Dark Magic and Retribution

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 176975

> lizzyben:
> 
> - it's just the (Capital) Dark (lower-case) dark distinction 
> that doesn't seem to be in canon; it's all just called "Dark".
> <snip>
> I agree w/you that there is a spectrum; it's not all the same.

Mike:
You say po.tay.to, I say po.tah.to. Since it's "not all the same" I 
choose to use capital or lower case to distinguish, that's all. ;)

> 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:
Six against three and the DA kids had the drop on them. Draco and co. 
probably got hit with spells before they even turned around.



> 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." 

Mike:
Just above you've conceded that there is a spectrum. And the DA are 
learning and practicing at the lower end of that spectrum. I asked 
you in my previous post if you could come up with another "purely 
defensive" dueling spell besides Protego. I can't. So, do you 'spose 
the DA should've just learned Protego and then disbanded? Oh, wait, I 
just remembered Expelliarmus. OK that's two, quite a repertoire, 
isn't it?

You've focused on the DA attacking Draco and the other Slyths. Well, 
where would those kids have been in the MoM battle if they didn't use 
those "Dark Arts" spells? Where would HRH be in all of DH? How about 
all the Hogwartians in the big battle? And let's not forget Luna 
stunning Alecto in the Ravenclaw Common room. I'm afraid you 
basically eliminate ones ability to fight if you are going to call 
every spell used to attack another human a "Dark" spell and at the 
same time condemn anybody that uses "Dark" spells.


> lizzyben:
> 
> but then why do all of them seem to view Dark Magic w/such a stigma 
> when it's what they themselves are practicing? 

Mike:
Because they, like you, distinguish between the truly Dark spells and 
those that are only somewhat dark. They see the spectrum more clearly 
than we do, and they know what is over the line. 

How does "dueling dark" strike you as a category? That would be 
spells everyone uses when fighting another human, when dueling. 


> 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. 

Mike:
Well, she used a Protean Charm. Which charm do you suppose Voldemort 
uses to burn in the Dark Mark? As to concept, she admits she thought 
about Dark Mark summoning, but it looks more like text messaging to 
me. ;)



> > Mike:
> > And where were all those successful jinxes/hexes 
> > of HRH against the Slytherins again?
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> 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.

Mike:
And where were all those successful jinxes/hexes 
of HRH against the Slytherins again?



> 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.

Mike:
So, that's it, isn't it? Harry simultaneously throws Furnunculus when 
Draco throws Densuago outside Snape's classroom in GoF. That's ONE 
hex by Harry. One. And Draco had already tried to hex Harry when his 
back was turned earlier in the book. Draco throws two hexes at Harry, 
Harry throws one at Draco. Until the train ride home. Score at the 
end of GoF: Harry 2, Draco 2. Harry wins the tie-breaker cuz one of 
his connected.

Neither scores in OotP, unless you want to count Draco's trip jinx on 
Harry. Draco scores with Petrificus Totalus in the beginning of HBP, 
the nose and finger stomps are just icing on the cake. Then comes the 
big duel in the bathroom. High noon at Hogwarts. Draco started that 
fight. Harry stupidly resorts to a Sectumsempra, a curse that he 
doesn't know the effects. But he did it in response to Draco trying a 
Crucio, a spell that Draco DOES know the effects. Totals for the 
bathroom: Draco 3, Harry 3. Grand total by the end of HBP: Draco shot 
6 (not counting the trip) at Harry and connected with 1, Harry shot 5 
and connected with 2.

That's the canon, that's what actually happened as opposed to 
saying "the heroes using more & more hexes/dark magic". So, that's 
the evidence. That's what you have to hang your hat on to say that  
Harry is this great "Dark Arts" practitioner? 

Of course I didn't count Harry's spells against Death Eaters. I 
wonder if you might consider those in self defense and thereby give 
Harry a pass? Or do you have a different suggestion for how he should 
have proceded against the DEs?

It all comes back to what Steve said. These things don't happen in a 
vaccuum. Using slightly dark magic in defense of your life is 
considerably different from using an unforgivable curse to torture 
into insanity. Context matters as well. 

 

> 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?

Mike:
It's not for lack of trying. Draco is both a bad shot and a poor 
tactician. His arrogance allows him to get into situations where he 
is either outnumbered or unprepared to respond decisively, or both. 
JKR has both set him up for the smack downs and tried to make us 
believe they are justified. 

This is where you make your choice. Did he deserve what he got or 
not? If you like Draco, you'll undoubtedly conclude the treatment is 
too harsh. If you see him as the unrelenting jerk with his priorities 
and objectives all screwed up (guess which one I am? <g>), you see 
his smackdowns as the logical consequence of his posturing.



> 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.

Mike:
McLaggan, no, he wasn't really hurt just didn't make the team. Smith, 
yes, but he's the neutral jerk that gets the pie in the face. Or more 
like the dead fish in his bed. <eg> Hexing Draco - answered above.


> 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.

Mike:
Yes, the WW isn't all sweetness and cream. I would have been highly 
disappointed if I had gotten a story about wizards without a bunch of 
hexes, jinxes and curses. I think JKR trusts her readers to 
understand the difference between these and the really dark stuff. 
I'm not saying she didn't blurr the line sometimes. For the most 
part, good guys don't use the real dark stuff. But once in a while, 
they do. Moral ambiguity? Meh, maybe a little.

Maybe we are suppose to understand that even good guys lose 
their perspective once in a while. And maybe we were suppose to get 
that Draco, for all his posturing, wasn't entirely a bad kid deep 
down.


> 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:
Is that really a problem? When Montague gets stuck in the toilet you 
can't see that that one was cartoon humor? Dudley's tongue or 
pigtail, were you really concerned for Dudley's health? 

There are all kinds of humor in the books, something for everyone as 
it were. You liked Draco's and Snape's snark. Others, maybe not so 
much. I liked the twins quick wit much more than their sight gags. 
But I don't begrudge the slapstick lovers their humor on the grounds 
that it's really just cruel and "not funny at all".

By the same token, I feel comfortable with school kids applying 
playground rules to guide their actions. You may feel that type of 
justice is an indication of an underlying distopia. I never expected 
Harry to fix the world, I just wanted him to make Tom Riddle take a 
dirt nap.
 
Mike