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

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 176756

> In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/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:
Oh, I didn't mean to imply anything against you. I was just covering 
my butt saying I had thought about Hermione's DA hex/jinx.


> zeldaricdeau:
> 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).

Mike:
Carol pointed out the many places and spells in canon that are 
presented as unambiguously Dark. I bow to her list. So let me tackle 
the moral ambiguity. People seem concerned that Harry "got away with" 
using a Crucio, that there were no signs of remorse from Harry. Or 
that Snape's "No unforgivables from you, Potter", wasn't the 
stricture that we thought it was. And that this means that JKR was 
saying it's OK for the good guys to use Dark Magic.

That's not the meaning I got at all. When Harry is quoting a DE, "I 
see what Bellatrix meant,... you need to really mean it.", that 
doesn't make me think that this curse is no longer suppose to be 
Dark. It meant that Harry used a Dark Curse. Let's not forget that 
wasn't the first time Harry used or attempted a Crucio. Was that OK 
because it was Harry? Why should I think that? Or because it was 
successful, or because we got no overt sense of remorse from Harry?

I see nothing in canon that tells me I should either change my 
understanding of Crucio's Darkness from the prior three books, nor 
that it was OK for Harry to use it. I haven't all of a sudden decided 
that Harry was infallable. I even think Draco's Crucios under 
Voldemort's eye was more forgivable than Harry's disproportionate 
response. Is the lack of remorse at a time when showing remorse would 
have been ridiculous the defining evidence that Harry's Crucio was no 
big deal? Not to me. Harry used a Dark Curse and he was wrong. I 
think we are suppose to forgive him because of the heat of the 
moment, but not excuse him.


> zeldaricdeau:
> 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.

Mike:
I hope we are being manipulated, isn't that what the author should be 
trying to do? And yes, I think we have to bring some of our own moral 
code into our understanding if we are to have any hope of 
understanding the premises JKR is trying to convey. 

I do see where the ambiguity problem comes in and at the same time 
think that if one doesn't change their position on Dark and not so 
dark based on who casts the spell, things aren't as confusing as they 
seem. If you allow that the "good guys" do use bad guy spells from 
time to time, that helps to see the truly Dark. I don't shift my 
opinion on what's Dark, I accept that the "good guys" sometimes use 
them, while knowing that they are wrong to do so. Hermione's DA hex 
has an element of dark to it, justified or not. Is it full on Dark, I 
don't read it that way, not when we have so many more egregious 
examples.

Let's also remember that we follow Harry almost exclusively, so we 
are bound to have more things to point out as dark or Dark from the 
Trio. And what was Lucius' advice to Draco in CoS? Don't be seen as 
antagonistic to Harry, keep out of the way and let whomever is 
openning the CoS get on with it. But when Draco finally gets a 
mission we see him using Imperio to plant a deadly cursed object and 
poison some mead. And I doubt the Crucio he attempted in the bathroom 
was his first. But we didn't see any of it because it was off screen 
until HBP.


> zeldaricdeau:
> How does Harry casting a Dark Spell mean that what is Dark is not 
> determined by who casts it?

Mike:
Have I explained this yet? I hope so, but if not: 
Start with the premise that **only Dark Wizards cast Dark spells.**
Harry casts Crucio.
Either Crucio is not Dark, or Harry is a Dark Wizard.
Since I believe neither of the above two, then the premise is false.
I.e. **Not** only Dark Wizards cast Dark Spells. 
With corollaries, Good Guys *do* cast Dark Spells and 
Dark Spells are not dependent upon who casts them.

Finally, let me add that I think everyone in the Potterverse has a 
little darkness in them. It's a matter of degrees, as zgirnius 
pointed out in her post earlier in this thread.


In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176708

> lizzyben:
> 
> OK... so there's a distinction between "dark magic" & "Dark Magic"
> that's never been outlined in the books at all? What is the
> distinction? Is it simply that it's (lower-case) dark magic when our
> side does it and (upper-case) Dark Magic when people we don't like 
> do it?

Mike:
In the same post you are quoting from, I had said that Dark was 
irrespective of the spell caster, imo. I also said twice before on 
this thread, and in my message above I add for the third time, that 
Harry uses Dark Magic. I suppose at this point it's up to you to 
accept that the message was clear or continue to believe the "our 
side" vs "their side" message. As I've proposed before, the lack of a 
positive does not prove the negative. 



> lizzyben:
> 
> But if it's such an instinctive gut reaction as "I know it when I 
> see it," w/no further definition, how can you be sure that your 
> opinion isn't being influenced by who is casting the spell (i.e. a 
> beloved character or hated character), or what we are told & not 
> shown (Slytherins use dark magic, Gryffindors don't).

Mike:
But I do think it is well enough defined for me to "know it". And I 
trust my ability to understand that definition and not be ruled by my 
emotions when making this judgement call. YMMV


> lizzyben:
> 
> What I guess I'm saying is that the connotations & bias are so deep
> that it's really impossible to look at it objectively - we are 
> totally steeped in the (biased) Gryffindor point of view, even 
> though, upon closer examination, that POV really doesn't make any 
> sense at all. 

Mike:
I suppose if you believe the Gryffindors are bad and the Slytherins 
are good, then you would also believe you are receiving a "biased" 
POV in the worse sense of the word. In this case, I would say we 
truly are not reading the same books. JKR wrote from the Gryff POV 
because she also designated the Gryffs as the "Good Guys". 


> lizzyben:
> I think it's very possible to create a coherent alternate POV in 
> which *Gryffindor* House is really the House of Dark Magic, & our
> protagonists are potentially dangerous Dark Wizards.

<snipping the House A and House B story>


Mike:
Sure, go ahead and write an alternate story too. As long as it's fair 
game to remove all context from canon, we might as well argue that 
Tom Riddle perceived a Dark Wizard was born to two of your former 
House B students and attempted to save the world from his pre-
ordained reign of terror. Nice idea, why don't you write it? In the 
meantime, I'll continue to debate the books JKR wrote. <evil grin>
 

> lizzyben
> Which is the real house of "Dark Magic" here? House A or House B? 
> <grin>

Mike:
Oh, I don't know. So the Death Eaters were really the good guys, eh? 
That Tom Riddle was so loveable, wasn't he? Damn that Harry for 
mucking up the works. <very evil grin>