Dark Magic

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 176619

lizzyben wrote:
 
> Well, Harry himself does not seem driven by vengeance or hatred at
the end of DH, but IMO the novel itself is. That's the weirdness -
there's a dichotomy between Harry's own arc, and the atmosphere of the
novels as a whole. Even with Harry, he still uses Unforgiveable curses
against bad guy, and though he doesn't use a killing curse against LV,
Voldie is still killed in the end. And that's a happy ending. 

Carol responds:

Good; I'm glad we agree about Harry. As for Voldie, I don't really see
what other ending is possible. He's personally responsible for at
least a dozen murders that I can think of offhand without even
bringing in Cedric Diggory (technically killed by Wormtail) or other
murders committed by DEs on his orders, not to mention innumerable
Crucios, six deliberately created Horcruxes, the Dark resurrection
magic he had Wormtail perform (including cutting off his own hand to
use in the restorative potion). Somehow Azkaban, even with Dementors,
wouldn't suffice. We, the readers, and the WW, have to know that this
time Voldie won't come back. So, yes, it's a happy ending, just as
it's a happy ending when the wicked witch falls into the sea in "Snow
White" or Sauron goes down with the Dark Tower in LOTR. It's a
symbolic end to the specific form that evil takes in a particular
work. And I think it's significant that Harry doesn't kill Voldie. The
Killing Curse Voldie casts on him is deflected onto himself just as it
was at GH. "You don't learn from your mistakes, do you, Riddle?" as
Harry says. So, no, I don't see vengeance as a major theme. I see love
as stronger than vengeance as the major lesson that Harry learns. And
as he's both the protagonist and the pov character, the narrator's
perspective reflects that lesson. (As for that d**ned Crucio, it's
cast *before* Harry's excursion into Snape's memories, so he still
hasn't learned the lesson at that point.)
> 
Lizzyben:
> In my post, I wasn't really talking about Harry's personal arc, but
how "Dark Magic" is characterized throughout the series. And trying to
understand why the definition is so incomplete, contradictory,
confusing, etc. Isn't dark magic an important part of this world?
Isn't it a major reason that we can distinguish the bad guys? So why
don't we ever get an understanding of what it is, or why it's so very
very bad? 

Carol:

Well, I don't agree with you about the revenge theme, but I'm just as
confused as you are regarding Dark magic in the series and, like you,
still trying to explore the concept. I think we can agree that the
Dementors are Dark creatures and that the use of them to terrorize
innocent Muggle-borns is evil. And I think we can agree that the
resurrection magic, with its violation of a parents' grave and its use
of forcibly taken blood of an enemy along with the "w-willingly given"
(not!) flesh of a servant and its violation of the natural order is
about as Dark as we can get (that and the Horcruxes and Inferi). Those
spells and potions, I think it's fair to state, would not be performed
or created by any "good" character in the series, whether that
character is DD or Harry or Snape.

Where we're running into trouble (or confusion) is the hexes and
jinxes and so forth, because if they're Dark, then the Marauders are
hypocrites as well as bullies. I'm perfectly comfortable in believing
that they're both. (I noted how quickly and violently Lupin jumped on
the anti-Snape bandwagon. Too bad he never learned *why* Snape cast
Sectumsempra in in DH.) At any rate, as I keep saying, most of
Teen!Snape's hexes are no darker than those that Harry and Draco
routinely use against each other in the corridors. And I certainly
don't agree that Gryffindor = good. There's nothing admirable about
MWPP in SWM; young Severus is a much more sympathetic character even
when he's torn between Lily and the young DE wannabes, Avery and
Mulciber. (And JKR cared enough about him to give him a detailed
backstory and a redemption scene, complete with spectacular magic from
a dying but determined man.) As for other "ungood" Gryffindors,
Wormtail is the most cowardly character in the series, not to mention
one of the most contemptible, selling his friends to Voldemort in
exchange for his flea-bitten skin. Romilda Vane and Cormac McLaggen
won't win any prizes for courage or loyalty or any other virtue,
either 9though granted we don't see them in DH).
> 
Lizzyben:
> And I submit that we're looking at this backwards - trying to first
figure out what's bad about Dark Magic, then looking at its
association w/Slytherin & bad guys. Instead, maybe it's simply bad
*because* it is associated w/Slytherin & bad guys. Slytherin House was
created first as the house of evil, then bad things got piled on just
so we know that these are indeed the bad guys. <snip>

Carol:
Maybe, but I don't think so. Slytherin House wasn't created by
Hogwarts (as opposed to JKR, whose intentions I don't want to guess)
as the house of evil. It was created as the house Salazar Slytherin
created for "pure-blood wizards of great cunning, just like him" at a
time when Muggles were burning witches and he had at least some
justification for looking at Muggle-borns with suspicion. (Placing a
Basilisk in the CoS was, of course, going too far.) But there's no
indication that early Slytherins were particularly evil or motivated
by what posters insist on calling "racism," a concept that didn't even
exist until the twentieth century. The one Slytherin we see from that
early era, the Bloody Baron, was motivated to commit a murder/suicide
by unrequited love and spent the next thousand years or so as a ghost
wearing chains to symbolize his repentance. (BTW, the BB is surely a
foil to SS, who wanted the woman he loved to live and chose *not* to
commit suicide but to show his remorse for his role in her death in a
much more constructive way.)

At any rate, while Slytherin was certainly the house for cunning and
ambition, the sorting Hat did not hold strictly to the pure-blood
requirement, which we know was violated at least twice (Tom Riddle and
Severus Snape). On a sidenote, I wonder what would have happened to
those two boys had the pure-blood requirement kept them out? (Never
mind; there would have been no story.) It seems to me that the
corruption of Slytherin House into a breeding ground for Dark Wizards,
or at least, potential DEs, begins with the admission of Tom Riddle,
who corrupted some of his (male) housemates and their children (mostly
sons) into becoming first- and second-generation Death Eaters. But
only one student of Harry's generation, Draco, actually becomes a DE
AFAWK, and he regrets that choice. (Two others, Crabbe and Goyle, are
corrupted. Perhaps Goyle is redeemable by his stupidity and loyalty to
Draco; Crabbe, of course, is burned by his own Fiendfyre.)

Lizzyben:
 "Dark Magic" is seen as evil, so Slytherins are associated w/"Dark
Magic". It's all a part of making sure this group is over-the-top BAD
& hate-able. And distinguishing them from the GOOD, courageous &
noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors. <snip>

Carol:
Or rather, Harry associates Draco with Dark magic for no discernable
reason other than Draco's attempt to Crucio him, followed by Harry's
own foolish use of an unknown spell marked "for enemies," which turns
out to be (surprise!) Dark magic--fortunately, Snape is on hand to
cure it. And Severus himself is labeled by Sirius as "up to his eyes
in Dark magic" with no support in the text at all except a yard-long
*DADA* OWL and Sectumsempra. And if he really came to school at eleven
"knowing more curses than half the seventh years," these are still
acceptable "curses" that the average seventh year would know, quite
probably standard DADA spells and imaginative schoolboy hexes of the
Densuageo variety. (BTW, a Slytherin makes a Gryffindors eyebrows grow
down to her feet, but it's a Gryffindor who gives Pansy Parkinson
antlers. For a school that doesn't teach Dark magic, Hogwarts has
some, erm, interesting stuff going on in its corridors. And which is
darker, Serpensortia (easily "sorted out" with Snape's Evanesco) or
Harry's hex that gives Goyle boils (intended for Draco)? Isn't the
Potter calling the kettle "black" here?

Which "good, courageous, noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors" are
you referring to? The Gryffindors I know may be courageous, but
they're rule breakers, often rude or tactless, sometimes arrogant, and
intolerant of any House except their own most of the time. (Hermione
has her causes, notably SPEW, but she's mistaken about their views,
trying to impose her idea of what's right on them, and she doesn't
mind engaging in occasional blackmail. Neither do the Twins.) So,
except for Harry's sacrifice at the end of DH, his "saving people"
thing, which is more likely to cause problems than to solve them, and
the friendship of the Trio, which survives despite some rather severe
testing, I'd be hard-pressed to call the Gryffindors noble. They're
just openly and sometimes recklessly brave (Ron loyally overcoming his
fear of spiders on occasion and saving Harry as Snape planned in DH),
but they certainly have their faults. And what's interesting *to me*
is that the Slytherins have their virtues, love and courage for Snape
and Regulus, family solidarity for the Malfoys, loyalty for Phineas
Nigellus, and a kind of genial coming through in a pinch for Slughorn.
Until HBP, we didn't really see the various Slytherins as people, but
in the last two books we do. And so, I think, does Harry.

Which brings me back to Slytherin and the Dark Arts. Despite an
occasional reference to Dark Arts in association with Slytherin, we
don't really *see* that association except in connection with
Healer!Snape, who applies his knowledge of the Dark Arts to saving the
lives of people who have been attacked by Dark magic (or trying to do
so). In contrast, we see the Gryffindor Peter Pettigrew performing
Dark magic to restore the Slytherin Riddle/Voldemort to his bodily
form, which has been distorted through the Dark magic of the Horcruxes.

Where else do we see Dark magic, not counting Dementors and Inferi?
The first place we see anything associated with it is Borgin and
Burkes, a shop that sells Dark artifacts first mentioned in CoS, and
in more general terms, in Knockturn Alley itself. So maybe that's
where we should look. What distinguishes Knockturn Alley from Diagon
Alley and reputable magical merchants from disreputable ones? Cursed
objects, Hands of Glory, and poisons, to begin with--as opposed to
wands, brooms, robes, and books in Diagon Alley. Admittedly, some of
the items sold in Diagon Alley, especially potion ingredients such as
beetle eyes, seem rather sinister. That is, until we look at what went
into the potion that resurrected Voldemort (and the one that created
Fetal!mort--snake venom and unicorn blood).

Yes, we see Lucius Malfoy in Borgin and Burkes getting rid of
suspicious artifacts, but he's a Death Eater, so it's no surprise that
he and his wife are "bad, Dark wizards" as well in Dobby's words. Are
we getting any closer? Or is "Dark" still just a label placed on
Slytherins as "Other"?

Carol, pretty sure that Borgin and Burkes will provide a clue as to
what's Dark and what's not