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

[muscatel1988]

No: HPFGUIDX 176613

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> 
wrote:
> So what is it then? If mean-spirited, violent, aggressive spells
> aren't dark, if even unforgiveable curses aren't dark - what is dark
> then? Why are we supposed to hate the Slytherins for using "dark
> magic" when we don't even know what that is, or how it's any 
> different from what our guys are doing?

Since I'm not myself a practitioner of any sort of magic(k), I 
thought it might be useful to see what sort of views are out there 
about the nature of "good" and "bad" magic; my first port of call was 
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_magic), and what I read 
there is interesting in the distinctions it draws, although it 
doesn't in the end make JKR's magic any more of a piece.  

In what follows, I've prefixed quotations from that site with *.  I 
hope this is acceptable List practice.

* BLACK AND WHITE MAGIC
*
* The differences between black magic and white magic are debatable, 
* but theories generally fall within the following broad categories:
* 
* All as One: All forms of magic are evil, or black, magic. This view 
* generally associates black magic with Satanism. The religions that 
* maintain this opinion include most branches of Christianity, Islam, 
* Judaism, and Hinduism. Some people on the left-hand path would 
* agree that all magic, whether called "white" or "black," is the 
* same. These people would not contend that all magic is evil so much 
* as that morality is in the eyes of the beholder -- that any magic 
* can have both good and bad consequences depending on who judges 
* those consequences. In this school of thought, there is no 
* separation between benevolent and malevolent magic because there is 
* no universal morality against which magic can be measured. 	

We can safely reject this as Rowling's view.  Many of her critics 
hold it, of course; it is, at least, a coherent position.

* Dark Doctrine: Black magic refers to the powers of darkness, 
* usually seen from a Left-Hand Path point of view. This may or may 
* not contrast with White magic, depending on the sorcerer's 
* acceptance of dualism. 

And this.

* Formal Differences: The forms and components of black magic are 
* different, due to the different aims or interests of those casting 
* harmful spells, than those of white. Harmful spellcasting tends to 
* include symbolism which seems hazardous or harmful to human beings, 
* such as sharp, pointed, prickly, caustic, and hot elements combined 
* with very personal objects from the spell's target (their hair, 
* blood, mementos, etc.). This distinction is primarily observable in 
* folk magic, but pertains to other types of magic also. 

The symbolism referred to here is interesting because there are two  
procedures in HP which it recalls. 

The first is the ritual that Voldemort and Peter perform in the 
graveyard, arguably the major turning point in the series – it's 
difficult to see it as anything but the Darkest of Dark Magic, and it 
resonates as such for the reasons that skelkins gave in Post #40118.  
The other, of course, is Polyjuice Potion, which is possibly, in 
terms of what it's used for in the narrative, the most important 
object in canon – it's a plot device in CoS and DH and  the entire 
narrative of GoF depends on it.  It's an interesting case because not 
only is it crucial to the story, but it's also a device that used by 
both White Hats and Black Hats.  When it's first introduced, it's 
played largely for comic effect, in spite of the fact that it has a 
grim side even there (Hermione gets her own potion so wrong), but we 
can hardly object to it since the Trio are using it for relatively 
innocent purposes.  When we next encounter it, it's used for Evil 
effect, and we get to see what underpins it in Moody's trunk: the 
metaphorical rape of another human being.  When we see it next, in 
the production of Seven Harries, it's used between consenting adults, 
but the doubts by now have been raised (for this reader, anyway).  

When it's used by the Trio for getting into the Ministry, it's hard 
to regard it so happily.  There's an uncomfortable theme of abolition 
of will in this book: Hermione's dispatch of her parents is one 
example, and while the mugging of Mafalda Hopkirk (Stunned), Reginald 
Cattermole (Puking Pastilles) and Albert Runcorn (Nosebleed Nougat) 
can be seen as end-justified means, but when we remember that the 
last time we saw the Twins' products being used as a plot device (the 
Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder), the division between Nice Magic 
and Nasty Magic is becoming blurred.
  
If it is true that a hallmark of Black spells is that they involve 
the metaphoric rape of another person, then both of these spells are 
strikingly parallel, and their crucial use in the narrative is 
telling.  Are we supposed to draw an analogy between them?  If so, 
that analogy can't be that one is Dark and the other not, or Barty 
Crouch would not have used Polyjuice.  (May I apologise here to any 
and all who must have drawn an analogy here between the two before – 
a search didn't show up such a post, but that must be due to my inept 
searching.)

* No Connection: Black and white magic are both forms of magic, but 
* are completely different from the base up and are accomplished 
* differently, even if they achieve similar effects. This stance is 
* the one most often presented in fiction, including the Harry Potter 
* series. In such books, the two classes of magic-users are portrayed 
* as being both ideologically and diametrically opposed. 

I find the reference to HP here interesting, because it seems, post-
DH, that there really isn't any difference between the two types.  
It's particularly interesting for this reader because it brings up 
what seems to me to be a recurring problem with the books, to wit, 
JKR doesn't seem to have decided what magic actually is in this 
world.  In Lewis's world, magic derives from straightforward Powers – 
God and Satan, if you like – in Le Guin's Earthsea, magic is not 
inherently dualist at all, and the narrative arc of the books (at 
least the trilogy) derives from Ged's misuse of power; there is evil 
in the universe, but magic itself is neutral.

I'm reminded here of Lee Kaiwen's post at #172309, where zhe argues 
that the way that magic is portrayed in the WW betrays a confusion 
about its nature.  Apart from the trite fact that some humans are 
born magical and some aren't, which, again given Earthsea, isn't an 
explanation, we're never presented with any rationale for magic.  In 
fact, magic is portrayed in contradictory fashion.  One of the first 
things we learn about it is that just knowing the effect one wants to 
produce isn't enough, or Scabbers would be butter yellow.  This is 
reinforced by Flitwick ("Swish and flick, remember, swish and flick. 
And saying the magic words properly is very important too -" 
[PS10]), and look at all the practice that the DA needs, and that 
Harry needed in GoF.  My second thought when Harry did Imperius and 
Crucio was "How did he learn?"  (My first was "What the hell?")  
Where, in other words, did he learn the wand movement?    We were 
told that these things are important, but then, they no longer are.  
And at the same time, the series is bookended by two children, Harry 
and Ariana, whose untrained magic was instinctual and unfocussed, 
with unpredictable results, the first time as comedy, the second as 
tragedy.  But if learning the correct incantation and the right wand 
movement aren't important, what is the point of having formal 
training in the way we're shown (apart, that is, from the author's 
need to have Hogwarts in the first place)?

* Separate but Equal: Black and white magic are not exactly the same 
* thing, because black is black and white is white. According to this 
* theory, the same spell could be either white or black; its nature 
* is determined by the end result of the spell. The majority of 
* religions follow this belief, as does the remainder of fiction that 
* does not follow the No Connection theory. [Mus: yes, I know this 
* seems to contradict the statements about religion earlier.  I don't 
* know why.]

This is, actually, after DH, the position that makes the most sense 
of the WW.   But then the author's distinction between Dark Magic and 
the Other Sort makes no sense.  In fact, there's a telling fact about 
the two types of magic: while the existence of Dark Magic is 
established early on, the WW doesn't seem to be dualist, in that it 
doesn't have a name for the other sort of magic. 

Mus, who before July 21st never expected to be thinking about how 
badly it all went wrong.