Wandless magic -- is is Dark in here or is it me?

[sydpad]

No: HPFGUIDX 43029

Hi all-- I swore I was going to stick to lurking on this board, 
Porphyria's post gave me a bit of a brainwave, plus I'm 
procrastinating, so:

I've rummaged around the Message attic looking for this subject 
(I kept getting sidelined by going through  the large boxes 
labeled "Snape") but I couldn't find it-- please forgive me if this is 
a "Oh not THAT again" topic!

So here's my brand-new, probably sadly unoriginal Grand 
Unified Theory of the Dark Arts.  I'm writing this on the fly, so it'll 
probably be a bit incoherent...

Just what makes the the Dark Arts dark?  To cut straight to the 
chase, they're parasitic.  If clean magic involves focusing the 
casters inherent power, dirty magic involves stealing it from 
someone else.

Porphyria (incidentally I love your posts, and the Job essay is 
fantastic!) wrote:

> What I wonder is whether advanced Potions and certain Dark 
Arts require 
> the same skill set; the same (presumably difficult) ability to 
channel 
> magic without the help of a wand. 

The other feature of Potions-- it draws power from other living 
things (well, dead things, but the point holds).  And this is where 
my Grand Unified Theory of  Dark Arts neatly dovetails with 
Porphyria's speculations.  Any magic not using a wand-- and 
thus not clearly drawing it's energy from the caster-- has the 
potential to be dark.

Of course, the Unforgivables all use a wand-- but if there's so 
many other ways to hurt and kill people with magic, why are the 
Unforgivables, well-- unforgivable?  I think it's because Crucio, 
Imperio, and AK all act by turning the subjects own body against 
him in a more profound way than a simple jinx.


While we're at it, Elkins (I've also really enjoyed your posts in the 
backlog!) dismisses the potential Darkness of the Maurauder's 
Map to easily, I think.

The thing is, I've always felt the Maurauder's Map has Dark 
magic in it.  If Snape says it's "plainly" full of it, I mean-- he would 
know, wouldn't he?  Isn't that a crazily powerful artifact for a 
bunch of teenagers to manufacture, no matter how precocious?  
How can it bypass the Unplottability of Hogwarts, not to mention 
reveal Polyjuice identities which must be pretty well concealed?   
And the first time Harry uses it, he acts briefly as if "following 
instructions" (this could easily be misdirection, but could it also 
be a mild Imperio?  How DID the twins just happen to stumble 
across the "I solemly swear I am up to no good" incantation?)

Obviously, the Map most closely resembles Riddle's Diary -- a 
notable feature of which was it's ability to drain Ginny of her life 
energy and transfer it to Tom.  Is this why we shouldn't trust 
objects if we can't see where they keep their brains?  Is it 
because they must then be helping themselves to some of 
ours?

I hasten to say that I don't think MWPP were actually evil, or in 
Slytherin, or in fact Voldemort will turn out to be the good guy and 
James Potter the evil mastermind!    I DO think that a gang of 
smart, over-confident, rule-agnostic teenagers would... dabble.  
Just a little weed behind the woodshed, mind.    Its the same 
kind of innocent flirtation with Bad-Assness that led to them 
calling themselves "Marauders"-- I'm assuming they weren't 
raping and pillaging, but they thought it sounded cool.

If when they were making the Map, they just HAD to charm it to 
use a teeny smidgen of the user's brain... well, what's the harm?  
It's just a game, after all...  it's not REAL Dark Magic-- you know, 
like that Snape kid messes with....

If MWPP is at one end of the scale, Voldemort would be at the 
other-- how does he plan to pursue immortality, anyways?  If my 
parasitic theory is true, he means to concoct some kind of 
monster energy-sucking spell.  Transferring the life-energy of 
Muggles onto his elect crew of wizards perhaps?   Vampires-- 
Dark Creatures-- do something similar after all.  Oh!  oh!--and 
the Werewolf curse certainly acts as a kind of parasite, leeching 
the host and using him to spread.


> Well, while I can't prove wandless magic is Dark per se, there 
certainly 
> seems enough evidence to say that, apart from the most trivial 
spells, it 
> is considered problematic, possibly suspicious and worth 
tracking by the 
> Ministry. I also wonder if it will be addressed explicitly in future 
books.

All things considered though, Rowling's attention span does 
seem to shorten precipitously when it comes to Magical Theory, 
given the vast number of 'Flints' (done my homework, oh noble 
List Elf) that cluster around complicated spells... maybe the Dark 
Arts are just Dark and that's it!


PS--
> As we know, Potions does not involve "foolish wand-waving" 
which Snape 
> seems to be criticizing on account of it's obviousness. Potions 
are 
> "subtle," they simmer "softly," their power is "delicate," they 
"creep" 
> through veins, etc. Potions seem to share the same sneaky, 
underhanded 
> status as wandless jinxes and transformations; they lack the 
honest, 
> forthright, unconcealable visibility of wand use.

If I was keen on feminist readings, I'd probably say something 
about the positive associations of nice 'forthright' . "male" wand 
magic, vs. sneaky, creepy, mysterious "female" *cauldron* 
magic, Voldemort reborn from artificial iron womb thus 
industrializing and appropriating the ... oh, forget I ever brought it 
up...

Sorry for such a monster of a first post... 


"sydpad"