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

[zeldaricdeau]

No: HPFGUIDX 176702

> Mike:

> I did answer the question about Hermione's jinxed DA roster. 

zeldaricdeau:

Sorry if you've answered it elsewhere. I've tried to keep up with all 
the posts but I only get to the list twice a week on average and 
well ... there's a lot to keep up with :).

> Mike:

> I said it was dark magic, just not Dark Magic. I also clarified 
> that not all spells that have long term effects are Dark as a spell 
> that has no long term effects can still be called Dark. IOW, there 
> is no single litmus test. 

Certainly, in the real world things would be much easier if there 
were a single litmus test for moral issues like this. And I don't 
mean to sound like I want any such test for the Potter universe, but 
I would like a little more consistency than we seem to get.

> Crucio is Dark, yet it's effects could be over almost instaneously.
> Obviously "deserving it" has nothing to do with what is Dark Magic. 
> So, I suppose you'd like to know whether this makes Hermione a
> "Dark Witch"? 

zeldaricdeau:

Well, I would and I wouldn't. I get the impression that JKR would say 
no and thinks we should be in total agreement. In fact I suspect 
she'd be really surprised that there's so much debate going on in 
places like this about the nature of Dark Magic. And I wouldn't argue 
with her or you about Hermione's status as a "Dark Witch." I *don't* 
think Hermione is a Dark Witch any more than I think Harry is a Dark 
Wizard. But those responses are all on that gut level that ties up 
all the plot holes and moral ambiguity and makes the books make 
sense. I'd like to know what's driving that gut level reaction. It's 
like JKR wants us to both be absolutely sure of what's good and 
what's bad (so we have these instinctual reactions to the actions of 
certain characters) and at the same time wants to tease us with moral 
ambiguity and ethics questions (when is it ok for a person to use an 
Unforgivable).

And to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that you were saying that 
Marietta deserved it. I'm just trying to find that key that Rowling 
wants us to see (and which clearly some of us see instinctually) 
which tells us why Hermione's curse was ok and, say, Imperio is not.

<snip>

> As to where we draw the line, I guess that's really two questions. 
> Personally, my line is defined by "I know it when I see it". 

That's where my question is I think: HOW do you know it when you see 
it? What cues is the book giving people like you and me that makes 
us "know it when we see it?" Is it just that we're importing our own 
moral codes or has the book set us up to know when and how to 
respond? Are we just being manipulated into seeing right and wrong or 
are we being given a coherent structure of principles by which we 
could, theoretically puzzle out what is Dark and what is Not Dark.

> And it is not defined by who casts the spell. Canon's line? The 
> $64K question on this list, aint it? But I'd venture to say that 
> Harry casting Crucio, and canon depicting Crucio as Dark Magic 
> proves to me that canon doesn't define it by who cast the spell 
> either.

I think I'm a little confused by this. It sounds like what you're 
saying is that Harry casts Crucio which the books present as Dark 
Magic and therefore, the books do not define what is Dark by who uses 
them. But I have trouble seeing how one leads to the other here. How 
does Harry casting a Dark Spell mean that what is Dark is not 
determined by who casts it? (I'm not trying to say that the books ARE 
saying that Dark Magic status is determined by the caster, mind).
 
> Now, do ya wanna ask me if Harry is a "Dark Wizard"? LOL

I just want to know how we know if he is or not (and no, *I* don't 
think he is). For many people (not everyone and I've certainly not 
read all the posts) "how we know" seems to be boiling down to either:

1.) because of a gut reaction that can't easily be traced to a 
cohesive structure of principles in the books.

OR 

2.) because the books are manipulating us into believing in an 
inherently hypocritical point of view (moral status defined by who is 
doing the deed and not the deed itself).

-ZR