Nature of Dark Magic - Imperius, Well of Darkness,AK, etc

[ellecain]

No: HPFGUIDX 141331



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> 
> Well, first, my intent in the post I made was to see if I could may my
> original hypothesis fit with Neri's 'Intention' hypothesis which I see
> as flawed. <snip>
> It was an attempt to bring together her idea of 'intention' and my
> idea of 'destructive in its creation'. I switch the projection of
> external intent into drawing on an internal well of 'intent' which I
> also feel is destructive, so that with slight adjustments, Neri's idea
> would fit into my original hypothesis. 

Elyse: Oh yes, I had read the thread before I posted, and I'm sorry for the rather merciless snipping. I wasnt targeting your theory for criticism or anything, I'm sorry if you got the idea that I was  knocking down the hypothesis. Thats not what I was trying to do. I quite like the Well of Darkness idea! 

bboyminn:
snipped...
> 
> Next, we all have a Well of Darkness within us. We all have the
> capability to think of and commit dark, dangerous, and deadly acts
> ...but we don't. So why don't we? Well, we have a internal mechanism
> that stops us; call it inhabitions, conscience, common sense, or
> whatever. The inhibition acts as a barrier between us and the Well of
> Darkness that is in us all.>


> Now the Imperius curse short circuits this inhibiting mechanism, and
> in a state of extremely relaxed euphoria, we are unable to resist the
> impulse that is forced on us, and we are unable to maintain that
> barrier between our conscious selves and the Well of Darkness within.

Elyse: I'm with you here. This goes with Harry's description of being
under the curse. The euphoria it produces suppresses any promptings of conscience or inhibition. I agree that it makes it easier to commit horrible deeds with no compunctions whatsoever.

But at the same time, we have been told that the voice of reason /conscience/inhibition is *exactly* what is necessary to be able to throw the curse off. (Carol nicely reminded me that it cant be cast off with anger or hatred)  

In GoF, when Crouch!Moody Imperios Harry, he tells him to jump on the desk. And it is a voice in Harry's head that says things like 
"Why though?
Stupid thing to do really...
No, I dont think I will,thanks...
No I really dont want to"

This is what finally helps Harry throw the curse off.
And what Moody is asking him to do is  to simply jump on the desk.
Hes not asking him to torture his best friend or muder somebody,
just a small harmless thing like jumping on a desk.
Yet Harry voice of reason is so strong, he tries to stop himself jumping and nearly succeeds.

Later, when Voldemort puts him under the curse, its the same...
"I will not..
I wont answer..
I wont do it, I wont say it.... "
And then Harry throws it off. 
So when youre being forced to kill or torture, shouldnt that voice of reason or conscience or inhibition or whatever be stronger?
It should practically scream itself hoarse, constantly, continually.
I think this is what happened with Crouch when he was in the forest.
But maybe most wizards cant call up their conscience as easily as Harry can. I like Carol's post on that, and I do wonder about Snape....I pasted  Carol's part of it below:

>This talent appears to be extremely rare. I have no doubt
>that Dumbledore had it. Probably Voldemort does, too, and perhaps >the
>ability to resist the Imperius Curse is one of the powers that Harry
>received from Voldemort (along with Parseltongue and possibly
>possession) when the AK backfired. The Crouches (very powerful
>wizards) had only limited powers of resistance, and both of them >were
>experts on the curse's effects. Most wizards (even Snape?) would
>probably be as defenseless against it as Ron and Neville in
>Crouch!Moody's DADA class.

Elyse again: Again with reference to Carol's post, which I think  is linked with Steve's based on this

bboyminn:

 With no inhibitions and with the surrendering
> of your own free will, I think other people can project their
> murderous intent through you. In a sense, the Imperiused person
> becomes an instrument for the actions and intent of another. > 

Carol:
> Here's a possibility, which I think would work whether AK and Crucio
> depend on the intention to kill/torture or the "evil within": Since
> the victim of an Imperius Curse has lost his free will and is acting
> as the tool of another wizard, he requires neither the intent(ion) to
> cast the spell nor the ability to cast it (normally acquired through
> concentration and practice). It's the intention/desire/"well of evil"
> within the wizard who cast the Imperius and is controlling the victim
> that enables the victim to cast the spell

<BIG SNIP>
It's possible that the power required
> to cast an AK or Crucio is transferred along with the will, but if
> that were the case, I think Mulciber would not have been so eager to
> Imperio a large number of people in VW1. Chances are that the people
> he Imperioed were fully qualified wizards with sufficient power of
> their own to cast an Unforgiveable Curse; he would not have wanted to
> deplete his own powers. As for the will to do evil, I'm pretty sure he
> had an unlimited supply.

Elyse:
Hmmm... If I  understand correctly, the person under Imperius 
is like a pipe that you channel your intent and power to  cast an AK into? I like this idea, I like it a lot.
This would mean that if you want your Imperiused victim to commit murder, it would require more than just the euphoric feeling characteristic of the spell. It would mean that you have
to effectively channel your intent into the Imperiod victim so that the intention behind the AK is really your own.
This fits in fine with the intent required of Unforgivables.
So when Krum was Crucioing Diggory, it was Crouch!Moody's intention passing through him into his wand, it was Crouch!Moody's enjoyment of watching Diggory in pain that was flowing into the wand through Krum, and that would explain how he could cast a Crucio even though Krum got no pleasure out of seeing Diggory suffer.

Of course this would mean that the person who cast an Imperius and is channeling intent would be under severe strain doing it.
I imagine he would be depleted of his strength doing so, and if it requires that the power of the AK be the caster of the Imperius as opposed to the power of the victim, then he would have to draw on his "Well of Darkness" too.
So it would involve projecting your dark intentions into your Imperiused victim and channeling the resources of your internal well of evil into him to cast a successful AK. Knew we could fit those two theories together somehow....:>

Poor Mulciber! Bet it took a lot out of him, forcing people to commit "horrific deeds". 
Of course this could be wrong, it could be that the intent and power come from the Imperius victim himself, but I still think were on the right track. 
It explains the creation of Dark Magic, and is inclusive of both Intention and Well of Darkness, both of which make sense to me.
It also absolves good people like Krum of any wrongdoing or evil intentions involved...so it keeps Krum fans happy too!:p

Thanks to Steve and Carol for un-muddling me and taking time to answer. Enjoyed both your posts thoroughly.
Elyse

(who likes the Beta  Text Editor)

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]