Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 161566

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > For example, Lockhart's abilities with memory charms.  The      
> > memory charms aren't dark.  Lockhart's abilities with them      
> > didn't make him a dark wizard.  But the *way* he used them was   
> > bad.

> >>a_svirn:
> I don't know about that, since I can't be entirely sure what      
> *dark* is. But they are definitely evil. 

Betsy Hp:
I was going by what the WW says.  I don't think they consider memory 
charms "dark" magic.  Not the way they fling them about, anyway.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > You know, I wonder if Voldemort didn't employ the "muddled      
> > waters" to corrupt Quirrell? 
> > <snip>

> >>a_svirn:
> We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his   
> soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be        
> corrupted as much as Voldemort did. 

Betsy Hp:
Where did you get that quote?  I couldn't find it.  What I found was 
this:

"I met him when I traveled around the world.  A foolish young man I 
was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil.  Lord 
Voldemort shouwed me how wrong I was.  There is no good and evil, 
there is only power, and those too weak to seek it." [SS scholastic 
paperback p.291]

That quote doesn't suggest to me that Quirrell set out to join with 
Voldemort, nor that he was even contemplating becoming corrupted in 
a desire for... more power I guess?  I think it does point to a 
rather naive young man whose understanding of good and evil was so 
weak he didn't recognize evil when he was confronted by it.

The idea that only those who mean to be corrupted can be corrupted 
is... harsh, maybe?  Wouldn't Ginny (who *did* pour her soul into 
Voldemort) be tainted by Quirrell's brush?  Wouldn't we have to 
assume that Ginny somehow wanted to be possessed?

Huh... I feel like there's a medieval philosopher or artist or 
writer (or all of the above <g>) who's discussed this particular 
road to hell.  Something about empty knowledge or ignorance or 
something?  Does this ring any bells for anyone?

> > Betsy Hp: 
> > If the WW has made the MoM's definitions of dark and light magic 
> > their ethical crutch I can see them being quite susceptible to   
> > that sort of  manipulation.
> > <snip>

> >>a_svirn:
> Actually, I don't believe anyone in the WW pays much attention to 
> the Ministry's definition. The bad guys don't care much because    
> they are bad, and the good guys don't care because "their ethical 
> crutch" is different from that of the Ministry. 

Betsy Hp:
The WW isn't divided between Death Eaters and the Order.  Most of 
the British WW follows the directions of the MoM quite closely.  We 
see that with how easily the MoM sways public opinion. Gosh, even 
Hermione wants things to be "Ministry Approved".

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > Which would suggest that designating light and dark magic       
> > *harms* rather than helps the fight against evil.

> >>a_svirn:
> Basically, it suggests that it's about political struggle, not    
> about struggle against evil.

Betsy Hp:
Which enables evil to slip in.  Like Voldemort does with Quirrell 
possibly, and definitely does in OotP.  As long as the WW keeps 
these arguments on a political level, no one is really trying to 
figure out what is good and what is evil.  Which means no one is in 
a position to fight against evil.

Instead everyone's figuring out what magical creature is up 
(goblins!), and which ones are down (werewolves!).  What virtue is 
in (Courage and Gryffindor!), and what virtue is out (Cunning and 
Slytherin!).  What spells are hip (Obliviate!) and what spells are 
square (Imperio!).

It's a bad foundation to stand on, not very sturdy, easily shifted 
around depending on the political winds.  Recognizing the emptiness 
of the labels puts the struggle in proper perspective, IMO. Gets you 
past the politics and to the root of the issue.

Betsy Hp