Dark Magic

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 176622

Mus:
> 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. 

zgirnius:
The position I am arguing, I guess, is that magic in the Potterverse 
is morally neutral, as in Earthsea. I disagree that there is no name 
for the other sorts of magic, other than the Dark Arts: there's 
Charms, and Transfiguration, and Potions, and Arithmancy....

> Prep0strus:
> Except that
 he's right.  That's what makes all the difference.  We
> can argue how well JKR set all of this up, but the point is, Sirius 
is
> RIGHT.  Severus's interest and knowledge DID lead him to make
> different choices.  

zgirnius:
Even a clock that is broken shows the right time twice a day. I do 
not believe I am supposed to believe that young Severus the eleven-
year-old on the train, was already irrevocably committed to a career 
of terror and evil as a Death Eater. Sirius Black indicates he formed 
this opinion when Sev was 11. I don't believe him, and even if I did, 
he would have been wrong from what he knew. 

prep0strus:
> Your assertion that Sirius and Severus didn't know
> or do things that are materially different is your opinion.  

zgirnius:
In a sense, yes. But only in the sense that in my opinion, when 
reading and interpreting a novel (or series of seven novels), I only 
need to consider what I actually read in it. I was not shown Sirius 
and Snape doing or knowing magical things that were materially 
different as Hogwarts students. Severus was better at Dark Arts, and 
also at DADA, that I will grant, on the evidence of his Potions book. 
(Also at Potions, though this is not relevant, and not in 
Transfiguration, at which Sirius was better.)

> prep0strus:
> But the thing that isn't
> debatable is that Sirius didn't become a Death Eater, and Severus 
did.

zgirnius:
You will note, please, that I was not debating that. 21 year old 
Severus Snape was a Dark Wizard. 21 year old Sirius Black was a 
member of the Order of the Phoenix. This does not retroactively 
excuse Sirius's behavior as a fifth year, or, if he made it, his 
prejudiced judgment of Severus as a first year.

> prep0strus:
>  A lot of times there can be debate over means and ends and intents
> and causes, but sometimes you look at the big picture and see that
> however much one might want to see into the soul of the dark
> characters and see light and look into the good characters and see
> their evil, there comes a point where it's immaterial.  Mulciber's a
> villain.  Peter's a traitor.  Lily dies protecting her son and 
Neville
> is a good guy.  It's easy to pick apart the way JKR tells us 
things –
> she's made it too easy, in fact.

zgirnius:
I am not picking anything apart. I am in fact, attempting to defend 
the position that there is a coherent moral vision in her story. I 
can't reconcile the idea that Sirius acted properly in either SWM or 
the Willow incident with that. I also don't feel I need to, because I 
think it obvious he did not, and obvious that Rowling meant us to see 
that. Since it matters to you, in the first case, at least, Lily 
herself indicated that in terms I found unambiguous.

I agree Rowling means us to think of those she describes as "Dark 
Wizards" as the bad guys of her universe. I just don't think it is 
important to her that we think they are bad *because* they use a 
certain spell or another. In my opinion, the text makes amply clear 
why they are bad guys without this rather formal distinction she 
makes little effort to uphold. If this really mattered to her, I 
cannot believe she would have allowed DD to endorse Snape's killing 
of him, Harry to use Crucio, or Minerva to use Imperius.

> prep0strus:
> But JKR meant something when she invented dark magic.  She
> failed miserably in defining it accurately, but I for one will still
> accept that somehow, in some way I don't understand, there is a
> difference that is more than mere political spin.

zgirnius:
I think she meant it as a stand-in for, basically, violence/the use 
of force, in real life. It is the jinxes, hexes, and curses that we 
constantly see witches and wizards of every stripe use in combat. 
Good wizards who use Dark Arts are like good Muggles who use violence 
reluctantly, tend to choose limited force when this is feasible, and 
use it only under special circumstances. Dark wizards are like evil 
Muggles who use violence for its own sake, direct it wantonly against 
innocents, use it to further evil causes, and follow a philosophy 
of 'might makes right'.
 
> Prep0strus:
> Well, among other things
 a sorting hat song that didn't make them 
> out to be so bad.  That gave them something resembling a worthwhile
> trait, something one might actually want to have as a part of
> themselves. 

zgirnius:
What is your objection to:
"Or perhaps in Slytherin 
You'll make your real friends, 
Those cunning folks use any means 
To achieve their ends."

The original song that introduced people to the House?

Were I a young and naive Muggleborn of eleven years, I would be 
pleased enough to be Sorted into this House, based on that 
description. I do pride myself on the possession of a set of brains 
that can come up with unexpected solutions to problems and outwit my 
opponents in sneaky ways at times. (Though the Hat would take no time 
at all to send me into Ravenclaw, my obvious home). 

> lizzyben:
> Agree here as well. The one area I differ is that I believe we 
*are* 
> supposed to see Dark Magic as more sinister or bad - kid's stuff or 
> not.  

zgirnius:
I agree, really. The comparison I made in response to another poster 
above is to liken the Dark Arts to violence/physical force in Real 
Life. Other means of resolving conflicts are to be preferred. Kids 
should not use it on one another. It's a bad thing. 

In some cases, though, it is justifiable.

> lizzyben:
> In addition, Sirius says that he comes from a long line of 
> Dark Wizards, & there's no indication that his ancestors were 
> involved in committing atrocities.

zgirnius:
There's Araminta Melliflua, who wanted to legalize Muggle hunting. If 
it was because she preferred not to risk arrest for her favortie 
pastime, she'd count. There's Aunt Elladora, who beheaded House Elves 
when they got too old to carry tea trays. In the more recent family 
history, Sirius has a brother, a cousin, and a cousin's husband who 
are or were all Death Eaters. 

> lizzyben:
> So while I'd agree that 
> the "real" Dark Wizards are the Death Eaters, the text itself isn't 
> so clear. Basically, Death Eaters are the ones involved in the 
stuff 
> you've mentioned, so that's a good term for the designated bad guys 
> here. But the text says that all "dark wizards" or "dark arts" are 
> evil, and that seems to muddle the message a little. 

zgirnius:
I suppose. I just feel that the DH revelation that *all* three of the 
unforgivables were used by the guys in white hats, unmuddled it just 
fine. The good guys don't *like* them, usually, and use them a lot 
less, and we saw that as well.

> lizzyben:
> Well, here in general Gryffindors seem to hate Slytherins because 
> they use "Dark Magic". 

zgirnius:
And all those Slytherins have strong associations with 
Voldemort/Death Eaters. By the time Harry thinks where we can see it 
that he hates Draco for this reason, Draco is a Death Eater who 
plotted to kill Dumbledore. Severus had some association with a group 
of Slytherins that included Bella Black; naturally Sirius will assume 
the worst. Though, I think the people that point out that James and 
Sirius fail to mention this dreadful propensity of Severus's in both 
SWM and "The Prince's Tale" have a point - this may have become a 
talking point as a result of later developments among Severus's 
friends from school.

> lizzyben:
> I do believe that we're 
> supposed to see Slyths, Sirius' family, Durmstrang, etc. as more 
> sinister & evil soley because of the connection to "Dark Magic." 

zgirnius:
Yet Durmstrang's star student befriends a Muggle-born, and *hates* 
Grindelwald and his admirers with a passion, as do many of his fellow 
students. 

> lizzyben:
> I 
> don't think we're supposed to believe that Gryffindors or the Order 
> are using Dark Magic, even though they are.

zgirnius:
As you say, they are. And not just the little jinxes James, the 
Twins, and their admirers may find funny. The Unforgivable Curses! I 
don't see why anyone would think this happened by accident.

> lizzyben:
> Sirius is telling Harry that it's right to hate people because they 
> use "Dark Magic", though their own side uses the same magic. He 
> implies that it was right for Sirius & James to use hexes to bully 
> Snape as a principled stand against the Dark Arts, when it really 
> wasn't that at all. 

zgirnius:
Sirius is wrong. I am confident Rowling would agree, especially on 
the second point, since that is not even what they were doing, and 
since Harry objects right there in OotP on those grounds. On the 
first, it is indiscriminate use for evil ends that is objectionable. 
Though really, I would say the message is not that it is right to 
hate anyone, even Voldemort.

I think it was Carol that pointed this out - near the start of DH, 
Lupin, the last surviving Marauder, spends a page berating Harry for 
his use of the Disarming Charm during the Seven Potters raid. Harry 
gives (or thinks) some good reasons for his choice. Harry later in  
the book uses Crucio and Imperio, but finally wins with, yes, 
Expelliarmus. 

I think James and Sirius (were they alive) would have agreed with 
Lupin, and not Harry, in that conversation. But Harry did the right 
thing. In the end, he proves himself 'a better man' than all of his 
assorted father figures (Dumbledore, our 'epitome of good' and 
Rowling's voice in earlier novels, makes it official). That I see 
things this way makes it really easy to dismiss Sirius's ideas about 
morality any time they don't seem to match Harry's. I do not believe 
he speaks for the author. He expresses a view, that Harry hears and 
heeds for a time, but ultimately rejects.