Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 176607



Mike:
All I can suggest is a common sense approach. When someone  uses a 
spell for school boy pranks, something that won't have lasting  
*physical* effects, we shouldn't read that as Dark, imo. I say  
physical because trying to judge emotional is way too subjective and  
takes into account way too many variables that cannot be assigned  
simply to the spell.

Julie:
This is a continuing issue in the HP books from the reader's  POV. Every time
you try to nail down a definition--like saying Dark Magic is that which  
leaves
lasting physical effects--something will come up that doesn't fit the  
definition.
For instance, by your definition above Hermione practiced Dark Magic  when
she jinxed/hexed the DA parchement. Marietta's purple pustules/acne  was
long-lasting, and left permanent scarring, according to JKR.  At the  same
time JKR said that she "loathes" traitors, so I think it's  pretty clear 
there that
she wasn't too concerned with adhering to any consistent definition of  Dark
Magic within her imagined universe, but with inflicting a highly  deserved--by
her standards--punishment on Marrietta. It's the same thing with Harry  using
a Crucio on Amycus. When she writes, JKR isn't concerning herself  with
previous implications or definitions presented in the books (such as  Crucio
being an "Unforgivable" Curse, that Harry couldn't perform the curse  against
Bellatrix before because he just didn't have it in him to deliberately use 
torture even against someone clearly evil, etc), but with what gvies her  the
most satisfying emotional payoff in any given scene.
 
It's this inconsistency, and IMO JKR's devotion to writing what works for  her
in the moment rather than what fits coherently with past canon of the  books,
that is most irritating to many of us. (And she  absolutely does not *have* 
to be
consistent if she doesn't want to be. It's her story, thus her right.  But it 
does
leave the stories open to criticism based on lack of  
consistency/cohesiveness.)
 
Mike:
OTOH, magic which has sinister consequences appears to be  classified 
as Dark. There also seems to be the added elemant of intent  thrown in 
there. So, it would seem that a memory charm could be used for  Dark 
purposes, if it were used in the way Crouch Sr used on Bertha or Tom  
Riddle used on Morfin.
 
Julie:
But is a memory charm ever considered "Dark" magic? A wizard can  use
virtually *any* spell for sinister purposes, to injure or even kill another  
wizard,
but we never hear that you can use basic spells in a way that makes  them
"Dark" instead of "Light" (or simply not-Dark). It's all just very  
inconclusive!
(And one could say JKR wrote it that way so each of her  readers could create
their own mindsets about what constitutes "Dark" magic and other  ambiguously
defined concepts within the HP universe, much as she left the character  Snape
deliberately ambiguous until DH. The difference from Snape is that the  many
conceptual ambiguities clearly weren't deliberate on her part, or she  
wouldn't
be trying to define them after the fact in interviews, IMO.)

Mike:

Finally, we are suppose to "hate the Slytherins" because  JKR set them 
up as the "bad guy" house from book/day 1. YMMV, but I think  that it 
is just as simple as that. Any attempts to shoehorn this series  into 
a more complicated moralistic story will meet with frustration, imo.  
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.

Mike, who has no problem accepting the  Slytherins as the bad guys but 
takes into consideration Voldemort and his  kin's influence on the 
house going all the way back to the namesake  founder. And therefore 
figures that with that influence gone, the house  has a chance for 
moderating that bad guy image.


Julie:
Exactly. It was unclear until DH was published whether there  *was* a
deeper and more complicated moralistic story going on beneath the
surface. Many, many readers assumed there was such an underlying
story, which would be revealed in DH, and would in turn reveal JKR as
the extremely talented author (in terms of nuance and complexity of 
writing) that many of us hoped or assumed she was. Alas, it did not
come to pass. She is a talented author in terms of inventiveness and
storytelling, just not quite the er, wizard at tying up details into  the
truly cohesive universe that some of us expected.
 
I believe it is a very valid criticism to say the books would have  been 
better in quality if many of the ambiguous concepts  like Dark Magic had
been defined in a meaningful and coherent way, and if the hanging  plot
threads that ended up abandoned (like House Elf rights) had been  given 
some actual resolution (or had never been started in the first place). 
 
 
The only thing left, as you say and I do agree, is to enjoy the  stories
on their *actual* terms, as inventive and entertaining, but not as  clever
moral allegories, or tightly woven stories in terms of cohesive  plotting.
Which I am willing to do, though I still feel free to insert my .02  cents
into discussion like this one!
 
Julie 




************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]