirm the things that they want and believe are true, and so to have that built in support system has to be so empowering, and when you have that, that also means that you are more willing to kind of push the boundaries of things, because you have someone there who's going to push them with you and you are not alone.
Speaker 1:A lot of what we see from Fred and George, I think, is both a reaction to the way that they are parented but also a reflection of the fact that they have one another to be the support system that they might not be getting from Molly. And, as someone pointed out, you know, arthur kind of takes a backseat when it comes to raising the kids, and so I think that Fred and George don't necessarily look for his affirmation either, but I think what they do enjoy is his inquisitiveness. I think that they enjoy the fact that he is someone who is also always experimenting. When we think about all the things that they create, that is absolutely a reflection of what Arthur does with muggle things, right, and so it doesn't come from nowhere when we think about the way that Molly treats Fred and George. Again, we talked about the idea that this kind of comes from a place of fear and concern, but they don't have that same fear or concern because they're not alone with their thoughts. They have one another, and so the anxiety that can come along with, you know, being alone is not something I think, that they necessarily experience all the time because, at least as far as we see through Harry's eyes, they are always together and they are always affirming one another. The next question is are Fred and George good brothers? Well, this is where we get a little bit more variation. So about 61% said yes, about 22% said no and about 17% said don't know.
Speaker 1:Someone wrote Ron and Percy needed people like Fred and George. To call them out sometimes Doesn't make them bad brothers. Someone else wrote I do think Fred and George are good brothers despite terrorizing most of their siblings throughout childhood, and especially Ron and Percy. To me, most of the pranks they pull on their siblings are simply rites of passage that younger siblings must go through, but of course, some exacerbated to us muggles because they are magical pranks. The only time I can recall Fred and George crossing the line with their siblings is when they almost succeeded in getting Ron to make an unbreakable vow. But other than this, I would love to have both as brothers. Someone else wrote.
Speaker 1:I think some of their most mean-spirited behavior surrounds their relentless teasing of their siblings, especially Ron and Percy. I don't think it was harmless and I think that the reactions that their brothers had to their treatment should have been taken more seriously. I even wonder if the twins' mistreatment of their brothers led to Ron's confidence problems and Percy's estrangement. Maybe even Ron and Percy are foils of one another in that way. I can see how the twins' treatment of Ron led him to feel inferior and less sure of himself, and it may have caused Percy to become more confident in who he is and more convinced that he didn't have a place within his family. I see a lot of people online defending the twins and saying that it's normal for siblings to tease one another. But how many people have to go to therapy because close family members, including siblings, were their first bullies?
Speaker 1:When I asked this question on TikTok, a lot of people had thoughts, and one of the major ones was that Fred and George were good siblings to one another. They were great siblings to Harry. But when it came to Ron and Percy which reflects what we see on the survey as well, that there was a consensus that they just were not good siblings. And someone wrote something that I found very interesting, which is I think, in general, it's important to start calling out toxic sibling behavior and stop chalking bullying up to just being siblings. This, when you juxtapose it to the other comment that highlights the kind of bullying by your siblings as a rite of passage, really does bring to bear a larger question of what it is that we're looking for.
Speaker 1:When we are assessing whether someone is a good sibling or not, most of us are pulling from our own lives and our own experiences with our own siblings as a barometer for what makes one good. Is it someone you can have fun with? Is it someone who you can tell all your secrets to? Is it someone who will support you no matter what? What is the metric that you are using, and why is it that we think that Fred and George are better siblings to Harry than they are to Ron? What is it that they do that reflects to us good sibling behavior versus when they are dealing with Ron, and I think that, again, what resonates with me the most is the fact that Fred and George have each other.
Speaker 1:On TikTok. Someone wrote I am a mom of twins and they would die for each other. The rest of the world is secondary, and to me that encapsulates so much. Someone else on TikTok wrote they are a tribe of two within a larger tribe. When we think about what Fred and George then believe is necessary for them to be seen as good siblings, I wonder how necessary they think it is for them to be as compassionate and loving to everyone else as they are to each other. Someone else wrote something very interesting about the Weasley family as a whole, which is that everybody is kind of out for themselves and that maybe Molly, kind of putting the kids against one another, brings about this idea that you have to prove yourself by yourself and that you're not going to get much support for that. I don't necessarily think that that justifies some of the things that Fred and George put Ron through particularly.
Speaker 1:And one thing that resonates with me from the comments is the question of the gauntlet that older siblings apparently put younger siblings through and the necessity for it, and I wonder how much of it comes out of this concept that I talked about last week in reference to Percy and giving that tough love that you feel you got from your parents that your younger siblings didn't get, and so you put them through this gauntlet, thinking I'm going to give to you what I got, thinking that it's healthy and that it's OK. And I mean, listen, I'm an older brother and I probably did do this, whether it was conscious or unconscious. I can't say I don't love that. That's the thing that I may have done. I'm not going to ask my sister about it, because she'll tell me that I did, and even if I didn't do it, she'd tell me that I did. And I can't have that on my conscience right now. Y'all OK. Fortunately I don't think she's going to listen to this episode, and so if she doesn't, then we're in the clear. But it wouldn't surprise me if at a younger age, I felt justified in treating her negatively because I felt that that's how I had been treated by my parents. And what we know about Molly, and particularly Molly, is that she holds her kids to such a high standard because of her concern and her fear about where they're going to end up later in life. And I just wonder if the frustration and the reaction that Fred and George had to Molly's kind of pushing them was to then take it out on Ron and then to also resent Percy because he embodied so much of what Molly wanted.
Speaker 1:Are Fred and George good purebloods? As always, this is my favorite question to ask, because everyone just takes it in completely different directions. People tend to dislike this question, which is why it's my favorite, because chaos and I just I love it because it really does make us think about what it means to be a pureblood in society. So about 32% said yes, about 37% said no and about 31% said don't know. Someone wrote when they prank Dudley and Goblet of Fire, there are inherent power differences at play that make what they did inappropriate. While Fred and George would have done the same prank on a friend or another student at Hogwarts, the difference here is that a wizard or witch could easily reverse the effects of the prank or prank them back at equal caliber, while a muggle cannot. Fred and George don't wish to have supremacy over muggles, but they could do a lot more to be better purebloods.
Speaker 1:Someone else wrote are they good purebloods? From the perspective of purebloods like the Malfoys, no, from our muggle slash, half blood perspective, I think so. They're more interested in the challenge of their magic, not in who is magical or not. Another person wrote when I say they are good purebloods, I mean in the sense of not seeming to believe in pureblood supremacy. At the same time, they have little to no regard for muggles. I'm not going to hold you. I have some issues with Fred and George as purebloods because I think that the way that they approach it is not great y'all. Well, what they do to Dudley with the tongue tongue toffee is so problematic and I know that they say it's because you know of he was a prat to Harry.
Speaker 1:But the reality is, as one of the comments points to, dudley cannot defend himself against what they do and the fact that they felt empowered and emboldened enough to do that speaks volumes about the way that they view non magical people. And I think again, it is one thing. When someone can use magic back against you, that's a completely different ballgame. It doesn't absolve you or make it better. But the fact that they felt so comfortable giving magic that they had really not tested all that much, because they're asking their dad how long did it get? So this is also kind of like not verified, not necessarily safe magic that they're using on a person who cannot defend themselves speaks volumes about their relationship with non magical people.
Speaker 1:I've said it before that I think that the Weasleys are people who aren't necessarily pureblood supremacists but are definitely magical supremacists. If you are someone who can do magic, they see you as equal. They don't think that they are better because they are purebloods, but when you cannot do magic, they definitely see themselves as being better than you, superior to you, and thus using their power against you does not necessarily bring out any empathy or sympathy. And we see that from Fred and George in this moment, and it's one that sticks with me all the time, because I think that it just tells us about the way that they view themselves in relation to non magical people. It also highlights for me a concept that I tell my students all the time, which is when magic is your solution to everything. You don't worry about anything, and I think that in a world, I think that one of the privileges of being pureblood and growing up in a magical world is that there are very few things that magic cannot solve, so that when you think about problems and you think about issues that might befall you or that things that you do to others, you don't necessarily think about the consequences of your actions, because those consequences have very little meaning when all it takes is waving a wand. In this case, we see the kind of this pureblood mentality from Fred and George manifest in the way that they not only treat Dudley but even in all of the Wizard Wizard, we the what the Weasley Wizard weezes oh my God, the Weasleys Wizard weezes, transfiguring Neville into a canary and knowing like, oh, don't worry about a little, fade away. And I think that we think you know that there is this kind of this. To call it playfulness feels too generous, but there is this sense of there's nothing that we cannot fix with magic. And I think that that is a uniquely pureblood belief structure that Fred and George embody. And they don't question it again because they have each other to affirm and confirm the idea that this is not as dangerous as it probably is and that there's nothing that their dad can't fix, even if Dudley does have a four foot tongue by the time they leave.
Speaker 1:Are Fred and George heroes? About 80% of us said yes, about 11% said no and about 9% said don't know. Someone writes. I think Fred and Georgia heroes for a couple of reasons. First, they prematurely leave school in a world where it seems like there aren't many professional opportunities outside of finishing your Hogwarts education through newt level, and they still manage to be successful. This is heroic to me because I think it takes a lot of courage to go against the grain of not only what society expects of you but also what your parents' expectations of you are. Also. Fred and George immediately join the Order of the Phoenix once they are of age, which in the real world isn't even technically an adult. In Deathly Hollows both take apologies potion to pose as one of the Harrys, which could have had fatal consequences, and George even loses an ear because of it. Additionally, once the Second World War commences, both take on the responsibilities of becoming broadcasters on Potterwatch to keep the Wizarding World informed about the Death Eaters regime. Both actively fight in the Battle of Hogwarts and Fred eventually gives up his life. So I think it's fair to characterize their actions as courageous and heroic.
Speaker 1:Another person writes I think they are heroes. They help out the order from a young age by risking their own lives on missions, ie the seven potters, and they were injured and Fred eventually killed in a battle. But they don't give up hope. In fact their shop stays open and brings joy to the community in dark times. Fred and George are the first characters that we actually get to talk about as child soldiers. Everyone else that we've talked about has either been of age when the war began, but Fred and George are the first characters in the conversation that we've been having where we get to actually see them make conchi-inches choices to be involved in a war that one they should not have been involved in because they are children, and two they didn't need to be involved in because they are purebloods.
Speaker 1:And so when I talked about Arthur's heroism a few episodes ago, I talked about the idea that, because they are purebloods, they don't have to be in this, because they know that, ultimately, what Voldemort is doing in his regime is not going to affect them, and yet he's still fought anyway. And the fact that Fred and George are willing to do the same speaks volumes about their heroism, and the sacrifices that they ultimately make really seal the deal, as far as I'm concerned, in terms of whether or not they are heroes, because they embody what I consider to be heroism in terms of their sacrifices, in terms of their willingness to go out of their way to make sure that everyone is safe, and what is so fascinating is that the kind of rule-breaking, mischievous idea mischievous, excuse me, the kind of rule-breaking mischievous nature that they have they bring with them to the war. They have their moments where it's being described and it seems like they're fighting and having a good time, and not because they're fighting but because they kind of dwell in this very chaotic space where they do kind of live as people who enjoy chaos, and I think that it is fascinating to watch them engage in the behavior that they engage as they get older and with the recognition of what's at stake. What it comes down to for me is that Fred and George went above and beyond, from the moment they could, to enter into the service of making sure that Voldemort did not rise, and it is never lost on me the prices that they're willing to pay for protecting people, and in this way, I think that we have a lot to say about Molly and a lot to say about Arthur. But what they did instill in what we can see so clearly in Fred and George is that sense of right, and is this the thing that people are using as a way to determine, despite all the other things, that they do when they are younger? Yes, I know that they are younger, but they're still bad things and there's still a level of accountability that we can hold them to. But are the sacrifices that they ultimately make during the war the reason why we are willing to forgive them of those particular sins? And the last question is are Fred and George good friends? There's a very strong consensus here, with 87% of us saying yes, with 4% saying no and with 9% saying don't know.
Speaker 1:Someone wrote I see them as loyal friends, but not ones who you would turn to for advice. It feels like you would never be a close friend, since it's always the two of them and a wall separating them from the rest of the friend group and also their family. Someone else wrote Fred and George are good friends only to themselves. Another person wrote I feel like one quality that is not really debatable is that the Weasley twins are good friends, even though their friendship with Harry feels somewhat transactional. We know that they helped Harry when no one else did with the Marauders map. We know that they were good friends with Lee Jordan and the rest of the Quidditch team. Another person wrote I think Fred and George are great friends and they're friends that I would love to have. Both bring a light and humor to every situation, and I think that's such valuable energy to have around, especially when times are dark. I feel like they embrace both Harry and Hermione as more than friends and treat them like siblings. Fred and George are the reason Harry has the Marauders map in the first place and they give it to him because he's not able to enjoy Hogsmeade like the rest of his friends, not because they're aware of Harry's ultimate connection to the map. Similarly, they give Hermione a black eye with one of their pranks in Goblet of Fire, I believe, and immediately feel remorse and tend to her wound as opposed to how they know her, as opposed to how they normally react to the consequences of their humor.
Speaker 1:I said earlier, when we were talking about whether or not Fred and George were good sons, that sometimes being a child is a reaction to your parents and sometimes being a child is a reflection of your parents. I think that the loyalty that we see Fred and George exhibit is the reflection of Arthur. When we talked about Arthur, we talked a lot about how he was such a good friend and the thing that made him such a good friend was his loyalty, and one of the things that came up a lot in the comments surrounding whether or not Fred and George were good friends was how loyal they are, and I think that this encapsulates both why they're good friends, but also why they're good heroes. I think that what is true is that Fred and George are loyal. Now, on the other end of that, they are also very, very, very, very, very responsive to people who they don't like, and I think that when we see them multiple times kind of jump into the defense of people who they care about, and I think that loyalty is something that they definitely get from Arthur, and I think that they are such good friends to people who they care about. But if they don't care about you, god bless, because they don't necessarily have the kind of remorse that you would think that they would have for people who they don't care about. And ultimately, I think that we get to see lots of examples of them being good friends to both each other but also to other people, and in fact, I think we personally get to see them being better friends than we do get to see them being good siblings, because I think that they don't necessarily feel as threatened by other people in their orbit than they do by other people in their family.
Speaker 1:We've now reached the section of the episode where I'm going to reflect on what you all brought to bear in your comments, what you all brought to bear in the survey and what my own kind of deep dive into Fred and George brought to bear for me. One of the things that really stood out to me in reading your comments and even going through them in today's episode I don't know if you all noticed, but one thing that is true about the way that we assess Fred and George is that we are so quick and willing to forgive them, even though we can point to the moments where what they did was so problematic. And one thing that just kind of stood out to me and a question that kept popping into my mind was why are we so quick to forgive them, especially when we juxtapose the level of vitriol and lack of grace and forgiveness that we were willing to give to Percy. And yet Fred and George are here before us doing all kinds of things and we are willing to say but we know that there's goodness in your heart and I kept thinking what is it? What is it that they have done, really fighting in the war, sacrificing themselves, being heroes that plays a big part, but you know what else? I think it is y'all. You know what else? It's the Riz.
Speaker 1:For those of us that don't know, that means charisma. I'm Gen Z now I'm not really Gen Z. I teach them and so they teach me, and that's one of the perks of teaching college is that I always get to stay in the know. But I think that Fred and George's charisma plays such a big part in this, and some of that charisma definitely comes off the page when you're reading, but it definitely comes across when we watch the movies and so when we look at the actions that they are taking. To me that charisma makes everything that they do seem not as problematic as it is, because one we're like, but it's Fred and George, and you know all it takes is a wink and a smile from one or both of them, or them speaking in tandem, or them doing one nice thing, and we're so willing and quick to forgive them, and I think that that is what makes us feel much more comfortable at forgiving them than we would be for, say, percy, who does not have the Riz. There is something about the fun that they have.
Speaker 1:I think we all want Fred and George's in our lives, not necessarily in the kind of bullying way, but just the whimsical nature of their existence. I think that there is something so fun about them, and in books that can get very dark, particularly the latter books, the comedic relief that they bring, with the charisma that is kind of built into them, makes us feel like they can really do no wrong. And then when you couple that with the sacrifices that they make for the greater good, it all comes together and culminates in a way that's like no, these dudes are really amazing, and in some ways they are. But I think that if we were to hold constant the charisma, I think we would be much more critical of them, and I think that they are deserving of that criticism. And I know, I know and I'm going to say this pretty much for every episode where we're talking about a child. I know y'all, I know that they are young and they are boys. But I also think it's important for us to ask the question to what extent are we giving them this grace because they're charismatic and because they're boys? Because I just am not of the mind that we would be as forgiving of the hijinks, antics, madness, mayhem and chaos.
Speaker 1:If they were girls, I think that a lot of the way that we view them is through the lens of boys will be boys, which has built into it the idea that boys are allowed to make the kinds of mistakes and the kinds of choices that Fred and George make. And when you add on the charisma and the charm and the just genuine fun and happiness that they bring to us we, they could get away with anything, and they do. There are lots of reasons to criticize the way that Molly engages with them, but I do think that she is probably the only accountability structure in their lives. And when I think about why it is that they have no concern about breaking the rules, I think one of them is something I brought up before. Right, which is magic, is always a solution and can fix every problem, but they can also talk and charm their way out of anything. The fact that they cross that age line, dealt with the consequences and simply just got de-aged and sent on their way, despite the fact that they were breaking the rules, speaks volumes. They break the rules all the time and everyone just thinks it's so funny because they're so charming, they have so much charisma and I think that it works on us too as readers, and we are so willing to just allow them to do what they do and no one else in their family quite has it the same way that they do.
Speaker 1:When we look at Fred and George and we ask ourselves, why don't they have a regard for the rules? The part of it is because they know that they can break them and get away with it. It's very much in the vein of James and Sirius. They were so charming and so funny. When Madame Rosmerta is talking about them and she says you know, I used to love having them come in because they used to make me laugh, we can never, ever, ever underestimate the power of charm and the power of charisma. Speaking from a personal experience, you know I can turn well, we won't, even we're not even talk about that. The other person to think about in this same vein is Gilderilockheart. A wink and a smile goes a long way. Y'all, fred and George, embody that. They are able to charm Ludo Badman. They are able to do all of these things, and because they can do it together it just makes it all the more potent, and we as readers, I think, would have fallen prey to this reality. And so when we think about what it is that allows for Fred and George to get away with these things and still have people coming back and wanting to be in their orbit and wanting to be around them, it's the Rizz, y'all it's the Rizz.
Speaker 1:Thank you all so much for listening to this episode on the Fits and Giggles of Fred and George. Next week, we will be talking about the one and only Ron, billius Weasley. We will also be having our first guest. I'm so excited to have Danny Alexander on with me to talk about Ron. As you all know, ron and I have a very complicated relationship, and I think that this is true for many of us as well, and I know that because I've seen the comments and the Ron slander is a thing, and I thought it would be important to have someone on who has a much more positive outlook about Ron, and that's Danny, and she has a whole agenda about helping us better understand who Ron is.
Speaker 1:The link to the survey for Ron's episode can be found in the summary of this episode, as well as the link tree on my Instagram at profjw or my TikTok at profw, and I'm also going to send it out to those of you who signed up for the mailing list. If you haven't, but you're interested, please feel free to either send me an email with your email with the subject line mailing list or, if you have access to the link tree at the bottom of that link tree, you can just put in your email and I will then get it and I will send off the survey. I cannot wait. It's going to be such a great episode and I'm really looking forward to both diving into this with Danny, but also doing it with your comments and your survey results.
Speaker 1:This has been another episode of Critical Magic Theory. I'm Professor Julian Womble and if you liked today's episode, first of all, thank you. Also, feel free to rate, like, subscribe, doing all the things that one does where pods are cast, and if you would like to continue the conversation, feel free to follow me on Instagram, at profjw, or on TikTok at profw. And if you want to send me an email, please feel free to do so at criticalmagictheorycom. See you in two weeks. Bye, thank you.