Nature of Dark Magic (was Motivations for Joining DEs )

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 141209


> bboyminn wrote:
> 
> I'm going to add a side comment to this discussion, something I 
bring
> up everytime Dark Magic/Dark Arts are discussed. There is a lot of
> /bad/ magic that people are assuming is /dark/ magic when the truth 
is
> that there is very little magic in the books that is specifically
> designated as 'Dark'. 

zgirnius:
I think this is a very good point. We're all talking about what Dark 
Arts are, why they are Dark, etc., but do we know which magic that we 
have seen is Dark? This would seem to be a useful step in the 
discussion. Seeing what the "officially Dark" magic is might help us 
to see a distinction.

bboymin:
> My theory says that there is some distructive element to truly Dark
> Magic. In some way it consumes something tangible or spiritual that
> the Dark Wizard has no right to use. For example, the New Body 
Potion
> that Voldemort creates in GoF is clearly Dark Magic because it is
> distructive and consumptive. It coerces Flesh from a servant, it
> steals bone from a grave, and it steals blood from an enemy which is
> Harry. So, in a sense, I agree that Dark Magic tarnishes the soul. 
It
> diminishes the Dark Wizard because he is spiritually diminished by
> consuming things he has no right to consume.

zgirnius:
OK. I think we can safely call this magic Dark, yes. It would also 
seem to be something you'd never even have a use for if you hadn't 
previously created a Horcrux.

bboyminn:
> But by the same token I don't necessarily think that the Forbidden
> Curses are examples of Dark Magic, nor do I think that Sectumsempra 
is
> necessarily Dark Magic. They are definitely BAD, but that doesn't 
make
> them 'Dark'. Keep in mind you could use a Dark Spell for a good
> purpose, and that wouldn't change the fact that it was Dark.

zgirnius:
Well, it depends on what we decide to use as criteria. I would tend 
to believe that all four of these are Dark, and here's why. The 
Unforgivables are introduced by Crouch!Moody in DADA. Since they are 
not "Defense" spells, I would conclude this is because they are Dark 
Arts against which one must learn to defend. Also, we do see some 
commentary by experts like DD which suggests that he does not like 
the idea of using the Unforgivables even in a good cause. (Like when 
the MoM permitted Aurors to use them). 

I would argue that Sectumsempra is probably Dark, because Snape says 
so. As an expert practitioner of DA/DADA and the inventor of that 
spell, he ought to be considered an authority. (In Chapter 24, 
HBP: "Who would have thought you knew such Dark Magic?").

bboymin:
> Again, if you look very carefully at the books, very very little 
magic
> is actually classified as Dark; far far less than people are 
assuming.
> 

zgirnius:
OK, the list so far, see above for justifications:

1) The magic which restored Voldemort's body.
2) The Unforgivables
3) Sectumsempra

More Dark magic:
4) Horcruxes. DD and Slughorn agree on this one.
5) Possession. It's not officially stated, but Voldemort's the only 
one who does it in the books, which I think supports adding it to the 
list. Also, it is like Imperius, only worse. In addition to taking 
away the victim's free will it saps their life-force and hastens 
their death.
6) The magic which creates Inferi. I think this is not said in so 
many words. But again it comes up in DADA class. It is something we 
are told "Dark" wizards do. And it is something done to murder 
victims.
7) Powerful Curses such as that on the Ring Horcrux and the necklace 
that nearly kills Katie Bell would seem to probably also be Dark. 
When asked by Harry why Snape, not Pomfrey, treated Katie Bell, 
DUmbledore explains "Professor Snape knows much more about the Dark 
Arts than Madam Pomfrey".

That's all I can come up with...