Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 161615

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.  

Jen: Then every society fails because all have to take a stab at 
designating right and wrong and fail to do it perfectly. We're 
seeing a snapshot in time of what the WW has decided so far.

The conversation between Slughorn and Riddle was a defining moment 
because Sluhorn made a moral statement about the WW:  Killing tears 
a person's soul, magic used to murder someone is not only legally 
wrong, it actually harms the person casting the curse and therefore 
magic can't be neutral.  JKR doesn't have to explain the outcome of 
every spell on a person's soul and psyche, we can extrapolate out 
from there.

Now I would have liked to know that bit *sooner*, but JKR just isn't 
linear.  When an issue comes up, it comes up.

Betsy Hp:
> 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.

Jen: Not to harp (well, maybe I am <g>) it's just this is the 
dilemma of every society, too.  We can say an action is legal or 
not, but society will find it difficult to legislate intention or 
goals.  Action is definable and measurable and usually the focus of 
laws. The others have potential power but are unrealized until they 
translate into action.

Betsy Hp:
> 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.

Jen:  This isn't how I read it even though I agree with you JKR 
hasn't laid out her working theory in an organized way so much as a 
metaphorical one.  Take the change in Voldemort's physical body 
in "Lord Voldemort's request", the magic he is pursuing has 
irrepreably altered him and we find out later that pulling pieces of 
his soul out of his body did this to him.  He is using magic as a 
tool, yes, but it's a two-way street: He uses the magic and the 
magic changes him.  

Another metaphor is Harry's power to love.  This power is one part 
Harry, one part 'the curse that failed' and one part Lily's 
sacrifice.  Magic changed him, gave him a protection against 
Voldemort that differentiates him from others who have been lured to 
Voldemort's side for whatever reason.  It hasn't changed him on the 
outside that we know of, but it's affected his soul according to 
Dumbledore. 


Jen R.