Serpensortia -- the Dark Arts -- Divination

Sun Feb 17 21:45:31 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 35373

On Serpensortia, Porphyria wrote:

> Is serpensortia a curse? I thought it was a conjuring of some sort. 

I don't know.  I'm very hazy on the distinction between curses and 
charms and hexes and jinxes and spells.  Not to mention 
conjurings.  ;-)

I just used the word "curse" there because it seems to me that when 
the characters discuss the sort of spells used in duels, or 
aggressive spells in general, they often use the term "curse."  And 
conjuring up an aggressive snake that then goes after the person at 
whom you've aimed your wand definitely seems aggressive and "curse-
ish" to me.  But I suspect that technically speaking, it's a charm.

> I agree that it's unlikely Draco could have busted this one out on 
> his own without coaching. I figured either, a) Slytherin love 
> practicing this one in the common room because it's their mascot 
> animal...

<sigh>  The poor Slytherin prefects.  What a terrible job they must 
have.  Just think of all the time they must spend disposing of all of 
those stray snakes that the younger students have conjured and then 
lost track of...

> ...or b) Snape did indeed teach it to him -- to smoke out Harry's 
> parseltongue abilities. 

And there's the question.

Tabouli wrote:

> Now this is something that has always intrigued me. What made Snape 
> suggest that particular spell? House pride, because it's a 
> serpentine Slytherin speciality? I mean, presumably he was 
> relishing the thought of deliberately and publicly putting Harry in 
> mortal danger, but was there any more to it? And when Harry turns 
> out to be a Parselmouth, Snape doesn't seem surprised... he
> looks "shrewd and calculating". Does Snape know something we don't? 
> (actually, he knows a helluva lot we would dearly like to know) Did
> he pick that spell in order because he wanted to test a theory he 
> had about Harry, or Voldemort, or the failed curse?

<Elkins volunteers to man the can(n)non>

Well, let's see what's actually there, shall we?  <sound of flipping 
pages>  Duelling Club scene, Duelling Club...oh, it's the name of the 
chapter...well, *that* makes it easy to find, doesn't it?  Ah.  Here 
we are.

Okay.  After dissuading Lockhart from using Longbottom and Finch-
Fletchley as his volunteer pair for a demonstration of spell-
blocking, Snape suggests Malfoy and Potter (it's the second time in 
this scene that Snape forces these poor kids to duel each other):

"'How about Malfoy and Potter?' said Snape with a twisted smile."

(Ah, those twisted smiles!)  

Lockhart fails to demonstrate blocking, Snape bends over and whispers 
the prompt in Draco's ear -- there's really nothing to go on in the 
description there.  When the snake actually appears, we get:

"'Don't move, Potter,' said Snape lazily, clearly enjoying the sight 
of Harry standing motionless, eye to eye with the angry snake.  'I'll 
get rid of it...'"

(Ah, those 'lazily's!)  

And then Lockhart jumps in and makes a mess of things, the snake gets 
infuriated and goes after Finch-Fletchley, Harry speaks to it in 
Parseltongue...lots of commotion.  But we don't see anything of Snape 
again until:

"Snape stepped forward, waved his wand and the snake vanished in a
small puff of black smoke.  Snape, too, was looking at Harry in an 
unexpected way: it was a shrewd and calculating look, and Harry 
didn't like it."

And that's pretty much it, when it comes to Snape's demeanor.  That's 
all we have to go on.

So...well, what do you all think?

It's certainly open to interpretation.  Personally, I have to say 
that it really doesn't look to me as if Snape's intention there was 
to smoke out Harry's parseltongue abilities.  It's highly subjective, 
of course, but what we are given there just doesn't leave me with the 
impression of Snape as a man awaiting the results of an experiment: 
he does not, for example, seem either surprised or disappointed when 
Harry freezes, rather than speaking to the snake initially.  I rather 
get the impression that he suggested Serpensortia merely as a way of 
entertaining himself.

He does seem to suspect where Harry might have come by his talent 
very quickly, though -- that "shrewd and calculating look" *is* 
suggestive -- and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he'd wondered 
that about Harry before.  But I just can't quite force myself to read 
that scene as 'Snape tests out his hypothesis.'  It simply doesn't 
ring true to me.

But of course, other mileages may vary.

About that "shrewd and calculating look," though.  If, as Tabouli 
suggests, Snape knows more than we might suspect about Voldemort or 
the failed curse, could this be due to his experience with the Dark 
Arts themselves?  Was there something about Voldemort's favored brand 
of Dark magic that might have made that odd form of soul-leakage that 
seems to have accompanied his failed AK a *more* likely side-effect 
for him than it would have been for, say, just some random wizard 
trying to use a Killing Curse on a mystically-protected baby 
Harry?

And what *are* the Dark Arts, anyway?

Porphyria wrote:

> Oh, I can't tell you how much it galls me that JKR has not provided 
> us with an adequate theory of the Dark Arts! I mean, what is it? 
> Are there only certain spells that qualify, or does it have more to 
> do with the intention of the caster? 

I'm relieved to hear that I'm not the only one vexed by this question.

Yes, what *are* the Dark Arts?  Are there forms of magic that are 
intrinsically 'Dark' -- that are, for example, spiritually corrupting
by their very nature?  Or is Darkness merely a matter of application,
the tool of magic used for evil ends?  Or is the term used loosely, to
refer both to a particular brand of magic and to criminally wicked
wizarding behavior?

Take the Unforgivebles, for example.  Their "Unforgivable" status is 
described in "Moody's" class as a matter of legal distinction: they 
are the spells the use of which is most severely punishable under 
Wizarding Law.  But are they also Dark in some metaphysical or 
spiritual sense?  Does one learn about them in a DADA class because 
only a "Dark" (ie, criminal) Wizard would be casting an illegal spell 
in the first place, making defending oneself against them DADA by 
default?  Or is there something intrinsically Dark about them apart
from their nasty effects?

Before Crouch authorized his Aurors to use the Unforgivables, were 
they allowed to kill in self-defense?  And if so, then were there non-
'Dark' lethal magics that they would have used, rather than the dread 
AK?  (Light and fluffy lethal magics, perhaps?)  Or would all magics 
designed to kill be designated 'dark' by default?

I've seen others speculate that the Unforgivables may be Dark because
they require a certain purity of intent: that to cast Cruciatus, for 
example, would require a focused and sincere desire to cause pain, to 
cast Imperius the desire to dominate, to cast AK the desire to kill.  
This would certainly seem to make them Dark by nature.  But if this 
were indeed the case, then I find myself wondering how they could 
possibly ever be demonstrated in a DADA class without grave suspicion 
falling upon the DADA instructors themselves.  We know that the 
Unforgivables are a regular part of the 6th Year Curriculum at 
Hogwarts.  Are they ordinarily never demonstrated, not even on 
spiders?

I find that unconvincing, somehow.

Porphyria:

> And all the DADA classes apart from "Moody's" seem to concern 
> themselves with dark creatures. Sure, defending against grindylows 
> is practical knowledge, but there mere condition of *being* a 
> grindylow does not constitute proficiency in a Dark Art. 

Well, if there is such a thing as intrinsically Dark magic, magic that
is potentially spiritually corrupting, rather than simply being a
matter of a powerful tool used to bad ends, then I could certainly 
understand why you might choose to teach your younger students 
Defense Against Dark Creatures first, before exposing them to Dark 
spells and such.  Learning how to defend yourself against a grindylow 
offers little in the way of seduction, as you cannot choose yourself 
to *become* a grindylow.  Learning how to defend yourself against a 
Dark spell, on the other hand, would place a certain degree of 
temptation in your path.

But it seems clear that even if some magic *is* intrinsically "Dark," 
it's still culturally acceptable to know it, so long as one never 
uses it -- or only uses it rarely, and for very good reasons.  When 
Professor Binns is telling his students about the Chamber of Secrets, 
and someone suggests that perhaps it's never been found because one 
would have to use Dark Magic to find the opening, Binns snaps back 
something along the lines of: Just because a wizard *doesn't* use 
Dark Magic doesn't mean that he *can't.*  (Sorry for the paraphrase: 
it's later now, and I've abandoned the canon, which I don't have at 
hand.)  The implication there, IIRC, was specifically that Dumbledore 
would know enough Dark Magic to have found the Chamber.  And there's 
implication of that sort in the very first chapter of the first book 
as well, when McGonagall goes gushing all over Dumbledore for 
being "too noble" to use all of the tools at his disposal.  

The Dark Arts are still taught in wizarding schools outside of 
Britain.  Durmstrang still teaches them.  (Does Beauxbatons?)  My 
suspicion here is that Hogwarts only stopped teaching them, changing 
DA to DADA, upon Dumbledore's ascension to Headmaster -- this seems 
somewhat implied to me by Draco's little speech about how Daddy 
considered sending him off to Durmstrang, where the curriculum was 
not so restricted.

All of this combines in my mind to form the impression of a society 
that *does* consider Dark magic to be intrinsically dark -- 
potentially corrupting? deriving from Evil sources? -- but that is 
nonetheless not so nervous about its corrosive power that it 
considers knowing some Dark magic as necessarily all that terrible a 
thing.  Use of them would seem to be the sticking point.

> What exactly do these Dark Artists do? I realize that one can glean 
> a few ideas from outside sources (other fantasy novels, Wiccan 
> philosophy), but that doesn't cut it for me; I want a Potter-
> specific theory.

Yes!  I find the lack of magic theory in the books frustrating as 
well.  Of course I understand that Rowling can't very well go 
sticking treatises on the theory of magic in the Potterverse into the 
books, but it would at least be nice to know, say, what 
constitutes 'Dark Magic,' particularly as the importance of resisting 
its influence is such an important aspect of the story.

Well.  There are always hopes for future volumes.

About Divination, I wrote:

> > I've always liked to imagine that Divination is *not,* in fact, an
> > impractical field of magic at all, but that the only really 
> > reliable forms of Divination qualify as Dark Arts -- which is the 
> > reason that Dumbledore gets stuck with poor Trelawney and her 
> > once-a-decade prophecies. 

Porphyria asked:

> Are you suggesting that real, effective divination would be 
> unethical, and thus dark? Or something about the practice of it, 
> like necromancy, would be the darkening factor?

I was thinking the latter, myself.  (On a purely personal level, I'm 
not very comfortable with the notion that there might be anything 
intrinsically unethical about divination.)  

Trelawney's one "real" prediction that we see in canon seems to be a 
sort of mantic trance, a channeling or a possession.  She goes into a 
seizure, her voice is not her own, she has no memory of the event once
she has come out of the prophetic state.  (Technically I suppose, by 
the terminology of the 19th Century British Spiritualist Movement 
whose idiom Trelawney herself seems to favor, she isn't really 
a 'Seer' at all.  She would instead seem to be a 'Medium.')  

My impression there was that something was speaking *through* her, 
that the prophecy was really being delivered by an outside agent 
which had chosen to use poor Trelawney as its channel, or as 
its "horse."

And I'm not altogether certain how I feel about the alignment of that
outside agency.  

It refers to Voldemort as the "Dark Lord," for one thing, which often 
seems to be a marker of Darkness in the books.  Generally speaking, 
Good Guys don't call him that; his followers do.  And the entire tone 
of the prophecy, the choice of phrasing, well...

"It will happen tonight.  The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, 
abandoned by his followers.  His servant has been chained these 
twelve years.  Tonight, before midnight...the servant will break free 
and set out to rejoin his master.  The Dark Lord will rise again with 
his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was.  
Tonight...before midnight...the servant...will set out...to 
rejoin...his master..."

"Alone and friendless?"  "Servant has been chained?"  "Greater and 
more terrible than ever he was?"

I just don't know about that voice.  Its sympathies seem to lie 
rather strongly with Voldemort, if you ask me.  It doesn't even sound 
much like it's delivering a warning at all; it sounds far more to me 
as if something out there is *exulting* over what's about to happen.

The possibility has occurred to me that really effective divination 
(for human beings, at any rate, as opposed to, say, Centaurs) might 
necessitate opening oneself up to outside influence as a regular and 
conscious practice -- actually *inviting* whatever is out there to 
use you as its horse -- and that far too many of the things that 
might choose to answer such an invitation could well be, like 
Trelawney's prophetic voice, Not Very Nice.  And while I can't claim
to know for certain what effects galloping around with Not Very Nice 
Things riding on your proverbial back might be, I strongly suspect 
that it wouldn't be very good for you.  Even aside from the obvious 
perils involved in allowing an unknown entity to hold your reins like 
that, it might also be somehow intrinsically corrupting.

Perhaps spiritual possession is the only truly reliable and effective 
form of Divination that human beings can manage?  The Centaurs 
obviously use astrology to great effect, but we've seen no evidence 
yet of any wizards doing so.  Perhaps all of the means of Divination 
that Trelawney favors -- crystal-gazing and tea-reading and astrology 
and the like -- are very weak tools in the hands of humans, while all 
of the more effective tools available to them involve dealing in one 
way or another with spiritual entities about which not very much is 
known and which are therefore highly suspect?

Just a thought.  But that would explain, to my mind, why Divination 
might have remained on the Hogwarts curriculum when it seems to be 
such a very ineffective and poorly-respected magical field: it is, in 
fact, *not* an ineffective branch of magic at all, but merely one 
whose only non-forbidden applications are also its least effective 
ones.

It would also, I think, add an additional level of explanation to 
Trelawney's own reaction to being told that she has just entered a 
trance state and delivered a prophecy.  It's not just that she 
doesn't believe it; she also doesn't *want* to believe it, because 
doing that sort of thing is suspect, Dark.

I wrote:

> > I like to think that at Durmstrang, say, Divination is a highly 
> > challenging and intellectual -- and *effective!* -- part of the 
> > curriculum. Why do I like to imagine this? I'm not sure. Maybe 
> > just because it would make Hermione so very *annoyed* if she
> > knew. ;-)

Porphyria said:

> She sure needs some angst in her life. Everyone else has some.

I really loved Eric's suggestion that Hermione needs to be confronted 
with a serious academic rival in the next book.  I'm plumping hard 
for that plotline, although I haven't the slightest idea how such an 
academic rivalry could be introduced at this stage in the game.  But 
Hermione needs Envy problems. Everyone else has had to struggle with 
envy, and I won't find it nearly so interesting if Hermione's envy 
problems prove to be sexual or romantic, or in any way purely 
relationship-based.  Ron has his money problems, and Harry has his 
various athletic competitions -- so why should the girl be the one 
mired down in the great emotional bog when it comes to her own
struggles with envy?  Just rubs me the wrong way, that does.

-- Elkins