OOTP Chapter Thirty-Six: "The Only One he ever Feared"

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

* You know, Rowling, when you’re trying to create in your readers a sense of sadness that one of the main characters has died, it’s probably best not to have Neville coming in with his comedy broken nose voice. It sort of distracts from the pathos of the moment.

* Oh dear, Harry almost loses Bellatrix in the spinning room. Luckily, though, “the plot room seemed to have been waiting for him to ask” how to get out. So that’s alright, then.

* Harry tries to use Crucio on Bellatrix, but because he’s not enough of a sadist only succeeds in knocking her over. Fortunately he’s going to remember her advice about needing to enjoy the pain of your opponent (much better, in fact, that he seems to remember any of his school lessons), and by the end of Book Seven he’ll be torturing with the best of them.

* So is part of the reason why the Cruciatus is considered so bad the fact that you can only cast it with malevolent motives, unlike most spells, which don’t seem to be much affected by your mental state?

* “I know spells of such power that you, pathetic little boy, could never hope to compete—” A pity we never get to see any, then, or find out what makes them so powerful. Is it the effect they have, the effort needed to cast them, both, neither…?

* Voldemort appears, rendering his whole “I don’t want to enter the Ministry and alert them to my return” thing a bit pointless.

* Also, it would have been better if, instead of monologuing like this, Voldemort had just AKed Harry as soon as he appeared. What is it with this man and pointless, time-wasting speeches?

* “Months of preparation, months of effort… and my Death Eaters have let Harry Potter thwart me again…” Well, to be fair, Voldemort, it was a pretty stupid plan. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that you deserved to fail.

* I suppose that Dumbledore fighting Voldemort with all those magical creature statues helping him is supposed to be symbolic.

* “‘It was foolish to come here tonight, Tom,’ said Dumbledore calmly.” I’d think that addressing Voldemort by his real first name would be an incredibly cool thing to do, were it not so obviously copied from the Obi-Wan/Darth Vader scene in Star Wars.

* Albus refuses to kill Voldemort because “we both know that there are other ways of destroying a man… Merely taking your life would not satisfy me” – so he’s saving Voldemort from death in order to inflict something even worse on him. Yup, that man’s the epitome of goodness, alright.

* “Merlin’s beard – here – here! – in the Ministry of Magic! – great heavens above – it doesn’t seem possible – my word – how can this be?” Well, Minister, if you’re curious, I could recommend having a few words with your head of security, for starters.

* Dumbledore starts telling Fudge what to do. Ordinarily I’d think this was insufferably arrogant, but after being falsely accused of spreading panic for the past twelve months, I think I can forgive him for enjoying his vindication.

* I assume that Hogwarts usually has some sort of anti-Portkey wards, else any half-competent wizard with a wand would be able to teleport right into the middle of the castle. But this raises the question of how Dumbledore managed to send Harry Portkeying to Hogwarts. Does the Headmaster have the power to remove the magical protections around the grounds? But then Umbrige is in charge now, not Dumbledore. Or does Dumbledore count as the “true” Headmaster, and therefore get control over the wards, sort of like how only the true Head can get into the Office?

Comments

[corycides.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, the books were never entirely clear on what Dark magic actually was or even its legal status. Was it illegal to use Dark magic in particular - as opposed to the Unforgivables in particular - or to own items of Dark magic? Was it only illegal if the use of them caused harm? If so why weren't half the students arrested and imprisoned? I don't have the books on hand but how does a spell that makes you spit slugs or one that turns your bogeys into bats qualify as anything but Dark?

Defense Against the Dark Arts could have given a clue, but it seemed mostly about fighting magical creatures. What classes we saw about opposing the Dark Arts didn't seem to reference their corruptive influence and focused more on what seemed like simple duelling.

My personal interpretation is Dark magic was any magic that was powered by emotion and desire, as such it was unreliable and unpredictable but powerful. Dark curses are a subset of that, in that are Dark magic spells created with the intent to harm.

Dumbledore disliked it and preferred the intellectual arena of light magic spells, that were all about precision and education.

Another author - I think Alan Garner? - used a similar division in his book between Wild Magic and High Magic.

So Sectumsempra being Dark makes sense to me.

[oryx_leucoryx]

So why are the Hallows Dark?

It was Terri who pointed out that one reason for the confusion in canon is that different people are using the term in different meanings, that this division is relatively recent and political, and that we see these differences in action in the conversation between Lily and Severus.

Dark Magic Doth Never Prosper, Part I

and Dark Magic Doth Never Prosper, Part II

[oryx_leucoryx]

OK, I posted links to Terri's essays on the Dark Arts, they'll probably show up eventually. If you want to find them yourself, look up the tag 'dark arts' in her journal. The important bit: The confusion about the Dark Arts in canon is because different people use this term to refer to different things, this division is relatively recent (was created by Dumbles as a political tool). A lot of things that people like Lucius or Severus or Xeno consider Dark are not pointed out as such to newcomers to the wizarding world or to Dumbledore's supporters. The Hallows are Dark. The sword of Gryffindore is Dark. The Patronus is a Dark spell. The more sophisticated magical healing is Dark. etc.

[oryx_leucoryx]

You know, I disagree with you about Albus. He was not distrustful of emotion, he worshiped it. And he was distrustful of intellect. At least, other people's intellect. Which is why he worked hard to dumb down the curriculum of Hogwarts even before he became headmaster. No, Albus saw his and Gellert's intellect as their downfall, as he tells Harry, and Harry's emotions as Harry's and everyone else's salvation. He wanted people to follow emotions over intellect, only special people such as himself could be trusted with intellect, and even that only after they learned not to overdo it.

[corycides.livejournal.com]

I disagree back :)

For me, Albus is someone who might *use* emotion, but doesn't trust it. No matter how much bonhomie and quirky old gent he waved about, he didn't let anyone get very close to him. He had been burned by letting his heart rule his head, and, being Albus, decided that if he couldn't be trusted with it, then no-one else could be.

Harry's emotions were useful, but only because Albus was there to guide them. He didn't really trust Harry's emotions at all, not until he spent a long time carefully shaping Harry into someone he trusted to act a certain way given a certain stimulus.

So Dark magic (in my idea of it) is unpleasant to him because it is all about the depth of emotion. Wand magic which is more precise and logical resonates more with his idea of how things should be. If you do a and b, then you get c. No amount of wanting or needing will change that.

Not that Dumbledore liked people being too clever either. He liked a certain sort and level of cleverness, the sort that Hogwarts was designed to create. He didn't want people who thought new things, but people who were good at thinking about appropriate things. A tamed, bureaucratic sort of cleverness, if that makes sense?

Although, of course, when it came right down to it he didn't really trust anyone other than himself.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Wait, now you're distinguishing between Dark magic and *wanded* magic? That makes no sense. We know of three spells agreed by all parties to be Dark (the Unforgivables) and all seem to require a wand. Sectumsempra also seems to require a wand and is possibly Dark or possibly not. Nor is precision vs emotion (into the latter of which you're incorporating intent it seems) the clear axis on which it turns. The AK is driven by emotion/emotional intent but is also quite precise - it's not a vague or diffuse spell, but one that must be aimed carefully to be effective and seems to act analogously to a bullet that cannot be stopped, only reflected around until it hits a living target. It kills, and does nothing else. That is, in area, in kind of damage, and in the kind of target it can effect it is quite precise. Sectumsempra meanwhile can be cast with varying precision: compare Harry's wild use of it to Severus' no less furious but carefully controlled use of it to nick James' cheek - which did not apparently even leave a scar.

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

Dark magic is about the depth of emotion? But the Patronus charm, which is apparently as Light as you can get, is magic generated by emotion.

[oryx_leucoryx]

There is no such thing as 'light' magic. There is Dark and non-Dark. And yes, in the non-Dumbledorian, non-crude sense the Patronus may indeed be Dark. As are the Hallows, and who knows how many other spells, objects and forms of magic.

[sunnyskywalker]

As to legal status - that opal necklace in Borgin & Burke's has a Dark curse on it, yet he doesn't feel the need to keep it hidden in the back and only show it to special, discreet customers. It's right out in the open, labeled. So I think it's a fair bet that you can own and sell some Dark artifacts legally (even ones which are explicitly labeled as THIS IS MEANT TO HURT YOU). The poisons Lucius wants to unload aren't legal, but they seem to be an extreme case. Also, all of Knockturn Alley is said to be full of Dark stuff, and it operates entirely openly and legally, even if some Gryffindors think children shouldn't wander there unsupervised.

Some spells the kids learn at Hogwarts are not identified as Dark, but still rely on emotion, such as "Ridikkulus." Lupin teaches that one to all the kids openly, but no one ever then comes back and accuses the Hogwarts staff of hypocrisy for saying Dark magic isn't taught at Hogwarts. So, either it's ill intent only which defines it, or Ridikkulus only isn't Dark in the crude sense, which is good enough to pass as not Dark at all according to modern definitions.

Finally, we know Durmstrang teaches the Dark Arts, yet no one seems particularly worried about inviting Durmstrang students into the school for that reason. Ron is more worried about them being an opposing sporting team and potential romantic rivals. He never starts worrying that Krum or any of his classmates are bad seeds who've been taught to channel hate regularly. Even after they know the headmaster was an actual Death Eater, the characters don't seem particularly worried that Durmstrang might be a factory for baby DEs who will be sneaking into England to fight for Voldemort. (I'm counting adult Order members here too, not just HHR, who can be clueless about such things.) No one bats an eye at inviting a Durmstrang alumnus to Bill and Fleur's wedding in the middle of VoldWar II.

I'd say if the Dark Arts were only about using emotions like anger and intent to harm to fuel harmful spells, none of this would be the case. All Dark objects and spells would be illegal, and at least some of the adults would be seriously concerned about inviting dangerous, nasty kids into the country and would warn the kid characters about it in unambiguous, "stay away from them all because they're murderous sociopaths in training" terms. So I think it's also fair to conclude that Xeno is right and there is some non-crude sense of Dark magic which is totally legal and not seen as harmful (or at least no more than any "Light" curse, at least not immediately), even by some of Dumbledore's supporters who claim to consider it bad in general.