Fred & George Weasley: Character Analysis

[bellatrix93]

Originally Posted by HPitty

I think they realized that not everything is about making a Galleon

I think that's a very good point. Even when they started making Anti-dark arts stuff, the thing they cared about most, was that they'll gain lots of money from behind it, since the Ministry was asking for lots of them. I'd like to think that they were more careful about who gets their stuff, specificall the dangerous things which could be used against them.

[HPitty23]

Originally Posted by bellatrix93

I think that's a very good point. Even when they started making Anti-dark arts stuff, the thing they cared about most, was that they'll gain lots of money from behind it, since the Ministry was asking for lots of them. I'd like to think that they were more careful about who gets their stuff, specificall the dangerous things which could be used against them.

Exactly.

[FurryDice]

From the Little Questions Answered thread:

Originally Posted by Zaffyra

In terms of the 'little things' theme of this thread, I thought I'd drop something regards Fred and George:
They were never distinguished in the first six books much at all, and as a reader, I certainly did not consider them as separate or even differing personalities. However, in the 7th book, JKR leads us to question their status as individuals, and really consider how they work as a pair. For me, George losing his ear was massive. I couldn't believe it - all of a sudden, the twins had a definite difference, which lead to a mental divide in us (the readers), whereby we began to consider them as singular rather than a pair making a single unit.

While I agree that JKR began to distinguish the twins even more in DH, I think there were differences between them prior to that.
I think Fred came across as the more reckless, daring twin and George tempered that a bit. When Ron speaks of the more unkind things the twins have done, it's usually Fred who has instigated it - Fred gave him an Acid Pop when he was little, Fred turned the teddy bear into a spider.
Plus, it was Fred who dropped the Ton Tongue Toffee for Dudley.
When it came to the plan to get their money from Bagman, Fred was determined to send the letter, while George seemed to be more the voice of reason - "if we put that in a letter, it's blackmail". I think this is the only disagreement we get to see between the twins, and I think it shows a difference between them.
In OotP, it was Fred who declared "I think we've outgrown full-time education". It may have been agreed on in advance - they may have been planning quitting school anyway. Or it may have been an impromptu decision on Fred's part, as they probably hadn't anticipated getting caught after planting the swamp. They got away with the fireworks, after all.

While I think the twins are very similar, and share a sense of humour and enjoyment of life, I do think that Fred is somewhat a leader and more rebellious than George. George seems to have a little bit more of a sense of boundaries than Fred.

[Zaffyra]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

While I agree that JKR began to distinguish the twins even more in DH, I think there were differences between them prior to that.
I think Fred came across as the more reckless, daring twin and George tempered that a bit.
While I think the twins are very similar, and share a sense of humour and enjoyment of life, I do think that Fred is somewhat a leader and more rebellious than George. George seems to have a little bit more of a sense of boundaries than Fred.

(On a side note, thank you FurryDice for directing me to this thread!)

I do agree wholeheartedly with what you say. After reading about George losing an ear in the Deathly Hallows, I immediately dropped the book, and went back to the previous ones to check the character separation between the twins.
I noticed, too, that Fred takes on the persona which you have described, and George is more the voice of reason (which in hindsight makes George the obvious choice for the 'which twin should live' dilemma). However, the very fact that I had to go back and check struck me! I had never considered before then the possibility that they might be different people.
I hope that's clarified what I meant to say - that although evidence to their differences existed from the beginning, it took George's loss of an ear to make me realize it, which for me made the twin's plotline even deeper and more fascinating. I was amazed at how easily Rowling had manipulated me. As usual, giant congratulations to that fantastic woman.
[Also, thank you for that comprehensive list of evidence regards Fred's reckless nature - it's nice to see it all in one place ]

[merrymarge]

I didn't want Fred to die! I didn't want any Weasley to die. And poor Molly, always having trouble telling each one apart. Wasn't it Fred who told Ron that they would have to wrestle a troll before being sorted?

[StarsAndShadows]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

I didn't want Fred to die! I didn't want any Weasley to die. And poor Molly, always having trouble telling each one apart. Wasn't it Fred who told Ron that they would have to wrestle a troll before being sorted?

I don't want to seem heartless, but by law of numbers, the Weasleys got off fairly lightly. I didn't want Fred to die either, but at least one Weasley had to - look how in the other families, sometimes the whole family was killed in the course of the wars against Voldemort. Lily and James, Tonks and Remus for example. There were only two Creeveys, and Colin died.

I love the twins and their pranks (which were never cruel), their humour, their courage. The way they fought against Umbridge, for example, combines both humour and courage. I'll forever love the scene of their departure from Hogwarts.

I wonder how George fared after the loss of his twin. Whether marriage to Angelina helped him over his grief and the loneliness he must have felt so deeply.

[Zaffyra]

In agreement with the above! I predicted one of the twins dying in the final battle - presented with such a case, it's difficult to see how an author could resist that kind of sacrifice in the name of poetic license.
And in comparison, the loss of Lupin and Tonks, leaving their only child (remarkably like Harry's original position) is far greater.

I'm glad we didn't have to see the result of Fred's death over a longer span of time than the Battle itself. I think it would have impacted George horribly - not in the outward way that one might expect, though. I can imagine him putting on a brave face, continuing to run the joke shop in the name of his brother, but becoming quite insular, so that only very few people know the true pain that he's in.
His marriage to Angelina interests me, too. But I can see her helping him with his loss a great deal - not just as a source of comfort, but also a voice of strength and on occasion, demand. I don't think she would shy away from telling George that it's time he got up and bloody well stopped moping, or something like that (after the appropriate time had elapsed, of course). I think he'd need someone like her to get him out of a long depressive rut.

[FurryDice]

Originally Posted by Zaffyra

(On a side note, thank you FurryDice for directing me to this thread!)

You're welcome. Thanks for bringing up Fred and George, it's fun to talk about less-discussed characters.

I noticed, too, that Fred takes on the persona which you have described, and George is more the voice of reason (which in hindsight makes George the obvious choice for the 'which twin should live' dilemma).

I see what you mean, I think that George probably coped on his own much better than Fred would, even though it would still have been incredibly difficult for George.

Originally Posted by merrymarge

I didn't want Fred to die! I didn't want any Weasley to die. And poor Molly, always having trouble telling each one apart. Wasn't it Fred who told Ron that they would have to wrestle a troll before being sorted?

Yeah, that was Fred too. And as it turns out, Halloween, I love the Weasley's seer-like foreshadowing jokes.

Originally Posted by StarsAndShadows

I don't want to seem heartless, but by law of numbers, the Weasleys got off fairly lightly. I didn't want Fred to die either, but at least one Weasley had to - look how in the other families, sometimes the whole family was killed in the course of the wars against Voldemort. Lily and James, Tonks and Remus for example. There were only two Creeveys, and Colin died.

That's true, the Weasleys were always going to lose somebody in the last book. I think it was always going to be one of the twins - it had to be one of the younger characters that the readers were more familiar with, and Ron and Ginny were going to survive to be with Hermione and Harry. Separating the twins like that was also going to be a particularly cruel and heartbreaking cut. They would have mourned for any sibling, but Fred and George were practically inseparable and George would have found it so hard to function on his own, I think.

Originally Posted by Zaffyra

His marriage to Angelina interests me, too. But I can see her helping him with his loss a great deal - not just as a source of comfort, but also a voice of strength and on occasion, demand. I don't think she would shy away from telling George that it's time he got up and bloody well stopped moping, or something like that (after the appropriate time had elapsed, of course). I think he'd need someone like her to get him out of a long depressive rut.

I can see that happening. I can see Angelina refusing to tip-toe around George as others might have done. She certainly showed that she didn't tip-toe around others when she was Quidditch Captain. However, how she reacts to George depends on how Angelina herself was coping after Fred's death.

I can also see George and Angelina being a source of comfort to each other - I think that might be how they drew together. I think they would both have been in a rut after Fred's death.

I wonder if Fred and Angelina stayed together for long after their date at the Yule Ball. For some reason, I imagine them dating on and off until Fred's death. Hopefully we'll find out more on Pottermore.

[GingerCat1]

Probably been mentioned before but this is almost certainly the twins wand wood

Spoiler: show

Dogwood

Dogwood is one of my own personal favourites, and I have found that matching a dogwood wand with its ideal owner is always entertaining. Dogwood wands are quirky and mischievous; they have playful natures and insist upon partners who can provide them with scope for excitement and fun. It would be quite wrong, however, to deduce from this that dogwood wands are not capable of serious magic when called upon to do so; they have been known to perform outstanding spells under difficult conditions, and when paired with a suitably clever and ingenious witch or wizard, can produce dazzling enchantments. An interesting foible of many dogwood wands is that they refuse to perform non-verbal spells and they are often rather noisy.

Interesting that Ron's wand wood is well known for being very good at non verbal spells while the twins wand woods can't do non verbal spells at all.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by GingerCat1

Probably been mentioned before but this is almost certainly the twins wand wood

Spoiler: show

Dogwood

Dogwood is one of my own personal favourites, and I have found that matching a dogwood wand with its ideal owner is always entertaining. Dogwood wands are quirky and mischievous; they have playful natures and insist upon partners who can provide them with scope for excitement and fun. It would be quite wrong, however, to deduce from this that dogwood wands are not capable of serious magic when called upon to do so; they have been known to perform outstanding spells under difficult conditions, and when paired with a suitably clever and ingenious witch or wizard, can produce dazzling enchantments. An interesting foible of many dogwood wands is that they refuse to perform non-verbal spells and they are often rather noisy.

Interesting that Ron's wand wood is well known for being very good at non verbal spells while the twins wand woods can't do non verbal spells at all.

I knew exactly which wood you were going to suggest before I ever opened the Spoiler tags. I do think it's the obvious choice for one or both of the Twins. In fact, I wonder if JKR wrote that description with the Twins in mind. Still, we don't know for sure about the Twins' wand wood(s) or core. We can just make a good educated guess.

[steerthestars]

Originally Posted by FurryDice

From the Little Questions Answered thread:



While I agree that JKR began to distinguish the twins even more in DH, I think there were differences between them prior to that....

This whole analysis from FurryDice is brilliant. Until Deathly Hallows, I always thought of them as pretty much two of the same person, however, I guess I should have taken their conflict over blackmailing Ludo Bagman more seriously. It's amazing how Jo made little differentiations between their personalities while allowing them to remain the nearly indistinguishable twins they were. Deathly Hallows was a real turning point in their individuation-- the scene where George lies on the sofa at Shell Cottage, coming to after losing an ear and Fred leans over him is the first time ever that we really see much spontaneous interaction between the twins that doesn't seem like it's part of a pre-planned joke. The film also adds a tiny, heartbreaking scene before the Battle of Hogwarts, when one twin leans over to the other, touches his elbow, and says 'Are you ready?" and smiles.

Fred's death was so heartbreaking because of the thought of George trying to go on afterwards, having had the most important person in his life-- and arguably, half his identity as a Weasley twin-- taken away. I can't imagine how guilty and horrid Harry must have felt about not turning himself in earlier and how responsible he must feel for Fred's death.

[LadySylvia]

While I find a lot of the Weasley Twins antics to be overboard and cruel, I can't say I agree that they shoved Montague in the Vanishing Cabinet just because he was a Slytherin Prefect. I'm not sure it had anything to do with Montague being a Slytherin or a Prefect, but with him being on the Inquisitorial Squad. I think it was a harsh action by the Twins, but, I wonder... how does the picture change if we were to view Fred and George as freedom fighters in this instance, rather than selfish pranksters (which in my view they often were)?

I can never regard the twins' use of the Vanishing Cabinet as an act of freedom fighters? They were simply retaliating against Montague for taking points off Griffyndor, as a member of the Inquisitorial Squad.


Did George ever realized that his and Fred's misdeed with the Vanishing Cabinet gave Draco the idea to use it?

[twinsrule26]

Originally Posted by LadySylvia

I can never regard the twins' use of the Vanishing Cabinet as an act of freedom fighters? They were simply retaliating against Montague for taking points off Griffyndor, as a member of the Inquisitorial Squad.


Did George ever realized that his and Fred's misdeed with the Vanishing Cabinet gave Draco the idea to use it?

Well as we don't learn about how Draco discovered the secret of the vanishing cabinet, until he tells Dumbledore about it up on top of the tower ,I don't think that the twins ever knew about it .

The twins have always been seen as jokers, but I have always thought that there was a darker side to them ,I felt that they were capable of hurting anyone who truly crossed them. look at teenage boys blackmailing an adult who stiffed them on a bet . Some of their joke or gag candies were really dangerous if not used correctly .