Something wrong with this Fudge

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 107353

SSSusan wrote earlier:
> > 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

Matt:
> 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.  


SSSusan again:
Yeah, well, I said she can *remain* one of the examples.  I don't 
think she's supposed to be the only one, simply because Sirius was 
talking about her at the moment.  As you've stated, this is 
something JKR likely wants us to consider--that LOTS of people don't 
fall into "good" and "DE" categories.  But as HunterGreen has 
responded, some people *do* and some people may well be supporters 
of Voldy, even if they're not officially DEs.  There's a whole 
spectrum, presumably.


Matt continued:
> 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.  


SSSusan previously:
> > 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.

Matt: 
> 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.


SSSusan:
Sorry, but this is all getting to "circular logic-y" for my liking.  

MY original point was that some people have claimed Fudge is a good 
ESE! candidate because he opposes DD, is friends w/ Lucius, is 
unfair to Harry in his trial, won't take the position of informing 
the WW that Voldy's back even though the evidence is clear, etc.--
all the CLEAR, SURFACEY detail from canon.  I then went on to point 
out that often people argue back that, no, these things don't make 
Fudge ESE!, they simply make him a waffling, weak, power-hungry 
bureaucrat.  My final point was that, wouldn't it be interesting if, 
in the end, we find that Fudge truly *is* ESE! but not for the 
reasons typically stated (and reiterated in this paragraph)?  What 
if it's because he really has been orchestrating truly evil things, 
such as setting the Dementors on Harry, being in on the Potters' 
death or helping Wormtail somehow, having Barty, Jr. "kissed" before 
he could testify so as to protect or hide something, helping Voldy 
return?

Why is that not "allowed"?  Why does this NOT reinforce the "people 
are complex" theme?

YOU say that I'm relying on speculation, not canon.  But, you know, 
Matt, that's what we do around here sometimes.  And I am speculating 
BASED ON canon, as I pointed out in 107293.  Meltowne had listed 
some places where things which happened in canon *could* have 
included Fudge behind the scenes or in ways not fully revealed.  
Yes, there's some speculation in it, but these also include 
incidents where Fudge was at least present or an active participant 
[the Dementor kiss of BCJ; putting the Dementors at Hogwarts; the 
street blow-up scene w/ Sirius & Peter].  

That's just the way I see it, and I don't see that it's not VALID 
nor that it defeats any purpose of JKR's.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan