Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 161617

> >>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.

Betsy Hp:
I completely agree that every society has to go through these sort 
of descisions.  Equate Potterverse magic with science (which I think 
is the clearest way to look at it) and societies have that sort of 
discussion all the time.  Cloning, stem-cell, you name it, we talk 
about the good or evil of it.

I get the sense that the WW doesn't discuss issues the same way. And 
it might be the snapshot issue, but there's just a... lack of 
engagement from what I've seen.  Their best schools don't seem to 
talk about it at all.

> >>Jen:
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
But, there are ugly aspects to science too.  A nuclear bomb, for 
example.  But the science itself is neutral.  That a torn soul can 
be stored, again it's a tool.  The horrific part is deciding to kill 
someone to further your own life.  So it's still not the magic, it's 
the human being doing the action.  Because it's *killing* that tears 
your soul.  Not killing by magic. (At least, I don't recall Slughorn 
specifying that it has to be a magical killing.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So the WW has weakened their ethical muscles.  Which means it's 
> > easier for a slick talker to explain away evil.
 
> >>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:
I might be equating fandom's version of Potterverse magic with the 
books, but I really get the sense that unlike todays society, the WW 
just doesn't discuss these things.  They go with the flow. Something 
gets called "dark", that's it, it's dark.

And while we *do* call actions legal or illegal, we tend to see our 
tools as fairly neutral.  Though of course, some items lend 
themselves to illegal behavior more than others.  Rifle versus 
machine gun, for example.

> 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.  

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but the magic doesn't actively seek out to change Voldemort.  
It's like, if you were trying to build an automic bomb in your 
basement and you suffered radiation poisoning.  It's not that the 
evilness of the bomb reached out to change you.  It's the dangerous 
nature of the materials involved.  Voldemort is ripping out pieces 
of his soul, and that effects him.  The magic is still passive.  
Still just a tool.

> >>Jen: 
> 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. 

Betsy Hp:
Ah the love thing.  I'm still unclear about what this is exactly.  
Harry certainly isn't an above average loving person.  His mother 
provided him a physical shield of some sort which is great, but 
still just a tool.  And Harry won't think of joining Voldemort 
because Voldemort killed his parents.  Which isn't magical at all.

So I'm still not seeing an active magic that actually shapes the 
user any more than any tool will. 

Betsy Hp