Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 161605

> >>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.  And I can see them concluding that 
> > there's no good or evil, just power.
> > Which would suggest that designating light and dark magic *harms*
> > rather than helps the fight against evil.

> >>Magpie:
> I find in reading that the fact is in the WW there is only power  
> when it comes to magic.  Which is not to say that good and evil   
> don't exist, just that magic is magic.  There's not much          
> mysterious mysticism attached to it, and when there is it's       
> usually more a metaphor for the mystery of something else, like   
> love. It's not like they reach for a different kind of magic when 
> they make a Dark Spell. 

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  Magic is a tool.  And it's completely neutral -- like 
gravity.  However, by creating labels for different spells, 
designating one set dark and another light, the WW has set 
themselves up for failure.  They've removed room for discussion. So, 
instead of discussing the ethics of memory spells they simply rely 
on the fact that the MoM says memory spells are good.

So the WW has weakened their ethical muscles.  Which means it's 
easier for a slick talker to explain away evil.  If the WW is 
starting with a false or empty premise, it's easy to knock them 
down.  By getting caught up in their labels they completely miss the 
point and the real battle.  Which isn't over spells but over actual 
intents and actions and goals.

> >>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. <snip>

> >>Carol:
> Exactly. He *chose* to fall into evil, to be seduced by the Dark   
> Arts he was supposed to be fighting. 

Betsy Hp:
Where are you guys getting this from? Canon-wise I mean.  And don't 
you agree that it means Ginny is also evil?  If you don't, how does 
she escape?

> >>Carol:
> Think of Saruman in LOTR, who "studied too deeply the arts of the 
> enemy." He was tempted to *practice* the very arts that he        
> studied, in his case creating evil creatures and trying to create 
> a Ring of Power. Snape can study the Dark Arts, but as long as he 
> doesn't yield to temptation and practice them, he won't be a Dark 
> wizard.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think referring back to LOTR is a mistake.  JKR has set up an 
entirely different magical system here.  There is nothing within the 
Potter books to suggest that the Dark Arts are active in any sense.  
They don't seduce.  They aren't addictive.  They don't turn anyone 
evil.  Snape can study and explore and try out and experiment with 
as many "dark" spells as he wishes to.  As long as his *intent* is 
pure, as long as he's aware of why he's doing what he's doing, he'll 
be fine.

The weight is on the wizard, not on the magic.  There is 
no "forbidden" knowledge in JKR's world.

> >>Carol:
> Quirrell, in allowing Voldemort to possess him, became Dark        
> himself... <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think you're putting the cart before the horse.  Quirrell decided 
there was no such thing as good and evil, so refused to see any 
action as evil, and therefore allowed Voldemort to posses him.

It wasn't the action of possession that made Quirrell dark.  
Quirrell became dark and so allowed the possesson to occur.  
Quirrell decided killing was okay (since there's no such thing as 
evil) so he killed.  *That's* what made him dark.  Not the *way* he 
chose to kill.

> >>Carol:
> Bellatrix, with her sadistic impulses, would naturally be pulled  
> spells designed with no other purpose than to hurt, kill, or      
> dominate, in particular the Unforgiveable Curses. The desire to   
> use them, which would be far stronger than the threat of Azkaban   
> (and whatever damage such spells do to the soul) would be, for    
> her, irresistible--Dark spells turning a potentially Dark witch   
> into a genuinely Dark witch.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Again, I think you've got the order of events backwards.  Bellatrix 
is sadistic and cruel.  So she acts in a sadistic and cruel manner.  
Magic is a tool she uses to do those actions.  That's all.  They 
don't create or feed the sadism in her.  They don't have that 
power.  Bellatrix does, she feeds her own sadism.  Even without 
magic she'd have developed as she does.

> >>Magpie:
> This also leads into a tangent, but I've always honestly wondered 
> if fandom didn't take the Unforgivable thing more seriously than   
> JKR did legally.  
> <snip>
> When Harry tried to throw one in OotP I originally thought that   
> was important in terms of his using this Dark Curse, but it turns 
> out it really wasn't. It was just a teenaged boy looking to throw 
> the pain he felt at someone else. It wasn't that he didn't access 
> the demonic power he needed, it was that he did what he wanted to 
> do and it wasn't torture someone. Harry never thought back on it, 
> nor did anyone else.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  I think this definitely speaks to magic not being an 
instigator of anything.  A person is who they are all on their own.  
The magic is just a tool they use.

It's like if Harry threw a knife at Bellatrix.  It hurts her, and 
Harry's glad.  But Bellatrix sneers that it didn't hurt that much 
and he needs to figure out where to best hit someone if he wants to 
cause real pain.  That's because Bellatrix is into pain and knows 
how to use a knife to achieve that goal.  But that wasn't Harry's 
goal really.

And the knife is just a knife.  It doesn't influence anyone.  It's 
just a tool. 

Betsy Hp