There were several panels, papers, and discussions of Ginny Weasley, and there was one entitled Percy Weasley, You Prat. The only other Weasley session was today's session about the twins, which focused on them as merry pranksters, the original tricksters. It was a roundtable discussion, as opposed to a paper presentation, but the moderator is a big Weasley fan, so her dissertation (if it is published outside scholarly journals) might have some info about the Weasley twins and the role they hold in the HP 'verse, which can be compared to that of the "donor" in folk/fairy tales. (Catherine Tosenberger is the mod's name, and her PhD is/will be in folk and children's literature).
Basically, the discussison focused on their role as a mentor for Harry (just as important, although not as recognized as Dumbledore's) and as the benign tricksters, the clowns who create the world. There were lots of interesting points that participants brought up, including the idea that they are interchangeable in canon (huh, *I* don't think so) but their products specifically change the physical reality of the user, that they are transformative, and that may be significant. (Not clear on that. Scribbled in my notebook, nearly indecipherable.)
One of the things I found interesting was the fact that everyone kept insisting that the twins do what they do out of loyalty (to family, to Harry) not because it is "good" per se. I agree. But at the same time, I think they forget that sometimes they don't think about long term consequences. Yes, the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident was because Dudley was so cruel to Harry, their brother, but did they ever consider what would happen to Harry as a result of their exposing Dudley to magic? And the fact that their behavior, which they look at as a defence of "family", could be seen as Muggle-baiting?
Oh, Gryffindor boys!
Um... I have some more half-finished sentences written down. Something about how the twins don't differentiate between themselves, so they are essentially one person in two bodies. And that most people think their role in the next book will be as a clearinghouse or supplier, the equivalent of Bond's "M", rather than as direct combatants.
Re: Weasleys
Basically, the discussison focused on their role as a mentor for Harry (just as important, although not as recognized as Dumbledore's) and as the benign tricksters, the clowns who create the world. There were lots of interesting points that participants brought up, including the idea that they are interchangeable in canon (huh, *I* don't think so) but their products specifically change the physical reality of the user, that they are transformative, and that may be significant. (Not clear on that. Scribbled in my notebook, nearly indecipherable.)
One of the things I found interesting was the fact that everyone kept insisting that the twins do what they do out of loyalty (to family, to Harry) not because it is "good" per se. I agree. But at the same time, I think they forget that sometimes they don't think about long term consequences. Yes, the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident was because Dudley was so cruel to Harry, their brother, but did they ever consider what would happen to Harry as a result of their exposing Dudley to magic? And the fact that their behavior, which they look at as a defence of "family", could be seen as Muggle-baiting?
Oh, Gryffindor boys!
Um... I have some more half-finished sentences written down. Something about how the twins don't differentiate between themselves, so they are essentially one person in two bodies. And that most people think their role in the next book will be as a clearinghouse or supplier, the equivalent of Bond's "M", rather than as direct combatants.