ESE!Fudge

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 113738

Pippin:
> I use 'evil' when the damage is lasting and serious, and the 
> action that caused it was, in the view of the books,  morally 
> reprehensible. I don't think there is any question that Rowling 
> considers Fudge's conduct in OOP morally reprehensible.  While 
> it was not immoral for Fudge to believe that Dumbledore was 
> trying to seize power from him, it was immoral  and manipulative 
> for him to mislead the public to think that he opposed 
> Dumbledore because the old man was past it. 
> 
> So I would say that Fudge was evil in OOP, but I wouldn't use the 
> ESE! tag, since to me that means he was consciously 
> conspiring with Voldemort. I don't think that will prove to be the 
> case.
 
SSSusan:
Interesting!  I just read HunterGreen's post, two or three back, and 
she said this:  "personally, though, I view ESE! as slightly 
different...more of a conspiracy label than a personality one."

So for HunterGreen, if I've understood correctly, ESE! is a tag we 
place on a character to identify that they're part of a conspiracy, 
whereas "Evil" is a label reserved for someone whose actions go 
beyond a bad choice here or there.  

If I've understood *Pippin* correctly, ESE! is a tag reserved for 
those conspiring with Voldy, and "Evil" can describe an action or 
behavior appropriately, even if the person himself isn't 
overall "Evil."

Personally, I never thought of ESE! as being equal to "In cahoots 
with Voldy."  In fact, I just took it as a way to designate that 
someone is NOT what he seems...and in such a way that he's much WORSE 
than he seems.

Others have thoughts on "ESE!" and "evil"??


Pippin:
> I think what Rowling wants us to understand with Fudge is that 
> though most of us want to be good,  we are all capable of evil, and 
> it is when we don't recognize it, and call it by its true name, 
> that we are  most in its power. 

SSSusan:
Now, with *this* I am in total agreement.

Siriusly Snapey Susan