ESE!Fudge

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 113706

SSSusan, earlier:
>>I'm one of the ones who's been arguing in favor of ESE!Fudge, but 
I've also never believed he was a DE. You make an excellent point 
that, if he had been, it would make little sense for Voldy not to 
have asked him to take some pretty major, direct actions to advance 
his rise back to power.  Fudge has done some things which I think go 
beyond the bumbling, waffling, power-hungry politician--things which 
I think really can be interpreted as (or hypothesized to be) evil--
but just as Dolores Umbridge may well be evil but not be a DE, so 
with Fudge.  As Sirius said, the world isn't divided into good 
people and Death Eaters [paraphrased].  Fudge is, imo, at a similar 
place on the good-evil spectrum as the DEs, without actually being 
one of them. <snip> <<
 
Carol responds:
> The good-evil spectrum. I like that. The only person so far that I
> would place at the far end for goodness is Lily. At the far end for
> evil, we have Voldemort and Bellatrix (and the non-DE Umbridge). 
> Some of the other DEs would probably go there as well, probably 
> Dolohov Barty J. (fortunately "demented") and Lucius Malfoy 
> (though I don't think Lucius is *quite* as evil as Voldemort since 
> he seems capable of some sort of love for his wife and son. But 
> many people, let's say Sirius Black and Severus Snape are 
> somewhere in the middle, neither good nor evil but having some 
> good and some evil traits. And Fudge, too, seems to belong in the 
> middle. I very much doubt that he's cast any Unforgiveable curses 
> or committed any actual crimes (unless you count accepting 
> bribes). I think "corrupt" and "weak" are closer to describing his 
> character than "evil."
> 
> My point is simply that we're abusing the word "evil," which should
> stand for conduct and character so morally reprehensible, so wicked
> and cruel that no redemption is possible. Tom Riddle reached that 
> mark when he murdered his father and grandparents if not before. 
> But surely we shouldn't use the same term for Fudge as for 
> Voldemort. If "evil" applies to any behavior we don't approve of, 
> from Percy's quarrell with his family to Draco hexing Harry when 
> Harry's back is turned, then the word "evil" has lost its 
> force. "Bad" I can live with, especially for Draco (definitely a 
> bad kid but still a kid and not to be compared with Voldemort or 
> Bellatrix, at least not yet). But let's save "evil" for those who 
> truly deserve the label and find some other word for those in the 
> middle of the spectrum who have yet to cast an Unforgiveable Curse 
> or do anything else that the WW itself would define as wicked. And 
> that includes holding "racist" (or classist) views. There are 
> degrees of wickedness here that IMO should be kept in perspective.
> 
> Anyone have a suggestion for a word or words other than "evil" 
> that we can use for these people?


SSSusan:
Ah, but some of us [hey, HunterGreen] are arguing that Fudge really 
IS more evil than he has been openly painted in the books.  We see 
him as corrupt, power-hungry, incapable of making a stand based upon 
moral principles, etc., but some of us think he does MUCH worse 
behind the scenes.  Examples of possibilities here are: working w/ 
Pettigrew to frame Sirius; having Barty Crouch, Jr., kissed on 
purpose so he couldn't testify; directing the Dementors to go after 
Harry; etc.  NONE of these can be proven at this point, but there 
are fairly reasonable or defensible ways of seeing them.  So *if* 
we're right, then "evil" WOULD be an appropriate term for Fudge.  
(That's why I was arguing that he would go at about the same spot on 
the good-evil spectrum as the DEs w/o actually being one of them.)

Now, your overall point in saying, "Let's watch how we use this 
word" I think is valid.  I'm just saying that, even with that 
reminder, I'm still thinking Fudge may turn out to be evil.

Siriusly Snapey Susan