Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 161374

> >>BetsyHP:
> > IIRC, Hermione gets into an argument with Umbridge over this    
> > exact thing: what makes a spell bad or dark?  Hermione seemed to 
> > conclude that it depended on current fashion

> >>Magpie:
> Do they have that discussion?  
> <snip> 
> So looking at the whole exchange it reads more to me like         
> Slinkhard is being associated with pacifism and Hermione is saying 
> that she thinks violence is sometimes justified (which we readers 
> obviously already know!).  I honestly don't remember any place    
> where they discuss what Dark Magic is, I guess because I assume if 
> they did have that discussion fandom would have pulled it apart by 
> now because we'd all love to know.

Betsy Hp:
The exact quote is this:

"He says that counterjinxes are improperly named," said Hermione 
promptly.  "He says 'counterjinx' is just a name people give their 
jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable."
[...]
"But I disagree."
[...]
"Mr Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, does he? But I think they can be 
very useful when they're used defensively."  [OotP scholastic 
hardback p. 318-319]

Which, yeah doesn't look like they're talking about Dark Magic at 
all. (Well, Hermione was really the only one talking, Umbridge was 
using the old "shut discourse down completely" method.) 

But I think that they are, in a way.  Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, 
so I'm wondering if he doesn't label them as dark.  Would he see any 
form of aggressive magic as dark?

Because again, I think JKR is *very* unclear about what makes a 
certain type of magic, dark.  I have to assume that the WW is 
unclear about it themselves.

> >>zgirnius:
> > I believe there is an implied background position by Mr.,       
> > Slinkhard which makes Hermione's comment logical. Recall that    
> > the chapter titles of his book suggest that it is Mr.           
> > Slinkhard's (great name!!) position that one should in fact     
> > never use magic in combat-problems can be solved by retreating, 
> > negotiating, compromising, etc.

> >>Magpie:
> Yes, that's what I assumed as well--only it drives me crazy       
> because of what's actually said. I have to imagine what the       
> chapter is saying from Umbridge's agenda and Hermione's answer,    
> and then wonder why that argument isn't actually presented. What  
> is presented, imo, makes Hermione look bad, not because she       
> believes hexes can be useful, especially in self-defense (I agree) 
> but because it seems like she also feels it's good to talk about
> hexes she throws euphamistically, as if they're somehow not hexes, 
> and that makes me want to argue with her instead .

Betsy Hp:
I suspect that this is how the WW has been operating though.  
Hermione is like a giant sponge, soaking up the WW's beliefs and 
traditions almost without question.  (She does question some things, 
obviously, what with the house elves. But she seperates herself from 
the Muggle world with vigor.)  So I think she would call what she 
does a "counterjinx" and see that as an important part of not having 
her magic labeled dark.

Magpie mentioned fandom and our desperate need to discuss everything 
to death, but so many of the discussion about dark magic seem 
corrupted by outside sources, IMO.  Like Star Wars.  But the line 
between dark and light magic in Potterverse is just not that clear. 

There are certain spells that the Ministry has outlawed, but they 
can and have changed their minds about it.  So the definition seems 
much more fluid than how Yoda defined the difference between The 
Dark Side of the Force and the Light Side for example.

> >>Betsy HP:
> > <snip>
> > But I don't connect Voldemort with dark magic so much. Mainly   
> > because JKR has failed to do so. She's connected Voldemort to   
> > perversion and chaos. But not to a specific form of magic (I'm   
> > comparing to Darth Vader here.)
> > <snip>

> >>Jen: There's a definite connection between Voldemort and dark
> magic, and dark magic being at least one path to his service.
> Dumbledore tells Harry that despite his privileged insight into
> Voldemort's world, he's never been 'seduced by the Dark Arts,     
> never, even for a second, shown the slightest desire to become one 
> of Voldemort's followers.' (HBP, chap. 23)

Betsy Hp:
Right, but Dumbledore's wrong about Harry's interest in the Dark 
Arts.  Harry tried to throw a Crucio in OotP.  That's why this 
statement confused me.  Does Dumbledore not know that Harry reached 
for an Unforgivable when he was desperate?  Did JKR forget that 
she'd written that scene, or was Harry's failure good enough for her?

I definitely agree that Harry has never, and will never be, tempted 
to *join* Voldemort.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he'd refuse 
to use an AK to kill Voldemort if given the opportunity.  So does 
that mean that the Unforgivables aren't really Dark Arts?  Is that 
what makes Dumbledore's statement correct?  And if so, then what 
*are* the Dark Arts?

> >>Jen R.:
> Coming as that does in the book about Snape's boyhood, plus Snape's
> own characterization of Sectumsempra as dark magic, there's the
> implication he was on shaky ground when he started inventing dark
> curses that caused people to bleed 'forever'.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, I agree that we see Snape's growing anger and therefore his 
shaky ground.  But I just...  IIRC there's a healer whose portrait 
is hanging in St. Mungo's who invented a disembowelment curse.  Why 
wasn't the invention of that curse a bad sign?  I'm just not seeing 
how someone learning that Snape invented the Sectumsempra curse 
could jump to the conclusion that this boy is evil.  Or eager to 
join Voldemort.  (Is the Durmstrang student body flocking to 
Voldemort's side?)

> >>Jen R.:
> What's darker than Horcruxes, btw? 

Betsy Hp:
The only thing possibly darker than the Horcruxes is the ritual 
Voldemort went through in GoF to regain a body.  And that's a toss-
up.  But is that all that constitutes dark magic?  Where does normal 
magic stop and dark magic begin?

> >>Jen R.:
> Maybe Voldemort started out interested in pure blood mania but his 
> later goal of immortality at the cost his soul sounds a heckuva   
> lot like the ultimate dark magic. Not to mention his rebirth which 
> he called Dark Magic. Possession is another one. I guess I'm       
> saying dark magic can be perverted magic for lack of a precise    
> definition.

Betsy Hp:
But it's the lack of precise definition that I'm harping on.  And 
honestly, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that the Dark Arts or 
dark magic is hard to define.  It's a bit more realistic, IMO.  But 
it also means that it's harder to judge someone based on their 
interests.  

And I worry that JKR is trying to eat her cake and have it too.  
She's shaky on what exactly dark magic is, but she'll have 
McGonagall praise Dumbledore for not using some unnamed powers.  
She'll have Harry think about how he despises Draco for Draco's 
interest in "dark magic" without any indication of what exactly 
Draco has expressed interest in.  (Somehow I doubt Harry caught 
Draco pouring over books telling him how to create a horcrux.)

Betsy Hp