Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 176596

> Alla:
>
> Sorry, I completely disagree, I think she knew all
> the facts and **still** placed more importance on what Mulciber et
> all
> did to Mary.
>
> I was absolutely convinced that Snape told her his theory.
>
> "He's ill," said Lily. "They say he's ill__"
> " Every month at the full moon?" said Snape.
> "I know your theory," said Lily, and she sounded cold. "Why are you
> so obsessed with them anyway? Why do you care what they're doing at
> night?" - p.674.

zgirnius:
How do you reconcile your view with

> DH, "TPT":
> "I heard what happened the other night. You went down that tunnel by
the Whomping Willow, and James Potter saved you from whatever's down
there-"

zgirnius:
It seems to me, this says in black and white, that Severus did not
tell her that what he faced was Lupin in werewolf form. The exact
nature of the danger he faced is surely relevant to determining how
serious the danger was, how "Dark". (Because, it was by definition
Dark, werewolves in their transformed state are XXXXX rated Dark
Creatures - the classification for known wizard-killers (FBAWTFT)).

She refused to believe it when it was just a theory, and once he knew
Severus did not share his proof with her. It actually sounds like he
did not tell her about the incident at all, since Lily says "I
heard". We are seeing/hearing his attempt to tell his side of the
story, and he can't do his view of it justice, because he is not
permitted to mention the most salient point.

> Alla:
> Eh, do we know any other illnesses at night during full moon at the
> potterverse? Personally I have no doubt that Snape sneaked it as
> his "theory" and told it to Lily. I mean, she **says** I know your
> theory. IMO of course.

zgirnius:
To evaluate the matter, she would have to believe that it was not a
theory, but the truth. Her use of the generic "whatever's down there"
indicates she does not believe it.

> Alla:
> Well, yeah, I know. I was trying to say that her quote IMO can be
> read that Voldemort and Harry are not relatives at all, you know?

zgirnius:
Then I really do not understand the objection. She's not responsible 
for people who jump to conclusions incorrectly based on accurate 
statements she makes in interviews. 

> Alla:
> Good point that, but do they practice defending themselves against
> all hexes and jinxes or only certain ones? Do you see what I am
> saying?

zgirnius:
In Snape's class, we see Hermione defend herself against a Jelly-Legs 
Jinx. In other words, yes, the silly ones too. Snape, who is teaching 
the class, merely instructs them to attempt to jinx one another, and 
repel those jinxes. 

> Alla:
> I was saying that Snape with Mulciber use dark magic
> in the series - sorry that it came up so awkward. I am not also
> saying that we know that Snape used dark magic in the same time or
> place with Mulciber, ever. Does it make sense?

zgirnius:
The list of Dark Magic users in the series is extremely long, and 
certainly includes Severus Snape. I guess I was confused about that, 
because of your mention of Lily. She mentions it only in connectoin 
to Mulciber.

> Alla:
> My point was that JKR seemes to find jinxes amusing in that quote,
> not the characters, even though they obviosly do so too. You know?
>
> If she indeed considers jinxes to be dark magic, I personally find
> it odd that she would call it amusing.

zgirnius:
I guess I disagree. I see a loose similarity between violence (in RL) 
and Dark Arts (in the Potterverse). Violence can be very mild and 
silly (physical pranks) or horrific and very evil (death camps, etc.) 
with a wide range in between. 

To someone who is not a strict pacifist (neither I, nor, I would 
venture to guess, Rowling, are) violence is very hard to classify as 
ethical or not based purely on degree. If I shoot and kill a deranged 
person like the VA tech shooter to save the lives of many of my 
classmates and myself, that's OK, while if I shoot and kill someone 
because I their ethnic background is not to my liking, that's awful. 
In both cases, I have shot a gun at a person. 

Based on the amount of slapsticky magic in the books, I think Rowling 
is quite capable of considering mild physical pranks funny under the 
right circumstances. And they are the RL equivalents of silly jinxes, 
I'd say.

> Alla:
> And is it mentioned that often that they do that? Not sure I
> remember that many, but again cannot be sure.
>
> I mean, we see one lesson with Snape when they do that. Moody
taught
> them to fight Imperius, which is dark of course. We see dueling
> club, which I am not sure proves that they use dark curses, hexes
or
> whatever, if they are dark. What else? Harry teaches them in DA,
but
> again, does it prove that what he teaches against is dark? not sure.
>
> Any other examples? Just asking.

zgirnius:
Yes, two more than the ones you have compiled, thanks!

1) Umbridge's class in OotP. It is about defensive *theory*, and 
again we hear about counterjinxes, etc. There is no need to actually 
practice these things according to her, but it is fairly clear that, 
if they were to do any practical classes, they ought to be on 
countering jinxes, hexes, and curses, as this is what the students 
seem to think will be on their DADA OWL practicals.

2) Hermione's repeated insistence, and Harry's eventual acquiescence, 
that the Prince's spells are Dark. Langlock and the toenail thing are 
not evil curses any more than the spell James used to swell someone's 
head to twice its size was. 

> Zara:
> 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'.

> Alla:
>
> Makes sense to me, actually. But I am not sure I want to write I
> agree with it, since I am sure somebody will throw it back at me
> later on, LOL. So I will just say that I have to think about your
> definition.

zgirnius, again:
Thanks. It is not even really a definition, just my understanding of 
what Potterverse wizards mean when they speak of Dark Wizards or 
using the Dark Arts, in a disapproving way.

I might say that Adolf Hitler was evil because he and his government 
killed lots of people. Yet (see example above) I personally think 
there is such a thing as a justifiable killing of a fellow human 
being. It is just much easier (as in, shorter!) to say the first, 
than to say "Adolf Hitler has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing 
on a large scale against his own population, and launched wars of 
aggression after which he also did the same to the populations of 
other countries, and he engaged in extrajudicial killings of 
opponents of his regime, etc. etc. etc.", even though all that is 
meant by me in the first statement, you know? If someone called me on 
this, the longer, detailed answer is what I would respond with. On 
the other hand, plenty of people who agree that Adolf Hitler was 
evil, would be unlikely to ask that I clarify my statement. The same, 
in my opinion, applies to statements like "Voldemort was a Dark 
Wizard".