diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | faith/augurey.rst | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | faith/dark-magic.rst | 390 |
2 files changed, 154 insertions, 238 deletions
diff --git a/faith/augurey.rst b/faith/augurey.rst index 3395601..ccb6e2b 100644 --- a/faith/augurey.rst +++ b/faith/augurey.rst @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ more appealing (or much disgusting, that’s the same thing) would be if Delphini was either just by-product of some dark magic ritual (which would nicely lead to her being neglected and abandoned) or even intended object (produced by artificial -insemination or its dark magical equivalent) of some ritual. What +insemination or its magical equivalent) of some ritual. What about the ultimate Horcrux created by sacrificing your own child? It would be an opportunity to create truly disgusting dark magic, which would eliminate all those jabbers about grey magic and diff --git a/faith/dark-magic.rst b/faith/dark-magic.rst index 10fcaea..0fc74b2 100644 --- a/faith/dark-magic.rst +++ b/faith/dark-magic.rst @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@ -Foundations of Dark Magic -######################### +Foundations of The Dark Magic +############################# -:date: 2020-05-04T00:52:35 -:status: draft +:date: 2021-02-06T09:11:36 :category: faith :tags: review, harryPotter, blogComment @@ -16,55 +15,58 @@ books, which has never been fully resolved in the books by Ms Rowling is the true nature of the Dark Magic. It is really not explained. Dark Magic is what Dark Wizards do, and Dark Wizards are Dark because they do Dark Magic. There is not much more to -say, only that some curses are clearly labelled as Dark and they -are so Dark, that one gets immediately life-long stay in Azkaban -just for using them. That’s basically all we learn about the Dark -Magic in the books. +say, only that some curses are labelled as Dark, and they are so +Dark, that one gets immediately life-long stay in Azkaban just +for using them. That’s basically all we learn in the books. Moreover, the adult reader is left wondering whether Ms Rowling -is really honest when she says that rather hygienic Killing +is really honest when she says that a rather hygienic Killing Curse, painful but time-limited hygienic Pain Curse (time-limited, because they are useless for torture longer than few minutes), the Control Curse are the very worst Magic which -anybody can impose on other being. Even us, poor Muggles, can do -much worse and be much more nasty than these three curses. The -reader is left to suspect that the author sanitized this list of -Dark curses to make it palatable for teenagers and young adult -readers. - -Let me suggest my personal theory about what is better -explanation of these questions. Moreover, I hope, that the -distinction I want to develop here is useful even for Muggles in -the non-magical world. - -https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/i9h9at/the_character_of_hp_magic/g1flpsp/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 - -I love all thoughts in this thread tremendously. I have been -planning (but not much more unfortunately) to write some kind of -essay (or essay pretending to be record of Flitwick’s lesson) on -the nature of Dark magic, but I haven’t got to it. My pet peeve -how some people tend to consider it something good, but I would -have to sit down on my behind and actually write something to -explain myself. - -My idea is that the “normal” magic (Lumos, etc. … most if not all -spells taught at Hogwarts) are based on the power from the caster -herself. It was the original magic discovered by the Neolithic -people (think Stonehenge), who happily used this magic for their -everyday lives and all was fine. However, then later somebody -(probably some Celtic druids) discovered that one can harness -power of somebody or something else, and that even more power can -be obtained when you don’t leave enough magic for the other to -survive (e.g., human sacrifice). And that’s the foundation of all -Dark Magic, using power of somebody or something (animal, etc.) -else. +anybody can impose on another being. Even us, poor Muggles, can +do much worse and be much nastier than these three curses, and it +doesn’t take too much imagination to imagine much worse and dark +types of torture or killing than that: there is nothing sexual in +nature, no real human sacrifice, not much real torture. Let me +just mention without explanation the tortured child in “`Inner +Demons by serendipity_50`_”. The reader is left to suspect that +JKR sanitized this list of Dark curses to make it palatable for +teenagers and young adult readers. + +Let me suggest my theory about what is a better explanation of +these questions [#]_. Moreover, I hope, that the distinction +I want to develop here is useful even for Muggles in the +non-magical world. + +The original point where I started is my pet peeve how some +people tend to consider Dark Magic as something good. Most +contrarian teenagers reading and authoring fanfiction stories +love the idea that the wrong is right, and that only nasty old +codgers like Dumbledore stops people from using wonderful Dark +Magic. I don’t agree and yes I am an old codger myself. I really +think that Dark Magic taints your soul and yes inability to +produce the super-light magic like Patronus may be one of (many) +costs. + +The idea is that the “normal” magic (Lumos, etc. … most if not +all spells taught at Hogwarts) are based on the power from the +caster herself. It was the original magic discovered by the +Neolithic people (think Stonehenge), who happily used this magic +for their everyday lives and all was fine. However, then later +somebody (probably some Celtic druids) discovered that one can +harness the power of somebody or something else, and that even +more power can be obtained when you don’t leave enough magic for +the other to survive (e.g., human sacrifice). And that’s the +foundation of all Dark Magic, using the power of somebody or +something (animal, etc.) else. There is, not well studied (because nobody cares enough) the -opposite Light Magic, which is not using your own native power, -but willing to sacrifice oneself for others. And that is what -Lily did when protecting Harry. However, as I said, it is very -obscure and not much studied branch of magic, because of lack of -interest. +opposite Light Magic, which is not using your native power, but +willing giving of own magic for others. And that is what Lily +ultimately did when protecting Harry. However, as I said, it is +very obscure and not a much-studied branch of magic, because of +lack of interest. And it goes to rather deeper morale: either we are living for others (to serve them), or we are living for oneself (to be @@ -77,204 +79,118 @@ all.”. ---- - … which would imply that even muggles and squibs have enough - magic … - -I would argue that there is some like vital force or vital magic -which is contained in every human being and which enables us to -live. That is actually part of magic I seriously believe in the -real life. I am a father of two children, I was present at the -birth of both, I was holding them shortly after they were born, -and there is nothing in the world which persuades me that it -wasn’t miracle I have seen there. You can talk to me about the -science and biology of childbirth until you are blue in your -face, and yet I am persuaded that every female has something very -magical/supernatural in herself to be able to create new life. - -Concerning Neville, I don’t think his muscles, bones etc. were -not capable of gymnastics, but as with all such thing it was the -matter of his mind to coordinate all that. And of course, in case -of Imperio exactly his brain is what’s switched off and replaced -by the will of the caster. - -And I am not sure whether it is fanon or canon, but Longbottoms -were claimed to be very strong wizard and witch (see Neville -later, after all). - ----- - -https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/iduokw/dark_wizards_patronus/g2biamt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 - -It’s all turning around the nature of Dark Magic. Most contrarian -teenagers reading and authoring fanfiction stories love the idea -that the wrong is right, and that only nasty old codgers like -Dumbledore stops people from using wonderful Dark Magic. I don’t -agree (as seen from the linked comment) and yes I am an old -codger myself. I really think that Dark Magic taints your soul -and yes inability to produce the super-light magic like Patronus -may be one of (many) costs. - -level 2 FUAllVeryMuch 2 points · 3 months ago -Okay so your comment was about dark magic being magic that takes -from others while light magic is giving for others in a sense. Or -at least that's what I understood from it. - -In that case, what do you gain from casting the cruciatus? Next, -and I'm sure this has come up before, wouldn't intent be more -important? Like it is possible to kill using a basic levitation -charm, so would it have no effect? Also, suppose someone was -about to kill other people, and you kill him to protect the -others, does it taint you? How many times can you cast dark magic -before the taint is permanent? - -level 3 ceplma 3 points · 3 months ago · edited 3 months ago -That was just my basic very general premise. There are many -details where it gets muddy and where the theory needs a lot of +Let’s make an example of using this theory in analysing The +Cruciatus Curse [#]_, which is the least defensible of the +Unforgivable Curses. Redditer `/u/FUAllVeryMuch`_ asked me: + + So your comment was about dark magic being magic that takes + from others while light magic is giving for others in + a sense. Or at least that's what I understood from it. + + In that case, what do you gain from casting the Cruciatus? + Next, and I'm sure this has come up before, wouldn't intent + be more important? Like it is possible to kill using a basic + levitation charm, so would it have no effect? Also, suppose + someone was about to kill other people, and you kill him to + protect the others, does it taint you? How many times can you + cast dark magic before the taint is permanent? + +That ‘giving to others’ versus ‘taking from others’ distinction +was just my basic very general premise. There are many details +where it gets muddy and where the theory needs a lot of development. So, Cruciatus is certainly one such case. I am not sure how does -it work. I could try something about energy for the torture -coming from the tortured, so they are effectively made to torture -themselves, but it doesn’t for Muggles, who can quite certainly -be tortured as well. (BTW, concerning this curse, I was working -for some time for a professor of pathophysiology who was -researching pain; there are medicinal situations where part of +the curse works. I would think the foundation of the curse is +some energy for the torture coming from the tortured, so tortured +people are effectively made to torture themselves, but this +theory wouldn’t work for Muggles, who can quite certainly be +tortured as well. By the way, concerning this curse, I was +working for some time for a professor of pathophysiology who was +researching pain. There are medicinal situations where part of the nervous system is intentionally so overwhelmed with pain, that it stops working, and so it allows some horrible surgery, -e.g. amputation, be done; I wonder whether Cruciatus was -originally meant as something like this; the same goes for some -variant of Imperio … it could be deadly useful for medicinal -purposes). +e.g. amputation, be done. I wonder whether Cruciatus was +originally meant to achieve something like this. The same goes +for some variant of Imperio … it could be deadly useful for +medicinal purposes. -Concerning intent. Yes, that’s another question. With my theory, +Back to the intent. Yes, that’s another question. With my theory, Dark Magic would certainly not cover all bad magical actions. Mrs Weasley with her enchanted knives (normally, chopping vegetables) -can certainly make a lot of damage if she wishes, and that -certainly falls into the original Neolithic magic. - -Concerning righteous killing. Yes, certainly it can happen -(soldiers in war, self-defence), but I don’t think even in such -situations Dark Magic would be allowed. If I understand Bellatrix -Lestrange correctly, you have to want cause pain for the joy of -causing pain, not out of the righteous anger (how did Harry -manage to curse Alecto Carrow? I have no idea, but it was just -one bout of magic, effectively rather painful Stunner, not sure; -or we will rather silently ignore it as one of many -inconsistencies of Mrs Rowling). The same goes for the Killing -Curse … you cannot use it for good reasons, in Self-Defence. You -have to have your soul tainted, you have to want to have somebody -killed just for the Death itself. Yes, Snape could do it as the -former Death Eater, but that’s probably the only one from the -anti-Riddle side. Soliders in war just have to use some other -curse … Reducto/Expulso/Confringo (I still have problem to -distinguish which is which) to your head would do just nicely. - -Notice, that for example we never saw Umbridge using Cruciatus. -She was rather slowly making up her mind to curse Harry, and we -don’t know if she could manage to do it. - -level 4 ceplma 3 points · 3 months ago -BTW, I am afraid, one of the reasons why people are so willing to -accept Dark Magic, is that JKR books were PG-13 and we haven’t -seen some truly horrendous parts of the Dark Magic (nothing -sexual in nature, no real human sacrifice, not much real torture; -e.g., the tortured child in linkao3(Inner Demons by -serendipity_50)), so it doesn’t look as horrible as it -could/should. - -level 5 FUAllVeryMuch 1 point · 3 months ago -True, that and the line "There is no dark and light, there is -only power." - -level 4 FUAllVeryMuch 1 point · 3 months ago -I see. That's a pretty well thought out theory. It does explain -some things quite well. The unforgivable curses have indeed been -defended using the reasons you gave, with the AK being "mercy -killing" cuz it gives an instantaneous, painless death. - -level 4 Sescquatch Slytherin At Heart 1 point · 3 months ago -The same goes for the Killing Curse … you cannot use it for good -reasons, in Self-Defence. You have to have your soul tainted, you -have to want to have somebody killed just for the Death itself. -Yes, Snape could do it as the former Death Eater, but that’s -probably the only one from the anti-Riddle side. - -. - - (Sirius:) The Aurors were given new powers—powers to kill rather than capture, for instance. And I wasn’t the only one who was handed straight to the Dementors without trial. Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects. - -(GoF) - -That said, I also disagree on various levels outside of Canon -objections. On the most technical level, this ignores -- or -presents a too simplistic version of -- human psychology. Not -everyone who wants to kill is necessarily evil. And not everyone -who doesn't kill isn't evil. If a requirement of the Killing -Curse were a desire to kill, then, given the right circumstances, -most people should be able to. People can be one thing thing one -minute and something completely different the next. Yes, some -people operate on absolute principles. And some of them might -even remain unwavering in adversity and temptation. But they'd be -the exception, not the norm. Darkness is in all of us. And it is -this darkness that would fuel dark magic. - -But I don't think I agree that that is how dark magic works. I'm -inclined to go with the phenomenological explanation Rowling gave -us: Dark magic is intrinsically different in that its spells, -used for harm, are difficult or impossible to heal or reverse. -But they do not require different dispositions in the caster; nor -(the Cruciatus curse aside, if Bellatrix wasn't lying) a special -motivation, nor a specific mindset. The most striking example is -Sectumsempra, which Harry uses without even knowing what it does, -beyond it being "for enemies". - -So, it seems to me that dark magic isn't metaphysically -different. This also has the positive effect that it's not the -arbiter over good and evil. It allows for the obvious truth of -being able to do evil without dark magic, and also for the -possibility of conflicted natures like Snape, whose actions -cannot be compressed into a single bottom line of good or evil. - -level 5 ceplma 1 point · 3 months ago - Not everyone who wants to kill is necessarily evil. - -I have never said that. I have said that according to my theory using Killing Curse is necessarily evil. - -Crouch Sr. allowing use of Unforgivables. When Sirius talked -about it, he was specifically saying that Aurors (I guess, those -who followed this order) were getting really close to being as -evil as Death Eaters. Or I would just put it among JKR’s internal -inconsistencies. - -The same goes for Harry using Sectumsempra without knowing what -it is. It is just such world-building disaster, I would rather -not talk about it at all. Whole seven books we are told (heck, -that’s whole purpose of Hogwarts as a school), that doing magic -is much more complicated than just random waving your wand and -saying random weird incantations. Heck, even with study most -students don’t manage even the most simple spells (Lumos, -Wingardium Leviosa) on their first try. And that is not to -mention whole theories about intent being significant (I am not -sure whether it is or it isn’t, but it certainly makes more sense -than this scene). Here we have spell without any diagram for wand -movement, without Harry even knowing what it does (so, whole -intent goes out of the window), and it on the first try makes -significant damage to Malfoy. It just doesn’t compute for me. - ------ - -https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/eyl2tz/magic_corruption/ - -Posted byu/Sphericalism 10 months ago Magic Corruption Prompt - -I'm imagining a story where if a witch or wizard uses more magic -than they have, they kind-of earn debt with the magical universe, -corrupting their physical bodies; not too much to be disastrous -in small amounts, but to have both good and bad side effects. -Like a body part starts changing to a glowyish purple or -something +can certainly make a lot of damage if she wishes, and household +charms certainly fall into the original Neolithic magic. + +Concerning righteous killing. Yes, “Not everyone who wants to +kill is necessarily evil.”, certainly, it can happen (soldiers in +war, self-defence), but I don’t think even in such situations +Dark Magic would be allowed. If I understand Bellatrix Lestrange +correctly, you have to want to cause pain for the joy of causing +pain, not out of the righteous anger. That of course leads to +another side-question: how did Harry manage to curse Alecto +Carrow? I have no idea, but it was just one bout of magic, +effectively a rather painful Stunner, not sure. We probably +should rather silently ignore it as one of many inconsistencies +of Mrs Rowling. The same goes for the Killing Curse … you cannot +use it for good reasons, in Self-Defence or in the war +situations. You have to have your soul tainted, you have to want +to have somebody killed just for the Death itself. Yes, Snape +could do it as the former Death Eater, but that’s probably the +only one from the anti-Riddle side. Soldiers in war just have to +use some other curse … Reducto/Expulso/Confringo (I still have +a problem to distinguish which is which) to your head would do +just nicely. Notice, that for example we never saw Umbridge using +Cruciatus. She was rather slowly making up her mind to curse +Harry, and we don’t know if she could actually manage to do it. +---- -ceplma 2 points · 10 months ago -That is actually quite good addition to my theory about the -nature of the Dark Magic as something fundamentally unnatural. +I have said that according to my theory using Killing Curse is +necessarily evil. And yet, “good guys” once used Unforgivables. +Sirius mentioned (in chapter 26 “Padfoot Returns” of Harry Potter +and the Goblet of Fire): + + The Aurors were given new powers—powers to kill rather than + capture, for instance. And I wasn’t the only one who was + handed straight to the Dementors without trial. Crouch fought + violence with violence, and authorized the use of the + Unforgivable Curses against suspects. + +Which exactly supports my point, when Sirius talked about it, he +was specifically saying that Aurors (I guess, those who followed +this order) were getting really close to being as evil as Death +Eaters. + +Some situations just have to be chalked up as JKR +inconsistencies. Harry using Sectumsempra without knowing what it +is. It just doesn’t make any sense. Whole seven books we are told +(heck, that’s the whole purpose of Hogwarts as a school), that +doing magic is much more complicated than just random waving your +wand and saying random weird incantations. Even with study most +students don’t manage even the simplest spells (Lumos, Wingardium +Leviosa) on their first try, and let us not mention whole +theories about intent being significant (I am not sure whether it +is or it isn’t, but it certainly makes more sense than this +scene). Here we have spell without any diagram for wand movement, +without Harry even knowing what it does (so, whole intent goes +out of the window), and it on the first try makes significant +damage to Malfoy. It just doesn’t compute for me. + + +.. [#] Originally developed in `the Reddit thread on the nature + of magic`_. + +.. [#] This part has been originally developed in `another Reddit + thread`_. + +.. _`the Reddit thread on the nature of magic`: + https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/i9h9at/the_character_of_hp_magic/g1flpsp/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 + +.. _`another Reddit thread`: + https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/iduokw/dark_wizards_patronus/g2biamt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 + +.. _`/u/FUAllVeryMuch`: + https://www.reddit.com/u/FUAllVeryMuch + +.. _`Inner Demons by serendipity_50`: + https://archiveofourown.org/works/601124 |