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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 161400

> >>Geoff:
> But the fact that Harry tried to use an Unforgiveable at the       
> Ministry does /not/ necessarily mean that he has been seduced by   
> the dark arts.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right, but he wasn't afraid to try it.  So apparently the curiosity 
or the interest is not a problem.  Which I'm fine with, but it also 
means that a willingness to use a certain type of magic doesn't 
automatically make one dark.  (Which agrees with the WW's aurors, 
their best of the best, training to use Unforgivables.)

> >>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.

> >>Shelley:
> I think the definition is very precise: it fully depends on the   
> intent of the user at the time of use. 

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but as in RL, intent is so hard to figure out.  Was Draco trying 
to kill Dumbledore with an intent of gain or an intent of 
protection?  Why did young!Snape invent the Sectumsempra?  Why did 
Harry reach for an Unforgivable when chasing down Bella?

> >>Shelley:
> But, as we see many times in the Harry Potter books, someone is   
> judged only from their outside actions, and the person in not     
> questioned on their intent.
> <snip>
> Thus, many witches and wizards wouldn't go anywhere near a spell   
> that could be considered to have Dark roots or be too close to a   
> curse, out of fear of being punished even if their intent was good.

Betsy Hp:
Which brings the definition of Dark Arts back to a somewhat 
capricious decision based on the fashion of the times.  Especially 
on the lower end of the scale.  Which, again, I'm fine with.  It's 
when the we're asked to judge a character based on his or her 
magical use that I get a bit nervous.  Especially in the case of 
Snape and Draco where I think intent is harder to judge.

> >>Pippin:
> I bet if you asked the list to give specific examples of          
> what 'evil' is, we'd get widespread agreement on a few broad      
> issues and bitter debate on many others. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  And actually, I think this is one of the strengths of the 
series (depending, of course, on how JKR handles the ending), 
because it encourages readers to think about what makes something 
good or bad.  It's not laid out for you, you have to figure it out 
on you own. (Or at least, that's the way I read the books. <g>)

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> But it actually doesn't really seem to be an important part of
> the Potterverse. Not in the way it is in something like Star Wars 
> where you have it laid out as a danger and something a hero could 
> fall to.
> <snip>
> It seems like a lot of times Dark Magic is just the Potterverse   
> version of pornography: We can't define it, but we know it when we 
> see it, and when we see it it's going to be Magic done by a bad   
> guy. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And yet, I think JKR has played with that theory.  Fake!Moody was a 
prime example.  He demonstrated Unforgivables and the kids all 
thought he was super cool.  (They saw him as detached from the 
darkness of the Unforgivables, I guess.)  The way he tortures Draco 
is seen as funny and righteous.  Though we later find out it wasn't 
done in righteous anger at all.

So while I agree that some of the *characters* tend to judge actions 
or magic according to their view of the people doing them, I'm not 
sure they are actually correct in doing so.  (Book 7 will reveal 
whether I'm right in this or not.)

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> It's apparent, though, that the WW has a pretty good idea of what 
> the Dark Arts consist of. Durmstrang teaches them, Hogwarts teaches
> defense against them. Draco says that "we" (Death Eaters) don't    
> need defense against them (perhaps at this point he's still       
> wishing to learn the Dark Arts instead of DADA). Harry knows      
> instantly when he enters 12 GP that he's in a house belonging to   
> Dark wizards (all the Slytherin symbols in combination with       
> gruesomeness, I suppose). 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think the WW *thinks* they have a pretty good handle on what Dark 
Arts are. (Especially with the MoM eager to provide definitions. 
<g>)  But I get the sense that it's actually pretty fluid.  When 
does one leave defense and enter into offense?  

Also, Harry has, I think, a mistaken view of what constitutes "dark 
wizards".  He's been told all Slytherins are dark.  And I'm pretty 
sure he's wrong.  (If this is a healing story, he'll have to be 
wrong about that.)  Not that Harry is always wrong, and not to say 
there wasn't darkness at Grimmauld Place (it was a dying house at 
the center of a dying family -- how could it not be dark?), but I 
think Harry still sees things too starkly at the moment.

> >>Carol:
> The distinction here seems to be degree of danger combined
> with willingness or desire to kill. (A Basilisk or an Inferius is
> essentially a killing machine with no other purpose.)
> Does that help at all, Betsy? If you or I were struck with a hex   
> that caused tentacles or fungus growths to sprout from our face,   
> we'd think that was pretty Dark magic because we'd be helpless    
> against it, but to a wizard, who could probably cure it with      
> Finite Incantatem or some other simple countercurse, it would be   
> only slightly darker than Jelly Legs.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
As Shelley says, it's about intent.  So the werewolf, driven by 
bloodlust is dark.  But Lupin, with his usual human complexities, is 
not dark.  Would a shark be dark, though?  It's essentially a 
killing machine, but without malice really.  So I wonder about the 
basilisk.  An Inferius is a dark creation because it desecrates the 
dead and also it destroys without meaning.  A werewolf is 
essentially a disease.

Hitting Draco with a Jelly Legs is fine.  Hitting Filch with the 
same, or Dudley, would be darker because neither can defend against 
it.  So fluidity is still there.

(And actually, an irony has been the fairly shoddy teachers Harry 
has had for DADA.  Plus the double irony of a DADA professor 
teaching defense against dark creatures while at the same time 
*being* a dark creature, thereby bringing into question the very 
certainty of what exactly is a dark creature.)

> >>Jen: Here's my take on the three main paths to Voldemort, the   
> way I glean JKR's presentation of characters who are his followers:
> 1) Wizards like Lucius who place the pure blood issue above all
> else, who think Voldemort's goal is to rid the WW of muggleborns.

Betsy Hp:
Seduced by the power Voldemort offers, maybe? Or Voldemort's ability 
to quickly realize a political goal.  (This seemed to be a popular 
one, I think.  The WW leaned toward Voldemort for a while because 
they liked his politics, IIRC.) 

> >>Jen R:
> 2) Those who are coopted into service out of fear like Peter.

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, Peter.  Now there's a fascinating character.  Honestly, I think 
Peter was more drawn by power and brutality.  He really seemed to 
enjoy Sirius and James attacking Snape.  I think he likes being 
attached to the most powerful bully in the playground, as Sirius 
said.  There's a sadism element here.  An element that drew Bella 
and Crouch, Jr. to Voldemort's side, I think.

> >>Jen R:
> 3) Those who have immersed themselves in the study of the Dark Arts
> and view Voldemort as a path to magical knowledge. My assumption is
> Snape fits here.

Betsy Hp:
I just don't see this one.  Snape is the intellectual of 
Potterverse, but he seems to have done just fine on his own.  I 
don't see Voldemort playing the part of teacher.  I don't see him as 
a holder of forbidden knowledge.

I think Snape went to Voldemort out of anger, not curiosity.  
Possibly because he agreed with the political views that attracted 
Lucius to Voldemort's side.  

> >>Jen R:
> <snip>
> Snape aleady has the anger, but he also has a growing belief the  
> Dark Arts are the path to something more than what he's           
> accomplished in his regular studies at Hogwarts, something that   
> will give him not only intellectual glory but power over his      
> enemies. Thus he's seduced by the siren call of the Dark Arts as
> the end and Voldemort as the means.

Betsy Hp:
Are you getting all this from the Sectumsempra curse?  It seems like 
a bit of a leap, IMO.  Young!Snape came up with a curse for his 
enemies.  A gruesome one, yes.  But I don't recall anything in the 
books suggesting young!Snape was frustrated by a lack of knowledge.  
That he was trying to learn something Dumbledore had forbidden him.

And I really don't get the sense that Voldemort is the 
representative of Dark Magic, or the Dark Arts.  I agree with Magpie 
that the magic of Potterverse just hasn't been laid out that way.  
Magic is a tool.  You shape it, it doesn't shape you. If that makes 
sense.

Betsy Hp