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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 161510

> > >>a_svirn:
> > <snip> the curse of lycanthropy   
> > does bear a strong resemblance to possession.  The trouble is 
that 
> > no one usually thinks the possessed persons "dark" or evil. 
They   
> > are regarded as *victims* of Evil, not agents of it.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Not in the WW though.  At least, not when it comes to werewolves.  
> My understanding is that once a human is infected with the werewolf 
> curse, they *become* Dark Creatures.  They are, by definition (and 
> legally apparently) Dark.  As such they *are* considered agents of 
> evil. 

a_svirn:
Well, certainly, but the question is by what (whose) definition? We 
have sort of established (I think) that werewolves aren't 
*intentionally* dark. Therefore either they aren't really dark, and 
it was an unfortunate mistake that they were labelled as such, or the 
definition is not what we think it is. 

 
> Betsy Hp:
<snip> 
> Werewolves have been designated Dark Creatures by the MoM.  As per 
> the WW's political center, Lupin is a Dark Creature, full moon or 
> no.  And if Grayback wasn't a werewolf, but still liked to eat 
> people, he'd be sick and wrong, but not automatically dark.
> 
> An argument was made (by Shelley, I think?) that the difference 
> between dark magic and good magic rests on intent.  But since 
intent 
> is so hard to read, the WW shied away from spells they felt only 
> those with bad intent would use.  Which would give certain spells a 
> bad reputation and lead to them being labeled "dark".
> 
> But it still comes down to fallible human-beings deciding what 
magic 
> is okay and what magic is dark.  

a_svirn:
Which, to use Draco's words, is a bit of a joke, isn't it? Fudge and 
Dolores Umbridge aren't exactly moral authorities.