diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'faith/dark-magic.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | faith/dark-magic.rst | 197 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 197 deletions
diff --git a/faith/dark-magic.rst b/faith/dark-magic.rst deleted file mode 100644 index c9af6fa..0000000 --- a/faith/dark-magic.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,197 +0,0 @@ -Foundations of The Dark Magic -############################# - -:date: 2021-02-06T09:11:36 -:category: faith -:tags: review, harryPotter, blogComment - -(my comments on “`The Light and the Dark`_” by Uncommonality) - -.. _`The Light and the Dark`: - https://www.reddit.com/r/HPfanfiction/comments/gcds32/the_light_and_the_dark/ - -One of the many issues with the universe of the Harry Potter -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 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 a rather hygienic Killing -Curse, painful but time-limited hygienic Pain Curse -(time-limited, because they are useless for torture longer than -few minutes), and the Control Curse, are the very worst Magic -which 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 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 -served). Think about the Kant’s categorical imperative (“Act in -such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or -in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, -but always at the same time as an end.”), or Mark 3:9 (NET): “If -anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and servant of -all.”. - ----- - -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 -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 to achieve something like this. The same goes -for some variant of Imperio … it could be deadly useful for -medicinal purposes. - -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 (which normally chop -vegetables) 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. - ----- - -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 |