Something wrong with this Fudge

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 107351

SSSusan wrote:
> 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

Well of course Umbridge is an example of what Sirius said; she was the
one whom he was specifically talking about when he said it.  But you
have the distinction backward, at least if we are going to rely on
canon rather than speculation.  Fudge, according to everything that
Rowling directly shows us in the books, is corrupt and incompetent,
but not evil.  By contrast, Rowling specifically portrays Umbridge as
evil, both in her actions -- she sends the dementors hoping that
they'll off Harry; she resorts to torture -- and in what other
characters have to say about her.  

> 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.

That depends on what point you think Rowling is making.  My argument
was that one of her major themes is the complexity of individuals and
the lack of clear lines between good and evil.  If, as I believe, she
is using the character of Fudge to make the point that some people are
not entirely good or evil, it *would* defeat her point to have him
turn out altogether evil.  That would not simply add another
dimension, it would detract from the very multi-dimensionality that
Rowling has tried to portray.

-- Matt