On the Nature of Dark Magic

[jodel at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43079

"sydpad" writes in Digest 2072;

>>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.<<

I have a theory which I have mentioned on other boards, and which is probably 
not original here, although I've not seen it brought up in the time since I 
joined on. (Fairly recently, so that isn't saying much.) I am of the opinion 
that the Dark Arts differ from those of "Light" magic in that they are 
*interactive*. 

All power has a price. With magic that is classified as Light, the "price" is 
typically the time and effort needed to learn to master and control it. It 
does not alter the user to perform Light magic.

With the Dark Arts this is not the case. Dark magic inherently attempts to 
alter the user into a better channel for itself. Dark spells themselves are 
not all hostile in nature, and some may be benign or downright benevolent. 
But they all pull on the user, trying to shape him into their purpose, which 
is to collect the ambient power/lifeforce which surrounds the host, condense 
and focus it and drive it back with maximum force. A wizard who has lost 
himself to the Dark Arts becomes essentially a conduit of agressive power 
directed at whatever gets his attention, shaded to some degree by an 
independent mind and personal preferences, but having essentially lost his 
underlying humanity. A loose canon, indeed. There are more ways to loose 
one's soul than to be kissed by a Dementor. Immersion in the Dark Arts 
supresses empathy, distorts judgement and leaves any number of psychic traces 
on it. I've wondered if the "silvery bloodstains" that the Bloody Baron goes 
about decked in might be a visual indication of psychic damage brought about 
by dealings in the Dark Arts.

Which is why the Dark Arts (which it is never stated are illegal in their 
entirety) are so rigorously controlled. Because one CAN make use of them in 
relative safety, if one takes care to monitor and repair the damage. And, of 
course, one can STUDY them extensively without damage if one has the 
restraint not to make active use of them. (Durmstrang, after all, does 
include them in its curiculum.) Which is why I believe that the MoM's Dark 
Arts consultants are a highly respected group of individuals who are brought 
in to discuss various factors when an incident comes up which is believed to 
be connected with Dark magic. 

I also think that Lucius Malfoy (and probably his father) were respected Dark 
Arts consultants to the Ministry BEFORE Voldemort's first rise to power and 
that this public position contributed to how Lucius managed to dodge the 
bullet by claiming that he had been under Imperius. After all, wouldn't a 
Dark Arts specialist have been the FIRST person that Voldemort would have 
wanted under his own control? It also explains how he can still be waltzing 
in and out of the Ministry offices as if he owns them.

But there is no question that the Dark Arts are extremely dangerous and that 
anyone known to be engaged in this study is going to be closely scrutinised. 
(One reason in itself for why Malfoy actively cultivates the likes of Fudge. 
May even have him under Imperius. Fudge can vouch for him.) Because the 
frequency with which Dark wizards DO lose control to it makes the whole study 
very dubious, and the Ministry tries very hard to discourage people from 
getting involved in the first place. 

And it's an uphill battle, because since the Dark Arts DO amplify the power 
collected, they are extremely attractive to the greedy, the weak and the 
thrill-seeker. I suspect that the aprehension of loosers who get in over 
their heads and have to be packed off to St Mungos into detox is a daily 
occurance. ("Oh an Auror's lot is not a happy one!" -- with apologies to 
Gilbert and Sulivan.)

-JOdel