Yes! That's what always bugs me. Defence Against the Dark Arts seems like it would be more aptly named Defence Against Dark Creatures. I mean, I get that it might be handy to be able to fight off a vampire, but it's not really a Dark Art, is it? Either you're a vampire or you're not. It's not something you need to learn.
I guess Rowling was just at loss for how to make DAtDA seem fun and interesting if it involved a lot of learning how to counter curses and such...
This has always been a niggling question of mine -- what was taught at Hogwarts before Dumbledore became Headmaster? Because, really, the characters in the past are referred to as having taught themselves spells -- the Marauders, for instance, with that clever map and becoming animagi, Snape with those clever curses he created and those better potion-brewing methods he devised. Anyway, I wonder if Hogwarts didn't simply teach students common spells and curses and counter-hexes and jinxes, but gave them a theoretical knowledge of magic that they could then apply to creating their own spells, et cetera.
I don't see Hogwarts turning out very many Nicolas Flammel's, for instance. I don't see any people using magic creatively (which the books are clear is possible). And I don't know if it's just me that wants Rowling to explain this, and I don't know if I'm alone altogether in thinking that it's an interesting line of inquiry.
But! My feeling is that the current dearth in DADA instruction is due, in part, to Dumbledore's position as Headmaster (and, perhaps, with the standardized testing? OWLS, NEWTS? That strikes me as the sort of thing that creates by-rote learners, as opposed to innovative students).
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-03-07 12:07 am (UTC)I guess Rowling was just at loss for how to make DAtDA seem fun and interesting if it involved a lot of learning how to counter curses and such...
This has always been a niggling question of mine -- what was taught at Hogwarts before Dumbledore became Headmaster? Because, really, the characters in the past are referred to as having taught themselves spells -- the Marauders, for instance, with that clever map and becoming animagi, Snape with those clever curses he created and those better potion-brewing methods he devised. Anyway, I wonder if Hogwarts didn't simply teach students common spells and curses and counter-hexes and jinxes, but gave them a theoretical knowledge of magic that they could then apply to creating their own spells, et cetera.
I don't see Hogwarts turning out very many Nicolas Flammel's, for instance. I don't see any people using magic creatively (which the books are clear is possible). And I don't know if it's just me that wants Rowling to explain this, and I don't know if I'm alone altogether in thinking that it's an interesting line of inquiry.
But! My feeling is that the current dearth in DADA instruction is due, in part, to Dumbledore's position as Headmaster (and, perhaps, with the standardized testing? OWLS, NEWTS? That strikes me as the sort of thing that creates by-rote learners, as opposed to innovative students).