The hate poll...why?

[moongirlk]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:

> You know what I think part of it is?  I think that it's possible 
> people don't like the Dursleys and Fudge (I voted for old Cornelius 
> myself) because their faults and weaknesses are within the normal 
> range of human understanding (prejudice, cowardice, etc.).  
Homicidal 
> mania and megalomania is beyond our understanding.  
<snip appropriate Izzard quotation> Mass 
> murder is simply beyond our comprehension, I think.  We don't have 
> the kind of hatred for it that we do these more immediate matters 
> because we've (almost all of us, I hope) never encountered it.  It 
> leaves us cold because there's no life experience to match it up 
> with. 

I think that must be a big part of it.  For me to go on living in the 
world and dealing with other people, I pretty much *have* to believe 
that people like Voldemort are abnormal - not in the range of normal 
human behavior - which means either they are sick, or they are 
something "other", somehow not like me or anyone else I know.  So if 
they're sick (mentally ill, possessed, chemical imbalance, whatever) 
then I can fear them and want them stopped, but hating them doesn't 
seem worth the effort.  And if they're "other" somehow, then I don't 
really have a foothold from which to relate myself to them.  So 
people that can be classified as behaving within the range of normal 
human behavior are the only ones I can understand enough to love or 
hate.  We have categories for people like Fudge - he's a head-in-the-
sand politician, and for the Dursleys - social climbing hypocrites.  
The only category Voldemort fits in with is Evil Overlord, and those 
are meant to remain fictional.  They were all created for our 
entertainment, but Fudge and the Dursleys represent (in a hyperbolic 
way, perhaps) types of people that we know to be real.

 > One other thing about Fudge: it is people like him that allow 
> Voldemort to flourish.  If he would wake up, Voldemort would not be 
> as huge a problem as he's going to be soon.  Fudge's non-action 
(the 
> cause) is leading to giving Voldemort an easier time (the effect). 

I just found this online - it's from the Houston Review (apparently 
the columnist is named Kaptain?), it helps explain my view of Fudge: 

""Evil triumphs when good men do nothing," Edmund Burke once 
declared. This slogan is mouthed by idiots who would like to consider 
themselves good men (and women), but are loathe to actually doing any 
good. Well, this is your Kaptain speaking, and I am here to tell you 
that if you sit and watch evil run amok, you are its instrument every 
bit as much as [here I insert Voldemort to replace those cited]."

Now, I think the columnist has it wrong (as surely the idiots he 
refers to wouldn't point this out?), but the sentiment is just about 
right anyway - doing nothing in the face of evil is not an acceptable 
option for a "good man", so those who choose that option can no 
longer be considered good.

I think that's a major factor in the way people feel toward Fudge.  I 
don't buy the Fudge is a DE thing - I think it's much more realistic 
that he's just a coward with enough power to wreak havoc simply by 
refusing to act.  This, imo, actually makes him just as bad as a DE, 
but has a better, more realistic dramatic flair.  

> If we attack the disease of Fudge's denial, we reduce the symptom 
of 
> Voldemort's rampage.  Therefore, I hate Fudge more because he holds 
> the power to help stop Voldemort and does not use it.  I hate the 
> cause more than the effect.  This point is less universal than the 
> above ones, however, and I think is a personal matter, though 
others 
> might share this viewpoint.

I definitely agree.


Kimberly
who actually chose the Dursleys (because locking up a child and 
refusing to feed them is simply unacceptable), but would still have 
chosen Fudge over Voldemort.