Nature of Dark Magic - Alternative Variations

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 141238

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
>  
> > 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. ...
> > 
 
> Neri:
> My theory is that what makes dark magic *Dark* is INTENTION. That 
> is, the very power of Dark Magic comes from intent of the wizard to 
> harm somebody else, and it won't work at all unless there is an evil
> intention.
> 

bboyminn:

Well, my belief is really more of a hypothesis than a theory. I
speculate that this is how it might work. I can just as easily
speculate on your hypothesis, and in fact, I will.

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about INTENTION, but
there is something about that word that leaves me feeling uneasy. I
would be more comfortable, but still slightly uneasy, if people said
INTENT instead. 

The problem I have is that /intention/, to me, implies an outward
projection of desire, and I really don't think that outward projection
is enough to make a spell 'dark' and certainly not 'Dark'. By the way,
I do realize that I am picking an extremely fine nit here.

Let me reframe your hypothesis and see if we are still on the same
page. Fake!Moody implies that casting the spell, the AK spell, would
not be enough to kill him. The AK-Killing Curse needs a 'powerful bit
of magic behind it'. So, I am now speculating that outward projection
of desire, the desire to kill someone, would indeed NOT be enough to
complete the Killing Curse, and this again brings me to, by my own
interpretation, the uncomfortable use of the word /intention/. 

I don't think it is the outward projection of intented outcome that
makes a spell Dark. Take the Partonus as an illustration, you can have
all the outward intention you want, but if you aren't able to draw on
that internal well of happy thoughts, the spell will fail. 

Extending this to your hypothesis, I don't think it is the intended
outcome in the external world that makes a Dark spell Dark. I think it
is the ability to draw on your own internal well of evil which then in
turn 'fuels' the Killing Curse. The Darkness is in being able to draw
that much evil intent/fuel from within yourself. It is this well of
fuel that powers the spell and creates the /darkenss/, and not an
outward intent to do harm.

Do you see the difference? 

> Neri continues:
> 
> In contrast, Bella tells us that Crucio won't work unless you want 
> to hurt someone, and even this won't be enough – you need to 
> actually *enjoy* it. I think this is the principle behind all Dark 
> Magic. ...
> 

bboyminn:

I don't think this conflicts with my version of YOUR theory. But I
don't completely agree with it the way it was implied in the books. I
have always said, that Harry didn't fail in the Curcio Charm because
he lack intention. I have always contended that Harry simply performed
the Curse wrong. The Crucio Curse is a sustained curse, not a
'hit-and-run' curse. Harry cast the Crucio like he was casting a
Stunning Curse. He cast it and immediately withdrew his wand and
thereby his intent.

However, I can still make this fit with my version of your hypothesis.
 In a moment of anger, Harry was able to reach into the well of
viciousness to fuel the spell, but that well of viciousness is not a
comfortable place for Harry. He let a taste of it slip out, but he
simply could not sustain his own presence in that well of Darkness
which would have in turn allowed him to fuel the external projection
of is intent. He did intend to cause Bellatrix pain, but he simply
didn't have the nature to allow him to sustain that kind of
viciousness. Extrenally, he maintained the outward projection of
intent to hurt Bella, but he could not sustain the internal draw on
the source of 'fuel'.

Again, I must ask, is any of this making sense, and does it remotely
fit a version of your hypothesis?



> Neri concludes:
>
> This theory has a slight problem with Harry using Sectumsempra on 
> Draco without meaning it. We can solve this by assuming that 
> Sectumsempra is "dark" but not "Dark", but it might be something 
> else. I think Harry's Sectumsempra wouldn't have worked at all if he 
> didn't hate Draco so much. ...
> 
> Neri

bboyminn:

I think we can agree to agree that the Sectumsempra is probable 'dark'
 rather than 'Dark'. Harry was fuel by his outward projection of
general hate for Draco, but I really don't see him in that moment
drawing from a deep inner well of intent. I think what we have is a
combination of fear and panic. Draco instantly move into the superior
position; Harry was on the wet floor struggling, Draco was still
standing and about to cast an Unforgivable. In that moment of panic,
Harry cast the first spell that popped into his head. When you think
about it, while Sectumsempra may have been effective, certainly
'Stupify' would have been more efficient. 

I have a bit of trouble though with your speculation that the spell
wouldn't have work if Harry hadn't hated Draco. It seems in that brief
moment when Harry sees Draco crying and vulnerable, he has some slight
sympathy for him. Immediately Draco turns and attackes Harry, and from
then on, I think there was very little time to draw on that internal
well of fuel. So while I realize you were simply speculating on
alternatives, I think I will stick to the idea that Sectumsempra is
'dark' but not 'Dark'.

There is one small problem I have with this, Dark Magic seems to
include, by implication, a range of magic. Not all Dark Magic is
overtly harmful. Remember they teach Dark Magic as Drumstrang, that
strongly implies that there must be /lesser/ magic that by some aspect
of its core nature still falls into the catagory of 'Dark'. 

That's the one aspect I have trouble resolving in your, or my version
of your, Hypothesis. However, if there is something 'destructive' in
the creation of Dark Magic, whether destructive because it draws on an
internal well of evil, or the life force of other living things, or
uses ingredient to which a wizard has no right, it seems to include a
full range of magic.

So, in conclusion, I wonder if I have come up with a reasonable
extension of your own hypothesis? Are we on the same page, or at
least, figuratively, reading the same book, or have I completely
misinterpreted things?

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn