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

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 176792


> > 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:

It looks like we're on the same page there. The spell is dark (or 
not) regardless of who is casting it. 

> > 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:

Yet you also say that you hope that the author is manipulating our 
emotions - and that is her job. 

> > 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:

Oh, no, I don't believe Slytherins are good & Gryffindors are evil. 
I don't think JKR intended much ambiguity there - she clearly wrote 
Slytherins as "the bad guys." I've even argued that they might be 
damned in a Calvinist sense. But, as you say, the author has total 
control in how she manipulates readers' emotions & perceptions. And 
here, IMO readers are practically being pounded over the head w/the 
mantras of "good Gryfs" "evil Slyths". It's almost like propaganda - 
in fact, that's how propaganda works, as well. Engaging people's 
emotions by using code words & resonant metaphors that can serve to 
dehumanize the other. And Harry Potter hits all the buttons. The 
Slyths aren't just bad, they're troll-like, monkey-like, 
evil, "Dark", thuggish, racist, ugly, Nazis, nasty, fat, selfish, 
etc. etc. etc. It's over-the-top - throwing in the entire kitchen 
sink of negative imagery.

What puzzles me is this dichotomy between what the author tells us & 
what she shows us. That's what doesn't make sense. I mean, if we 
truly are supposed to see Slyths as the bad ones, why is it that we 
usually see Gryffindors beating *them* up instead of the other way 
around? Why do we see more Gryffindor bullies than Slytherin 
bullies? It's odd. 

> > 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:

Well, that's exactly what I was trying to do - remove the "context" 
from the canon & just report the events. "Context" is all the 
imagery of "good, noble, wonderful Gryfs" vs. "evil, ugly, nasty 
Slyths" that permeates the narrative. I just took the same events & 
gave it a different spin - and it's amazing how much more sinister 
House B students start to look once you start referring to them 
as "Dark Wizards" "gang" "dangerous" etc. It's all about the code 
words.

And also, I was pointing out that the Gryffindor students use an 
awful lot of violence against other students. In fact, if you did a 
comparison, I bet you'd find many more incidents of Gryffindor 
students using "dark magic" against Slytherin students than the 
reverse. And "dark magic" hexes are essentially violent spells of 
different degrees. Why is that we so often see the "good guys" 
using "dark magic"? Isn't that supposed to be a Slytherin thing? 
Except it isn't.

Mostly, what happens is that a Slytherin student (or Zacharias 
Smith) enters the scene, says something obnoxious, and is quickly 
hexed/cursed/jinxed by the Gryffindors as payback. Draco's the best 
example of this - I think his role is to be, essentially, target 
practice. Violence is satisfying, but it's even more satisfying when 
you really feel like that awful horrible person *deserves* it. Draco 
keeps popping up just when our heros are most stressed/angry to 
serve as a much-needed outlet for their anger as he is hexed into 
oblivion. And most often, it's the Gryffindor students that seem to 
use "dark magic" spells against other students who annoy them.

But the imagery has so manipulated us into associating Dark Magic 
w/the "other" we don't even really notice this. That was my point, 
really, w/the different spin on the events. If you take away the 
context, it's easier to see just how many examples of this there 
really are.  

> > 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>
>

lizzyben:

I wasn't referring to Voldemort there. I was referring to all the 
various incidents of Gryf students using violent/dark magic, 
hexes, etc. against other students at Hogwarts. And what does one 
have to do w/the other? Yes, Voldemort is evil. What does that have 
to do w/Hermione hexing McLaggen so Ron can get on the team? Or 
Ginny hexing Smith cause she doesn't like him? etc. Which students 
do we most often see using dark or violent magic? It think it's the 
Gryffindors. Yet they sincerely believe that they *hate* the Dark 
Arts, & the Slytherins who practice it. That level of projection & 
hypocrisy is just facinating to me. And JKR did it! Why? Why didn't 
we see bad Draco using tons of dark magic hexes instead of good 
Ginny? 

Well, IMO, it's because we are being emotionally manipulated into 
enjoying violence. That's why we most often see the "good guys" 
engaging in these sorts of spells. If Draco hexed Harry, we'd be 
angry, but when Harry hexes Draco - we're amused. Minor dark magic 
is described as "irritating, but amusing", right? Amusing to whom? 
The caster, not the victim. In this series, readers are placed into 
the role of the caster of dark spells, the bully, the prankster, and 
get a vicarious kick out of the violence they inflict. And, because 
the victims are usually so unsympathetic (evil, ugly, nasty, Slyths) 
& the caster is so sympathetic (heroic, good, noble) we don't even 
need to feel bad about it. 

Probably the best example of this is the ferret-bouncing incident. 
Harry, and the readers, laugh when Moody transforms Draco into a 
ferret & bounces him against the floor. Because Moody is a 
sympathetic character - a good guy, who's giving some deserved 
payback to a bad guy. If we had seen the Death Eater Crouch 
transforming a student & slamming him against the floor, it wouldn't 
be so funny - cause then we'd see it as a bad guy torturing a 
student. But it's the same exact incident; the same exact violence. 
The role of the caster determines how readers perceive that use of 
violence - whether we approve or disapprove. And IMO *that's* why we 
see more examples of Gryffindors using dark/violent magic against 
Slytherins than the other way around - it's more amusing & enjoyable 
that way. Slytherin students are the "bad guys", and also 
the "whipping boys" for the Gryffindor students. One role serves the 
other. If they weren't so bad, it wouldn't be so much fun to beat 
them up. 


lizzyben