Curriculum/the Dark Arts

[Elizabeth Dalton]

No: HPFGUIDX 31946

Catherine Keegan wrote:

> 
> BTW, what do you folks feel constitutes "the dark arts"?  I've been trying
> to divide up what sorts of disciplines would make up a
> curriculum.  Obviously, spells/hexes/jinxes and probably
> poisons/potions.  Anything else?  I read Sherri Tepper's books eons ago and
> the titles all reflected aspects of magic.  The one that my feeble brain
> recalls is necromancy.  Any other disciplines?
> 

I just saw Cindy's post as well. It's funnier than mine. :)

Well, let's think about what "Defense against the Dark Arts" usually contains.

Year 1: Quirrell lectures about miscellaneous things, timidly. A story has been
spread that he encountered a vampire while on sabbatical (presumably related to
his encounter with Voldemort). This was considered practical, rather than
theoretical experience for him as the DADA teacher.

Year 2: Lockhart does next to nothing, but all his book titles are about him
confronting various kinds of menacing Beings and Beasts, labeled "Dark
creatures": Vampires, Trolls, Werewolves, Hags, Yeti, etc. Presumably he was
hired on the basis of the exploits in these books. We also find out that
Parseltongue is considered a Dark ability.

Year 3: Lupin has the kids practice actually confronting various lesser menacing
beings/beasts: boggarts, hinkypunks, kappas, grindylows, etc. We know werewolves
were later in the text, as well. Madam Pomfrey, on hearing that Lupin gave the
kids chocolate after encountering the Dementors on the train, comments that
Hogwarts finally has a DADA teacher who knows his remedies.

Year 4: Moody jumps ahead to the Unforgivable Curses, even though they aren't
supposed to see them until 6th year.

Strictly on this basis, we have the following candidates for the DADA
curriculum:

Defending against malicious beings/beasts (and possibly spirits)
Remedies for encounters with same
Defending against/avoiding Unforgivable Curses

We also have several people asserting that objects which can think for
themselves (Riddle's diary, the Marauder's Map) are suspect as Dark magic.

By extrapolation, we might suppose that a Dark Arts curriculum or practice could
include the following:

Summoning/allying with malicious beings/beasts (and possibly spirits)
Using Unforgivable Curses
Parseltongue Literature (just kidding! ;)

It would also appear that other areas of the Hogwarts curriculum we are familiar
with (e.g. Transfiguration or Charms) could also be given a Dark slant, e.g.
creating enchanted items (like the Diary) that have a malicious intelligence. I
believe reading bird entrails was listed as one of the divination mechanisms in
the Hogwarts first-year text, though that sounds pretty Dark to me. (Nothing was
mentioned about the kids disembowling birds in class that I recall. Maybe I'm
thinking of another book Harry saw while shopping, or maybe they skipped that
chapter. Personally, I can't see Trelawney getting her hands that dirty.)

The Lexicon, in its description of the Dark Arts, makes the point that the
intent of the user is often what distinguishes Dark magic from non-Dark. I would
submit, however, that this is a slippery slope. Let's suppose Neville wants
someone to help him stop biting his nails. He asks Hermione to put the Imperius
Curse on him. Would that still be Dark magic? I submit that it would. Even if
Moody had been the real Moody, he would have been in trouble for putting
Imperius on the kids if he hadn't been an Auror, I think, despite the fact that
he did it for "educational" purposes and presumably with the knowledge and
approval of Dumbledore. And what about Crouch, Sr. authorizing the use of the
UCs on Death Eaters? That was for "good" purposes, but it's presented as a
highly questionable thing to have done. The general problem is that it's
possible to justify all kinds of things without necessarily having "evil"
intent.

Necromancy does sound like a good candidate for Dark Arts based on the name, but
it might depend on your definition of necromancy. Are you talking about
communicating with the dead, raising the dead as servants, or laying the undead
to rest? Given that there are benign ghosts and dancing skeletons for hire, what
would a necromancer in the Potterverse *do*? Rowling has already said that you
can't bring back the dead, I believe. Ghosts are a fate in store for "not the
happiest people." And ghosts seem to be pretty indestructible -- remember how
upset everyone was when Nick got frozen by the Basilisk? So the kinds of
necromancy (positive and negative) in Tepper's "True Game" books -- or Garth
Nix's book "Sabriel" -- would be pretty much out.

Elizabeth
(still waiting for that 34Mb file to download so I can get some work done-- at
least I have this list to amuse me :)