Something wrong with this Fudge

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 107323

Matt wrote:
>> If Rowling chose to reveal him as capital-E Evil, she would be 
doing more than surprising her readers; she would also be 
undermining one of the major themes that she has developed through 
the novels to date. <<
 
HunterGreen:
> Why exactly? Forget about his actions in OotP for a moment, focus 
> just PoA and GoF, what about then? I disagree with an argument 
based 
> not on the books and the character's development and more on the 
> *outside* influences. Fudge's character *greatly* points to him 
being 
> the type of person who would be sympathisizing with Voldemort's 
aim. 
> As you pointed out, the world is not separated into good people 
and 
> death eaters. Umbridge is a good example of that. However, just 
> because he agrees with Voldemort's aim, doesn't mean that Fudge is 
a 
> death eater, or that he's *directly* working for him.
> 
> You spoke of shades of gray in the HP universe, and that's exactly 
> what Fudge is, a shade of gray. He can still be everything we see 
on 
> the surface: bumbling, nervous, in love with power, and still have 
> other motivations that we don't see. They are clues from the books 
> supporting that, where are the *clues* (not rhetoric) that go 
against 
> it?


SSSusan:
I absolutely, totally agree w/ Huntergreen here.  I think Umbridge 
is the perfect example of what Sirius said--it's not just good guys 
& DEs.  Umbridge can remain one of the non-capital-E evil ones...and 
Fudge COULD be shown as truly capital-E evil without ruining JKR's 
point.  Huntergreen is right:  if he's ESE!Fudge, it doesn't negate 
the *other* negative stuff--bumbling, weak, prejudiced; it merely 
adds another dimension to him.

I don't see that the argument for ESE!Fudge is weak at all.

Siriusly Snapey Susan