ESE!Fudge

[eloise_herisson]

No: HPFGUIDX 114044

SSSusan:
> 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"??



Eloise:
I think one of the problems with ESE!Fudge (who was originally my 
fault, although I'll willingly share the blame with Dicentra ;-) ) is 
that there are at least three different interpretations of him, all 
of which ascribe evil to him or link him to evil outcomes in 
different ways. Using the ESE! epithet for all three of these 
interpretations is what is causing some of the difficulty here.

1) Dicentra and I originally accused him of being part of a scheme 
deliberately to frame Sirius, something which came about because of 
his weakness and ability to be manipulated but which as an *action* 
was very wrong. *If* this theory were correct, then neither of us 
ever suggested he was actually a DE or a deliberately active 
supporter of Voldemort, just that he was egocentric and self-seeking 
and let his own self interest and advancement overcome any moral 
qualms (I'm not sure that morality is a very well developod concept 
in the WW).

Having allowed himself to be manipulated by evil (and thus act 
evilly) once, he has carried on *when necessary to save his own 
skin*, viz by pursuing Sirius and by allowing the Dementor to soul- 
suck Barty Jr. so doing or consciously allowing evil when expediant 
because he is too weak to face the consequences of standing upfor 
right.

2) Others have argued that he *was* a Voldemort supporter. This 
interpretation argues that he *is* thoroughly evil.

3) Still others suggest just that he is weak, but that his weakness 
allows evil to flourish. Some regard this as ESE! some do not.

And then we have to decide what we mean by "evil".

The whole thing is further complicated by the fact that the ESE! 
label came about at a time when the list was very...how shall I put 
it? ...playful and rather silly on occasion. It was the era when TBAY 
came about, when the list had a much smaller group of posters and 
shorthands and acronyms and wild and entertaining theories (many of 
which their originators never believed, but all of which could be 
interpolated from canon) abounded.

At that point I think that ESE! really meant(as SSS suggests) that 
there was arguably more to this character than met the eye, not that 
they were necessarily  *evil* in a strict moral sense. At least, that 
was how it was used of Fudge, who was the second ESE! accusation 
(Bagman was the first). 

More than that, trying to find canon that could be interpreted to 
imply that a character was somehow involved with Voldemort was a 
game. For instance, I once suggested to a friend off-list April 
Fooling the list by coming up with an argument that a completely 
trustworthy character was evil (I think I was meaning inventing 
spurious canon and stuff) and threw out McGonagall's name. My friend 
immediately came out with some real canon that could be interpreted 
in that light. I mentioned these off-list to Elkins and ESE!
McGonagall was born. None of the three of us ever took the idea 
seriously, it was just an intellectual game, but the idea was picked 
up, apparently quite seriously by some.

What I am saying is that ESE! has a history and it doesn't 
necessarily mean that the proponant of a theory that a character is 
ESE! (particularly the older ESE! theories) would actually use the 
epithet evil of that person in RL (or necessarily even believe it of 
the character). Having said that It *has* often been used to mean 
that someone is a closet DE or LV supporter. Basically it's been used 
in different ways by different people, but I'd say that the broadest 
definition is that there's more to the character than meets the eye.

Having been thoroughly involved in ESE! accusations in the 
past, I have to say that I would be very hard pressed to use the 
word "evil" of *anyone* in RL, although I have no doubt that deeds 
meriting the name evil are done in this world.

I suppose I'd have to agree with Carol that we're abusing the 
word "evil" in a way, because ESE! (to me) doesn't necessarily mean 
*evil* in a conventional sense. Of course, others come along and then 
understandably think it does. ESE! is just a shorthand and originally 
used of Fudge without this kind of analysis being anticipated (I 
think I get an inkling of how Jo must feel sometimes).

I'd go along with SSSusan and say that ESE! and "evil" are two 
separate things. The original ESE!Fudge is a bit of both. More to him 
than meets the eye, some involvement with Voldemort supporters even 
if he wasn't signed up and some highly morally questionable acts. But 
in real life, I'd call him weak and a pawn of evil rather than 
actually evil. I don't think that's my judgement to make.

~Eloise
making things clear as mud