Dark Magic is not Evil Magic

[Tom Wall]

No: HPFGUIDX 82138


Oooh, another excellent discussion on Dark Magic! Time to chime in 
with something that I've been trying to work out for a while...

I've engaged in this debate previously, and although I found it to be 
an interesting one, the major point that I carried out of it was 
that, all in all, we know frightfully little about the Dark Arts in 
the Potterverse. There's lots of conjecture, and very little canon; 
OoP didn't really help things, either.

We do know that the 'Dark Arts' are popularly perceived (at least by 
readers, and possibly by the fictional Wizarding World public) as 
being directly connected with 'evil.' Steve (bboy_mn) suggested in 
message #52478 that they might inherently involve destructive and/or 
consumptive magics. I think that this is a very good suggestion, but 
is not canonical fact as of yet aside from the "Flesh, Blood and 
Bone" potion that Voldemort uses in GoF, and perhaps the Diary that 
Riddle used to possess Ginny Weasley, as Jen Reese pointed out 
recently in message #82013. JOdel has also suggested (in message 
#53565) that prolonged exposure to or prolonged use of Dark Magic 
might result in an evil wizard. Both of these are excellent ideas, 
and I'm sure that there are more out there. But to play it safe, they 
aren't canon... *yet.*

What I want to point out is that, contrary to well thought-out ideas 
that attempt to connect Dark Magic with evil directly, we're not 
really given a situation where practitioners of the Dark Arts are 
across the board 'evil.' Once again, JKR is not giving us an easy 
Black and White situation; shades of gray abound, and it's all 
tempered by the ability of people to choose for themselves what to do 
with their own lives.

So, what are the dark arts, anyways?

Most of the students at Hogwarts take a class called "Defense Against 
the Dark Arts," as we all know. But it occurs to me that we don't 
really learn too much about Dark *Magic* from this class, with the 
sole exception of the Unforgivable Curses. So, what exactly do they 
study during these lessons?

Mostly *creatures.* Lockhart reviews Cornish Pixies with the class 
(CoS, Ch.6, 101) but does mostly essay writing after that. Lupin 
covers animals extensively, as we learn from Crouch!Moody's 
summary: "boggarts, Red Caps, hinkypunks, grindylows, kappas, and 
werewolves." (GoF, Ch.14, 211) But Lupin didn't cover too many 
defenses against *magic* per se. And Crouch!Moody covers the 
Unforgivable Curses – although according to MoM guidelines, 
he's "supposed to cover countercurses and leave it at that." (GoF, 
Ch.14, 211) In PS/SS, Quirrell's classes are described as "a bit of a 
joke." (PS/SS, Ch.8, 134)  Umbridge's courses, of course, are as 
useless as Quirrell's, and with the added disadvantage of being far 
more annoying.

So, that's *all* we hear about from five years of this class.

In a sense, DADA would appear to be more of an anti-`Care of Magical 
Creatures' (something like, `Defense Against Dark Creatures') class, 
than it is actually about the Dark Arts. 

Crouch!Moody: 
"But you're behind – very behind – on dealing with curses," said 
Moody. (GoF, Ch.14, 211)

This is interesting, considering that the students actually seem 
fairly well versed in curses without having ever received any blatant 
tutelage on the matter; we've seen Petrificus Totalus in PS/SS, 
Tarantallegra and Rictusempra (CoS, Ch.11, 192); Furnunculus and 
Densaugeo (GoF, Ch.18, 298); the Impediment Curse, Jelly-legs, 
the "slug-burping" curse, the Bat Bogey Hex... even the *Reductor* 
spell is a curse... so, when Harry cut through the hedge in the maze 
during the Third Task, he was *cursing* the hedge? Whatever the case, 
the students use these on each other frequently, without having been 
formally educated in their use.

And both Moody (see above quote) and Sirius (in GoF, Ch.27, 531) 
associate `curses' with the Dark Arts. In other words, if this is the 
case (and I'm not saying that it is; I'm saying that we can't be 
sure), then all of our heroes regularly use some form of the Dark 
Arts against each other.

But spellwork aside, there are other elements of Dark Magic too: in 
CoS, when Lucius is selling items at Borgin and Burkes, he says: "- 
and as you see, certain of these poisons might make it appear -" 
(CoS, Ch.4, 51) So, some poisons can be a part of what the WW 
considers Dark Magic. But oddly enough, Lucius says *certain* 
poisons; not poisons generally – this, of course, leaves room for the 
distinct possibility that certain *other* poisons might be useful in, 
um, non-Dark magic. (Do we call that `Light' Magic? I dunno. It seems 
so cliché.)

Voldemort calls "Flesh, Blood, and Bone" an "old piece of Dark Magic, 
the potion that revived me tonight..." (GoF, Ch.33, 656) So, potions 
can be part of it, as well. [As to whether or not *old* = *ancient,* 
well, that's a semantic debate that I'll stay out of for the time-
being. ;-) ]

So, in sum, we know that the Dark Arts at least involve poisons, 
potions, and curses. Since the DADA classes primarily focus on 
creatures, I'll add them to the list, however reluctantly... I 
especially dislike the easy categorization of creatures who are born 
a certain way (against their will) as *evil* or *dark,* because in a 
way, that assessment contradicts the anti-discrimination goals that 
we see developing in the rest of the series' plot. Anyways...

It seems like the Dark Arts involve a lot of magic that our heroes 
use frequently, which is odd, because when we take a close look at 
the Wizarding World ethos, we'll find that Dark Magic is used as a 
scapegoat for a great many things that go wrong. In fact, it seems to 
be quite commonplace for people to blame the Dark Arts for any event 
or situation in which the identity of the perpetrator is unknown.

For instance, in PS/SS, when Gringotts is broken into, the Daily 
Prophet reads: "Investigations continue into the break-in at 
Gringotts on 31 July, widely believed to be the work of Dark wizards 
or witches unknown." (PS/SS, Ch.8, 141) So, is it unlikely that a 
wizard using non-Dark Magic would have the ability to do this?

In CoS, we see this again when Filch accuses Harry of petrifying Mrs. 
Norris, and Dumbledore says: "It would take Dark Magic of the most 
advanced –" (CoS, Ch.9, 142) Again, is non-Dark Magic incapable of 
doing this? JKR is still being vague... what's the distinction 
between the two? What makes Dark Magic Dark, and non-Dark Magic, um, 
non-Dark?

Finally, in PoA, in the Shrieking Shack Hermione says: "If you don't 
mind me asking, how – how did you get out of Azkaban, if you didn't 
use Dark Magic." (PoA, Ch.19. 370) So even Hermione suggests (through 
omission) that non-Dark magic might not be able to help a wizard 
break out of Azkaban. Later, we learn that Hermione's third-year 
assessment is incorrect, because Dumbledore says that "I could break 
out [Azkaban] of course, but what a waste of time..." (OoP, Ch.27, 
620) 

And if McGonagall's right, and Dumbledore is "too noble" (PS/SS, 
Ch.1, 11) to use the Dark Arts, then we have to assume that he'd get 
out using acceptable magic.

Or maybe Dumbledore *would* use some form of Dark Magic? Taking a 
closer look, we can note that it's possible for Dark Magic to 
actually have some positive, non-evil uses.

In CoS, we see Hagrid in Knockturn Alley, notorious for its Dark Arts 
shops. What's he doing there?

"I was lookin' fer a Flesh-Eatin' Slug Repellent," growled 
Hagrid. "They're ruinin' the school cabbages." (CoS, Ch.4, 55)

So, assuming that Hagrid's not lying here (and I know that there are 
folk out there who believe just that), we see that the Dark Arts 
might even *possibly* have some positive uses, i.e. Flesh-Eating Slug 
Repellent, which doesn't really seem like such a bad thing. And 
Hagrid seems to think that it can be found in Knockturn Alley, which 
would indicate that he thinks that the Repellent might be a Dark item.

Hermione also has a take on curses and their relevance:
"[Slinkhard] says that counterjinxes are improperly named," said 
Hermione promptly. "He says `counterjinx' is just a name people give 
their jinxes to when they want to make them sound more acceptable." 
<snip>
"Mr. Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, does he? But I think they can be 
very useful when they're used defensively." (OoP, Ch.15, 316-17)

In addition, in post #52468, I commented that it would seem that the 
quest for immortality can be achieved through Dark Magic, via the 
methods that Voldemort has used to try to achieve it. But also, it 
can be achieved through `Light' magic, as we see with Nicolas Flamel 
and the Philosopher's Stone. So, if both can accomplish the same end, 
then we have to question exactly what the distinction between them is 
supposed to be. To this day, JKR hasn't gifted us with the 
definitions of `hex' vs. `curse' vs. `jinx,' never mind the actual 
distinctions between `Light' and `Dark' magic.

All this is irrelevant, to an extent, because I believe that we have 
absolutely zero canon to suggest that the simple *use* of Dark Magic 
is enough to qualify one as evil.

We learn, in GoF, that "[Mr. Malfoy] says Durmstrang takes a far more 
sensible line than Hogwarts about the Dark Arts. Durmstrang students 
actually learn them, not just the defense rubbish we do..." (GoF, 
Ch.11, 165)

So, unless we're willing to assume that all of the students at 
Durmstrang are evil on the basis that they are learning (and 
therefore are likely to be regularly *using*) the Dark Arts, (and 
IMO, this is a totally ludicrous proposition), then we must be fair 
and conclude that those who learn and practice the Dark Arts aren't 
automatically 'evil,' on this singular basis.

Of course, the only Durmstrang student we really get to meet is Krum, 
and I don't think it's out of line to say that I think Krum's an okay 
guy, whether he's learning the Dark Arts at school or not. And it's 
definitely a stretch to assert that Krum is evil, especially since we 
really don't have anything as evidence *except* for the fact that 
he's learning the Dark Arts.

And again, our heroes regularly curse other students, and I don't for 
a minute register that as evidence of `evil.' Heck, Harry uses the 
Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix Lestrange... and I'll go out on a limb 
here and conclude that *Harry* isn't evil. ;-) So, clearly, the prima 
facie evidence suggests that the mere use of the Dark Arts doesn't 
make one evil, and this is a very important distinction, because as 
we know...

Choice is the key.

"Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for 
it at school. <snip>
"Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids 
in the seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins that 
nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." (GoF, Ch.27, 531)

But we learn later that Snape "is now no more a Death Eater than I 
[Dumbledore] am." (GoF, Ch.30, 591)

So, in other words, what we learn is that people can choose for 
*themselves* what they do with their lives. Dumbledore belabors this 
point constantly – it is *choice* that matters. 

Therefore, we must conclude that those who know and practice the Dark 
Arts aren't necessarily 'evil,' because a person always retains the 
ability to make the distinction between right and wrong. Clearly 
Snape was able to make that distinction at some point.

So, I'm thinking that it's possible that there's nothing *really* 
wrong with the magic you use... what's probably far more significant 
is your intended goal by using it. If you're trying to use Dark Magic 
to accomplish something worthwhile, then I don't see how you can be 
evil. If you're trying to use non-Dark magic to accomplish something 
vile, then I don't see how you can be entirely good.

A complex ethical system, worthy of a great author: many shades of 
grey – almost no Black and White. Gotta love it. ;-)

-Tom