Dark Magic

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 176584

> Alla quotes Rowling:
> "  Q. Voldemort is Harry's real father/grandfather/close relative 
of 
> some description
>    A. No, no, no, no, no. You lot have been watching much too much 
> Star Wars. James is DEFINITELY Harry's father. Doesn't everybody 
> Harry meets say 'you look just like your father'? And hasn't 
> Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving 
> descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify - this means that 
> Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin."
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I mean, if she would have stopped with defusing " Voldemort Harry's 
> father/grandfather", I would have seen nothing contradictory", BUT 
> we know that Voldemort and Harry are related now, no?

zgirnius:
A minor point, but Harry is NOT a descendant of Slytherin. Voldemort, 
through his relation to the Peverells, is a descendant of one of the 
three brothers. Harry, through James, is a descendant of another. The 
father of those three brothers, is a common ancestor of Voldemort and 
Harry. Salazar may or may not be related to any of the brothers; 
there is certainly no reason to suppose that he is an ancestor of all 
three (and therefore of Harry).

> Mike:
> > And not accepting JKR's portrayal of Slytherins as the Bad Guys 
> > is a denial of the way she wrote the story, imo again. If that is 
> > unsatisfying personally, than that's for you (general) to come to 
> > terms with personally.

zgirnius:
It is neither the house from which all bad guys came, nor a house 
consisting entirely of bad guys. I'm afraid I don't even know what 
you are saying, here. What you say later, about it being the house of 
Riddle and most of his followers, seems too obvious to debate. 
Perhaps that is all you mean here?

> Alla:
> Right, that is if you limit Dark Magic to Horcruxes or Inferi. If 
> you expand Dark Magic to majorly hurting other people, then I say 
we 
> get a different picture. Like, sure for example I think Harry used 
> Sectusemptra as in using Dark magic, since Draco was hurt in a 
major 
> way. I think Harry was justified doing it, but IMO it was a Dark 
> magic. Only to twist Mike's words a little bit, I would call it 
Dark 
> magic with intent to defend himself if that makes sense.

zgirnius:
My qualification was intended to show that I meant only Harry's use 
of Sectumsempra against Snape. Snape was not attacking him, so its 
use was not defensive in that instance. And even if he had been using 
it defensively, he knows effective non-Dark spells to use instead 
(the ones Snape used in that scene until he lost him temper, for 
example). Harry used it in the bathroom not knowing it was either 
Dark or ptentially deadly.

 
> Alla:
> Or maybe Mike is right and JKR did not really mean to call hexes 
and 
> jinxes having a touch of Dark magic? 

zgirnius:
With all due respect to Mike, counterjinxes and countercurses are 
both taught in DADA, and students practice defending against jinxes, 
hexes, and curses in that class. Since that is the class for learning 
to defend oneself from the Dark Arts, I conclude that the things they 
practise defending themselves from, *are* Dark Arts. The website 
merely confirms what is clearly shown in the books, in my view.

> Alla:
> Because I still do not 
> remember  James and Sirius using a curse that hurt anybody in a 
> major way and I definitely believe Lily. I mean, was Snape hurt 
> badly after Pensieve scene? I don't know. I am dying to 
> read enciclopedia. I am guessing that she would finally put some 
> definition in, although as I said for the most part it does make 
> sense to me.


zgirnius:
I do not recall Severus using one either. Which makes perfect sense. 
A use of a Dark spell to permanently cripple or kill a student would, 
I hope, result in serious santions even in the Potterverse. Sirius 
walked away untouched in that scene, James had a cut which healed, 
and Severus had a number of bruises. 

> Alla:
> Snape, um, most definitely IMO with his pal Mulciber. 

zgirnius:
Lily never suggests Severus did any such thing. An odd oversight, if 
she believed he did.
 
> Alla:
> Either that OR what they used were not dark magic, but instead JKR 
> making things up on the fly. Or maybe what they used was less 
> serious dark magic.
> 
> I mean, if JKR would meant to stress that hexes and jinxes are big, 
> nasty dark magic, do you think she would have called them amusing?

zgirnius:
There are degrees of everything, this is rather my point. Severus 
inventing a spell to grow someone's toenails, Sirius using the 
Impediment Jinx/Curse on an unarmed opponent, and Voldemort murdering 
Lily, are all instances of different degrees of Dark Magic use. The 
first two, I can see people finding funny. (Actually, I have a bit of 
trouble seeing the humor personally, but after two years in fandom, I 
am able to verify empirically that each of the first two instances is 
considered funny by someone <g>).

As to your suggestion she did not think it through - it's all through 
the books in the form of the DADA curriculum as shown in classes and 
conversations about the classes. She did not, I presume, make the 
books up on the fly?
 
As I see it, saying 'he/she is a Dark Wizard' in the Potterverse 
means not 'he/she uses magic of a sort I would *never* use', 
but 'he/she uses magic I would only use under special circumstances, 
such as in self-defense, to advance his/her political and personal 
agenda through terror'.

And to the extent people saying such things use them on rivals in 
school because it is funny, they are being a tad self-righteous and 
hypocritical. Sirius and James tormenting Severus in that one scene 
did not contribute to making the world safer for Muggleborns, though 
Peter sure got a kick out of it and Sirius was no longer bored, poor 
boy. (Rather the opposite, if I had to guess).

> lizzyben:
> Yeah, it's hypocrisy - hypocrisy that runs right through the novel,
> and right through the series. Without a good definition of the
> distinction, it becomes hypocritical for our heroes to hate someone
> solely for using dark magic. And sometimes I get the feeling that we
> never got a definition because the actual function of dark magic 
isn't
> important. 

zgirnius:
I disagree. The definition is clear. All things called jinxes, hexes, 
and curses are to differing degrees Dark, so are certain creatures we 
see the students learnign abotu, as well as other things specifically 
identified as Dark (Horcruxes, Inferimaking, etc.). I suppose we 
can't really tell about the Marauders' Map, but since its makers were 
an eventual Death Eater and three at least occasional users of the 
Dark Arts, I don't see knowing this point as crucial to the 
underpinnings of either the moral or magical underpinnings of the 
Potetrverse.

It *is* hypocritical for our heroes to hate people for this reason. 
Therefore, our heroes are hypocritical. They are also variously rash, 
thoughtless, cruel, arrogant, manipulative, vindictive, and probably 
otehr flaws that don't leap to mind at this moment. They are also 
variously courageous, compassionate, kind, loving, self-sacrificing, 
and probably possess other virtues as well.

> lizzyben:
> What's important is who is using it. Dark Arts becomes associated
> w/Slytherin house, Durmstrang, Sirius' creepy family - people who 
are
> different and foreign and odd. And the connotation of "Dark Magic"
> makes us feel really good about hating it; almost self-righteous
> about hating it. Dark Magic is evil, right? (When they do it, not
> when we do it.) 

zgirnius:
That is certainly the attitude of many characters in the series. I 
disagree that is its message. What it important is not who is using 
it, but *why* they are using it. The Death Eaters are using it to 
overthrow the government and install a reign of terror against the 
Muggleborns and Muggles, killing and torturing those they consider 
beneath them indiscriminately. The Order are using it to try to stop 
them and protect themselves and others. The kids in school, on both 
sides, are using them as kids will, to practise them and learn them 
and have fun doing it. 

To equate the petty cruelty of the Marauders with some atrocity of 
the Death Eaters is just silly, IMO. I think the author expected us 
to see there is a difference. Just as it is equally silly to equate 
Severus' use of Sectumsempra (or whatever it was) against one of two 
boys who had just attacked him to such an atrocity. The kids' stuff 
is kids' stuff, and the adult stuff is where the moral message was 
intended to lie, as I see it. The real 'Dark Wizards' of the series 
are those carrying out such atrocities.

> lizzyben:
> So when we hate these people, take revenge against
> these people, use violence against these people, we don't have to 
feel
> bad about it - we can actually feel very good & self-righteous about
> it. Normally, you would feel bad about hurting someone, but when 
that
> person is a "Dark Wizard", you can feel like it's actually justified
> as part of a larger battle between good vs. evil... and you are now 
on
> the side of good.

zgirnius:
Who was killed in revenge by the good guys? Someone died in the Seven 
Potters raid, as I recall, so did someone in the Order. Not revenge, 
but a battle, initiated by the 'bad guys'. Bella died, yes, in a duel 
to the death with Molly Weasley, who got into the duel to protect the 
life of her daughter. Voldemort died, when a Dark Curse he cast 
despite being warned not to, rebounded and killed him. Where are all 
these revenge killings I was supposed to vicariously enjoy? I feel 
cheated! <bg>

I did derive a great deal of satisfaction from the victory of 
the 'good guys'. But this is because the book made quite clear that 
they were in a battle of good vs. evil, and good won. YAY! Not 
because the other side used wrong magic (A Muggle such as I could not 
care less, really), but because the other side did things even a 
Muggle such as myself could see clearly were evil, and intended to 
keep on doing more and more of them if not stopped. 

> lizzyben:
> no, Sirius talks about what James hated.
> James *hated* the Dark Arts, and this hatred proves that he was a 
> good person. 

zgirnius:
I took this differently. I thought what needed to be justified in the 
first place was James' hateful behavior, and Sirius grasped that. By 
trying to tie it to the adult political/war picture, Sirius attempted 
to excuse it. He was wrong to try, it was not excusable. James may 
have been a good person, but that was despite what he did to Severus 
in that scene, not because of it.