Nature of Dark Magic (was Motivations for Joining DEs )

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 141214

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" <zgirnius at y...> wrote:
> 
> > bboyminn wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> >
> > 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. 
> 
> > ...
> 
> 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'. ...
> 
> 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. ...
> 
> I would argue that Sectumsempra is probably Dark, because Snape says 
> so. ... (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. ...
> 6) The magic which creates Inferi. ...
> 7) Powerful Curses such as that on the Ring Horcrux and the necklace 
> that nearly kills Katie Bell ...
> 
> That's all I can come up with...

bboyminn:

I would mostly agree with your list. By my point, my theory, is that
it is the nature of the creation that makes Dark Magic 'dark' and not
the nature of it's use. Also, we need to make a distinction between
'Dark' with a capital 'D' and 'dark' with a small 'd'. 

Dark with a capital 'D' defines a class of magic which by the nature
of its creation is, in some way, destructive. Again, I emphasize the
CREATION. Magic that is 'dark' with a small 'd', is magic that is dark
in the evilness of its nature, referring more to its application
rather than creation. Dark Magic/Dark Arts are a specific
classification of a special type of magic, whereas dark magic is
general magic of no redeeming quality, it is generally evil in nature.

So, I agree that Sectumsempra is dark (with a small 'd') magic, but I
don't think it necessarily qualifies as Dark (with a capital 'D')
magic. Whereas the Blood-Flesh-Bone Spell is both Dark and dark.

This is really just one of my theories. It is supported in the books
only by the vaguest interpretations. But it seems a reasonable
interpretation that a very evil wizard could live a terrible life
without ever engaging in truly Dark Magic/Arts. I feel that true Dark
Magic/Arts has to have something very specific in its nature to
classify it as Dark. It can't just be used for evil, because we see
magic that is not classfied as 'Dark' being used for evil purposes.
That leads me to conclude that there is something special and unique
in Dark Magic/Arts, and I conclude that it's creation is a destructive
process of some type. 

Again, Dark Magic/Art are spoken of as a very specific thing, a
specific class or group, and not just as generally evil/not_evil, or
bad/not_bad. Which leads me to investigate the nature of truly Dark
Magic/Art and reach the conclusions I do.

Really, it's just a thought.

STeve/bboyminn