Dark Magic and Retribution

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 176946

> Mike:
> Yep, lacking a definition from the author, what else do we have 
> besides "interpretation"? Obviously I believe I am correctly 
> interpreting canon. And you also see a difference between the Dark 
> Magic of Inferi, Horcruxes, the Unforgivables, etc. and the not as 
> dark Impedimenta, Stupefy, Petrificus Totalus, etc. So I guess I'm 
> not understanding why you still say you don't see any difference. 
> Unless you really do see Stupefy and AK as equally dark?!

lizzyben:

No, I don't think we disagree that some magic is darker (worse) than 
other - it's just the (Capital) Dark (lower-case) dark distinction 
that doesn't seem to be in canon; it's all just called "Dark". I'd 
classify it major or minor Dark Magic, but that's just an individual 
ways of describing the spectrum of "Dark Magic" from jinxes to the 
UCs. I agree w/you that there is a spectrum; it's not all the same.


> Mike:
> My impression was that the erstwhile DA members saw Draco and co. 
> walk past with wands out and sprang from their compartments 
hitting 
> those three from behind, catching Draco and co. unawares.

lizzyben:

Attacked from behind, yet! That might be right. Still, you'd think 
Draco & co. would've managed to get out one spell before being 
sluggified if they'd had wands ready. Maybe the DA members are 
simply better at this magic because of their training.

> Mike:
> Hexes and jinxes that Hermione looked up in library books and 
taught 
> Harry in GoF for the TWT. Sooo, how should this violate my moral 
> sensibilities? And of course Draco and co. were only planning on 
> hitting Harry with the tickling jinx,... yeah,... right!
> 
> Since ALL jinxes, hexes, and curses designed to attack another 
being 
> have some degree of dark to them, all we have to insist on is that 
> everybody in the Potterverse plays nice, and we can eliminate all 
> darkness. Hmmm, sounds like such an interesting universe, why 
didn't 
> JKR write that one?

lizzyben:

It doesn't necesarrily *offend* me that Harry was teaching kids Dark 
Magic in the DA meetings - it's just surprising, because we tend to 
think of that as a purely defensive group. The DA really was 
learning the "Dark Arts." And they are becoming proficient in Dark 
Magic; again, probably necessary for fighting Death Eaters & etc., 
but then why do all of them seem to view Dark Magic w/such a stigma 
when it's what they themselves are practicing? It seems like it 
should either be seen as a tool used by all sides, or an evil thing 
that only the bad guys use. But the texts seems to want it both 
ways, where both sides use this magic, but the "good guys" pretend 
only the "other" side does. That's the dissonance, IMO.

> > lizzyben:
> > By fifth year, the DA are the real masters of dark magic in the 
> > school. <snip>
> > Isn't it ironic that Hermione lifts spells directly from the 
Death
> > Eaters? 
> 
> Mike:
> Nope, concept, not the Dark Mark itself. I believe that was quite 
> clear.

lizzyben:

She's lifting concepts from the Death Eaters. The Dark Mark is 
a "charmed" tattoo that calls members - Hermione lifted the charm 
for the DA's coins instead. And, as Magpie points out, she says that 
she didn't want to mark DA members' skins, but she ended up doing 
exactly that to Marietta. JKR seems to throw in these ironies & 
parallels, & I'm not sure if it was intentional or not. 

> > lizzyben:
> > 
> > And think about it. Five years, and the Slytherins never *once*
> > successfully hex Harry. In contrast, Harry & co. jinx/hex 
Slytherins
> > quite often. Draco doesn't tend to resort to violence in the way 
the
> > Gryffindors do. He's all about the verbal taunts.
> 
> Mike:
> Why is it Harry's fault that Draco is a bad shot? And where were 
all 
> those successful jinxes/hexes of HRH against the Slytherins again?

lizzyben:

It's not Harry's fault Draco's a bad shot - it's JKR's. If we're 
supposed to accept Draco & co. as bullies, I think we should've seen 
a lot more evidence of Draco initiating hexing, punching, etc. 
Instead, it's the other way around.
>  
> > lizzyben:
> > When you refer to Draco "bullying" the Trio in earlier train 
rides,
> > that's essentially what he's doing. And in book one, he actually 
> > tried to make friends w/Harry. 
> 
> Mike:
> It's usually a good idea when attempting to make friends to bring 
> along a couple of body guards and to make derogatory comments 
toward 
> the one friend Harry has managed to make in his life. Evince ones 
> upper crust breeding and then warn Harry that if he doesn't watch 
his 
> step he could "go the same way of [his] parents". Hell of an 
effort 
> on Draco's part. 

lizzyben:

I won't deny that Draco is an obnoxious jerk, but he wasn't 
*bullying* Harry. He didn't start out from a position of 
superiority, but really from a position of rejection. 


> Mike:
> By book 4, huh? Could you give me one "semi-dark spell", let alone 
> many? I'm assuming you mean in books 1 thru 3 when you say "by 
book 
> 4", and I've acknowledge the train ride scene as the Only one. And 
> which "dark" hex did a Gryff use against an IS member? We don't 
know 
> who hexed Warrington or Pansy.

lizzyben:

Broken record here, but by book four, Harry is using hexes (semi-
dark magic) against Draco & co. w/the boil curse & the train stomp. 
The Gryfs used a wide array of "dark" hexes in order to escape the 
IS members - Ginny used a bat-bogey hex, someone else gave Pansy 
antlers, etc. etc. I'm not saying the Gryfs are using a *huge* 
amount of dark magic against their school enemies, but there is IMO 
a steady progression of the heros using more & more hexes/dark magic 
against more & more people by the end of book 6.

> > lizzyben:
> > Sorry, can't counter w/the mead & necklace - Draco wasn't 
> > aiming at Gryfs or getting revenge, 
> 
> Mike:
> Geez, the two times Draco actually gets Gryffs and it doesn't 
count. 
> What does this poor guy gotta do to get the credit due to him? 
> Besides, he was aiming for a Gryff alumnus, Dumbledore. 

lizzyben:

He could just have easily have killed Pansy Parkinson, or Goyle. He 
wasn't trying to kill DD as part of a tit-for-tat, but because he'd 
been ordered to do so.
> 
> > lizzyben:
> > Big fat bullies is what they are. Two against one is 
disgraceful. So
> > is five against three (GOF stomp) or SEVEN against three (OOTP 
> > stomp). Draco is consistently out-numbered & out-powered in 
these 
> > little encounters, which means he ends up hexed, slugged, 
bloody, 
> > unconscious and the good guys just end up w/a sense of 
satisfaction 
> > at some well-deserved payback.
> 
> Mike:
> Ya know, if Draco is going to insist on acting the ass, you'd 
think 
> he'd learn to bring more backup with him. He continually taunts 
> others until he finds the right buttons to push. Then he's 
surprised 
> that people react to getting their buttons pushed. Not too bright 
for 
> a bully, is he?


lizzyben:

He really isn't. If Draco's the bully, how come *he's* the one who 
ends up bloody, unconscious, hexed, etc. at the end of these 
encounters? Is that usually the way it works? Doesn't the bully 
usually get to beat up the victim, instead of the other way around?

When I first read someone's suggestion that the Trio are aggressive 
towards Draco, I thought "no, *Draco's* the bully." But he isn't - 
he's obnoxious, he's a jerk, but he usually isn't the one that 
reacts violently or aggressively. I think of a bully as someone who 
abuses their power, the strong attacking the weak, the many 
attacking the one. And here, it's usually the Gryffindors that 
respond w/violence to a non-violent provocation -  but we're told 
that Draco is a bully, even though he's not usually the one 
responding w/violence, and is usually the one who's outnumbered. 
There's that cognitive dissonance again. 

And yes, Draco is a horrible person who says horrible things, but I 
still don't think that justifies using force. Because then we're 
edging close to saying that we can use force or violence against 
someone who angers us - and that's not a good lesson for anyone, 
really. And when it comes to Zacharias Smith, he gets hexed w/o 
provoking any encounter at all, simply "because he exists." It 
starts feeling like the heros can use force/dark magic against other
people simply because of who they are. 


> > lizzyben:
> > Would *you* want to make the Gryffindors mad? LOL.
> 
> Mike:
> Umm, No. So why does Draco persist in this endeavor?

lizzyben:

Because it's a set up! Draco does seem to pop up at these moments 
when the Gryffindors are the most stressed or angry, for the same 
reason he popped up in the ROR (very out of character), for the same 
reason he popped up in front of Buckbeak. He comes because the 
author & the plot told him to. And why is he there? Usually, because 
it is time for some payback.

And here's where I feel like we, as readers, are being manipulated 
into enjoying scapegoating & violence. In GOF, our hero Harry had 
just endured a horrible experience, and we are filled w/grief & 
anger towards Voldemort. And here comes Draco w/an obnoxious taunt - 
and when Harry & co. knock him unconscious w/a storm of hexes, we're 
satisfied, we cheer. It's almost a catharsis. I think the same 
dynamic is present in the POA & OOTP Draco-stomps, as well. In 
both situations, the author has ramped up the tension for the 
protagonists & the readers - until a convenient outlet pops up to 
release that anger. We get to release that anger upon a target, and 
in a way that allows us to feel self-righteous about it.

I really like Magpie's post about "devilish fun" & "angelic 
outrage". W/Draco, it's a two-fer - we get the "devilish fun" of 
some payback, retribution & violence; but we also get the "angelic 
outrage" of feeling like this violent action is really a statement 
against hatred, bigotry, & bullies. And that's the dynamic that's 
really being set up here - if they weren't so bad (angelic outrage), 
it wouldn't be so much fun to beat them up (devilish fun). That goes 
not only for Draco, but the Durseleys, too.

> Mike:
> I agree with Magpie, I found Draco hilarious in the CoMC classes. 
Of 
> course part of it was watching him squirm when he was worried 
about 
> what new creature he's about to meet.

lizzyben:

Looking back at the Draco quotes in the HP Lexicon, he has a lot of 
funny lines: 

On the Blast-Ended Skrewt: 'Take this thing for a walk?' he repeated 
in disgust, staring into one of the boxes. 'And where exactly are we 
supposed to fix the leash? Around the sting, the blasting end or the 
sucker?'

And yes, I laughed at the Hippograff attack, mostly because of 
Draco's over-reaction. "'I'm dying!' Malfoy yelled, as the class 
panicked. 'I'm dying, look at me! It's killed me!' 


> Mike:
> Purposeful isn't always in self-defence. Hermione's hex of the DA 
> roster was purposeful, not self defence, imo. Or as you put it, 
> against someone who crossed them - purposeful. I think their use 
was 
> justified, especially since most of the hexes and jinxes I saw 
them 
> use were against DEs. 

lizzyben:

But would you agree that the hexes against McLaggan, Smith, were 
justified? Or hexing Draco & co. for a verbal insult? That's the 
kind of thing that starts to look like bullying, to me.

> > lizzyben:
> > And that wouldn't fly in the real world at all. <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> Whoa. Hexes and jinxes don't exist in the RW, at least that I'm 
aware 
> of. Potterverse is a different world, violence seems to be every 
day 
> occurrences, and they have magic that reverses any damage quite 
> easily. If you are trying to convince me I should apply my RW 
> standards to the WW, I'll ask you, how? I don't have a wand, I 
can't 
> take a potion to regrow bones, and if I fell off a broom from 100 
> feet in the air I'd be dead. How I got that broom to fly, I'm not 
> sure. <eg>

lizzyben:

Well, the big epiphany for me is that "dark magic" essentially *is* 
violence. It's a metaphor for violence in the same way that the 
Patronus is a metaphor for love & protection. And there's different 
levels of dark magic, in the same way that there are levels of 
violence in the real world. But it all still involves the use of 
force to hurt or injure another person.

> > lizzyben:
> > 
> > <snip>
> > And there we enter the mindset of an abuser or a bully. It's 
almost
> > scary how easy it is to be emotionally manipulated into 
supporting
> > violence. 
> 
> Mike:
> Not if you remember that you are discussing a book and the 
violence 
> is more like cartoon violence in their world. After both of the 
train 
> ride smack downs we saw Draco and co. reappear just fine in the 
> following books. That's the way of this world. I accept that as a 
> given.

lizzyben:

Well, the problem is that the rules seem to change drastically. 
Sometimes violence is presented as cartoonish, like w/the Durselys, 
but sometimes it's very serious, like at the Graveyard, and 
sometimes it's just hard to tell. Is throwing Montague in the 
cabinet "cartoon humor" or an attempted murder? You know? He didn't 
recover quickly, & apparantly would've died there. Things that would 
fly in one genre wouldn't work in another, & when there's this mish-
mash of genres in HP, it's not clear what the rules are. The 
characterization of violence seems to veer schizophrenically based 
on who's suffering the violence, who's *doing* the violence, & how 
the narrator presents it (comically or seriously). 

Mike:
> <snip>
Harry already 
> knows that LV wants him dead, he just doesn't know why. Then Draco 
> makes light of Cedric's death. I not only understand Harry's 
> reaction, I find that reaction entirely *justified*. You may say 
that 
> I am being manipulated, I say that I am reacting logically to the 
> situation that is being presented.
> 
> Mike


lizzyben:

You are reacting logically to the situation that is being presented. 
And JKR is doing the presenting. She has a gift for creating these 
awful characters who we just love to see getting their comeuppance 
in the form of hexes, Hippogriffs, centaurs, ton-tongue toffees, pig 
tails, etc. etc. I think the narrative sets us up to get the maximum 
emotional catharsis from these paybacks - but that also means that 
we're being manipulated for that reaction. We *are* being 
manipulated into enjoying violence. 

It's like going along w/the crowd & laughing as the nerd gets 
humiliated. I don't know, I just feel almost ashamed, somehow. 
Probably when I realized that we're seriously expected to think that 
Draco, or Smith, or Montague, etc. "deserved" violence as payback 
for being unpleasant & making the heros angry. After all, if they'd 
keep their mouths shut, they wouldn't keep getting hurt, would 
they? It's their own fault. That's the argument I've heard domestic 
abusers make in real life, so it makes me a little sick to realize 
that I've accepted that worldview here.


lizzyben