A Gathering of Snapish Views (from others)
I'm cutting and pasting in a bunch of quotes from the loose_canon board of responses I got to my ideas about Snape and Dark Magic. It's for my own use, and I'll put it behind a cut, but if anyone wants to see it, have at. First and foremost, though, a link to a most excellent essay by bohemianspirit. If you missed that one, it's worth a look.
And now the excerpts from loose_canon posts:
from silvialaura2002:
Jodel has a great essay on the magical theory on her site, and a part
is about wands being used to prevent magic to take over the caster:
http://www.redhen-publications.com/Vanity.html . I think it's in one
of the compressed files.
silvia again, answered by whitehound:
(silvia) Snape's description of the Dark Arts in HBP sounds like a more
convincing description - as something evolving, as opposed at the
rigid distinctions and coded way of doing things taught at school
(wh)I'd forgotten about that speech. It does actually suggest that Dark
Arts may be a special cass of magic - something more amorphous and
fluid than the organised amgic taught at Hogwarts.
Coud Dark Arts be primarily wandless, channelled thorugh the caster
and so both seductive and potentially damaging? It would be a bit
like taking cocaine. The Native Americans who first devised it take
it in minute amounts, so it acts as a stimulant and does little or no
harm, but there's always a risk of being seduced by it, of taking
more, of feeling the rush of power and then being destroyed by it.
conversation between myself and whitehound:
(hob)Thanks for this. Some very good points. I have to say, though,
that I never read Snape's comments about the Map as a serious
assessment-- more a needling the supposed Dark Arts expert about
something Snape must have had some strong suspicions about, and not
just because he'd caught Harry with it.
(wh)But it had to be a *reasonable* thing to needle him about - it had to
be possible for it to be true. You wouldn't point at a book of
knitting patterns and say "What are you doing with that counterfeit
money?", because it would just make you sound mad. It had to be
possible that a parchment which on the face of it did nothing except
make cheeky remarks really was Dark magic. That;s possible and eve
likely if Dark magic means "involving demons", because there could be
a spirit trapped in it - but how could a rude parchment even semi-
seriously be taken for a soul-suckig Evil?
(hob)I think you're right about the demon idea, and your points about
how the Good side prior to this AU start obviously uses things like
dementors and curses for its own purposes are well taken. Though
there, too, I always read the dementors and use of Unforgivables in
the last war as evidence of the Ministry's corruption.
(wh)Yes, but I wasn't talking about Unforgivables. I was talking about
the Reductor curse, which is on the syllabus, and Locomotor mortis
and Petrificus totalus, which Harry learned from books freely
available in the library. There's no clear definitiion of a curse -
personally I think it's a spell which *coud* potentially be harmful
and whose effects are in one way or another especially strong.
***
another response by whitehound, quoting bits of the original essay
(hob) Dark Magic is unadulterated Evil, and it is somewhat sentient, fed and fueled by the elemental spirits of this world.
(wh)This makes sense in terms of real-world magical traditins, but not so
much sense in the HP universe. We see terms like Dark magic and
curses thrown around quite randomly, and yet some things which are
labelled curses are on the curriculum. Defence Against the Dark Arts
seems to involve defence against any sort of aggressive spell - and
why would Snape suggest that a parchment which insulted people reeked
of Dark magic?
I have suggested myself that Dark magic may be magic involving
demons, which is what you'd probably mean by it in real magical
traditions, and in that case Snape might mean the parchment had a
spiriit trapped in it - something like Peeves, perhaps. But he'd
hardly accuse it of being a soul-sucking Evil.
(hob) It Wants to be used, because each time it is used, the collective Darkness is fed by the life force or magic of living beings.
(wh) In that case, the Dementors are Dark magic, and the Ministry is using
them openly. I mean, I think they *are* Dark, very dark - but the
Ministry tries to promote them as a Good Thing and On Our Side.
Could it do that if they were the very epitome of a unified force
defined as Evil with a capital E?
Persdoally I think you'd be better going with the demon idea. That
way, there's a risk of all the things you mentioned - of being
seduced, of being sucked in - but it's not as immediately obviously
dangerous and Evil, and *can* be controlled and even used for good by
very skilled practitioners. That explains the ambiguity, why Remus
is definted as a Dark creature (because the were part is a demon,
without necessarily being outright evil) and why Sev erus might think
a talking parchment was Dark.
That still leaves you to wonder why he'd call Sectumsempra Dark
magic, though - since as far as one can see it is neither demon-
powered nor soul-sucking.
(hob) Young Severus Snape wanted knowledge and to undo the victimization he'd suffered in childhood and at school. He would be more powerful than those who sought to hurt him, and he would achieve the recognition and acclaim he'd been denied.
(wh) Except according to JK he joined because he was insecure and wanted to belong to something bigger than himself, and because he thought it would make him look cool and thereby impress Lily.
(hob) I posit this because Tom is, at best, evil with the small E if
all he's got is bigotry and the desire to live forever. Even as a man who
kills and tortures others, he's hardly a threat to the World Itself.
(wh) That depends on how grandiose his ambitions were. Look at the amount of damage Hitler or Pol Pot managed to do with obsessive bigotry and conventional Muggle weapons. If Tom wants a wizarding hegemony everywhere in the world, he could turn out to be Pol Pot with nukes.
(hob) He's more Faustus than Antichrist. And in my story, he needs to be Evil.
(wh) Sure - but that's an AU scenario.
(hob) But it's important to note that my Snape *was* a Death Eater-- he was wholeheartedly following the Darkness when he joined Voldemort,
(wh) Acording to JJK he was an insecure teenager who wanted to look cool. And the internal evidence in the stories, and her comments at interview, suggest he was never very fierce and probably never killed.
What you need him to be for your story is a different matter.
(hob) And it certainly explains how he could be so verbally and emotionally nasty to those around him
(wh) He's much less emotionally nasty than Dumbledore, and as for being
verbally nasty this really needs no explanation except stress, a rather spiteful temperament and a northern English cultural tradition which values both sarcasm and blunt speaking.
(hob) In some ways, seeing the world like this solves some Dumbledore sized problems-- D serves the light, but he is hardly its embodiment. Like an impious priest, the man's faults or lack of faith do not affect the reality his ceremonial actions represent.
(wh) That would be useful, if the rest of it fit.
(hob) In other ways, it's even more of a problem-- how does Dumbledore with the same character flaws not get seduced by the darkness himself? Or does he and then pull back for much the same reasons Snape does?
(wh) Because it would mean handing over control to another entity?
(hob) Because the Prophecy-- that only Harry can be the one to cause Voldemort's end-- is another of the Elemental Truths of this story's universe. It has and creates a Reality of its own.
(wh) I think it has in the HP universe too, whatever Albus says. It may
not be immutable, but it at least describes a very strong probability
which it would take great effort to avoid.
And now the excerpts from loose_canon posts:
from silvialaura2002:
Jodel has a great essay on the magical theory on her site, and a part
is about wands being used to prevent magic to take over the caster:
http://www.redhen-publications.com/Vanity.html . I think it's in one
of the compressed files.
silvia again, answered by whitehound:
(silvia) Snape's description of the Dark Arts in HBP sounds like a more
convincing description - as something evolving, as opposed at the
rigid distinctions and coded way of doing things taught at school
(wh)I'd forgotten about that speech. It does actually suggest that Dark
Arts may be a special cass of magic - something more amorphous and
fluid than the organised amgic taught at Hogwarts.
Coud Dark Arts be primarily wandless, channelled thorugh the caster
and so both seductive and potentially damaging? It would be a bit
like taking cocaine. The Native Americans who first devised it take
it in minute amounts, so it acts as a stimulant and does little or no
harm, but there's always a risk of being seduced by it, of taking
more, of feeling the rush of power and then being destroyed by it.
conversation between myself and whitehound:
(hob)Thanks for this. Some very good points. I have to say, though,
that I never read Snape's comments about the Map as a serious
assessment-- more a needling the supposed Dark Arts expert about
something Snape must have had some strong suspicions about, and not
just because he'd caught Harry with it.
(wh)But it had to be a *reasonable* thing to needle him about - it had to
be possible for it to be true. You wouldn't point at a book of
knitting patterns and say "What are you doing with that counterfeit
money?", because it would just make you sound mad. It had to be
possible that a parchment which on the face of it did nothing except
make cheeky remarks really was Dark magic. That;s possible and eve
likely if Dark magic means "involving demons", because there could be
a spirit trapped in it - but how could a rude parchment even semi-
seriously be taken for a soul-suckig Evil?
(hob)I think you're right about the demon idea, and your points about
how the Good side prior to this AU start obviously uses things like
dementors and curses for its own purposes are well taken. Though
there, too, I always read the dementors and use of Unforgivables in
the last war as evidence of the Ministry's corruption.
(wh)Yes, but I wasn't talking about Unforgivables. I was talking about
the Reductor curse, which is on the syllabus, and Locomotor mortis
and Petrificus totalus, which Harry learned from books freely
available in the library. There's no clear definitiion of a curse -
personally I think it's a spell which *coud* potentially be harmful
and whose effects are in one way or another especially strong.
***
another response by whitehound, quoting bits of the original essay
(hob) Dark Magic is unadulterated Evil, and it is somewhat sentient, fed and fueled by the elemental spirits of this world.
(wh)This makes sense in terms of real-world magical traditins, but not so
much sense in the HP universe. We see terms like Dark magic and
curses thrown around quite randomly, and yet some things which are
labelled curses are on the curriculum. Defence Against the Dark Arts
seems to involve defence against any sort of aggressive spell - and
why would Snape suggest that a parchment which insulted people reeked
of Dark magic?
I have suggested myself that Dark magic may be magic involving
demons, which is what you'd probably mean by it in real magical
traditions, and in that case Snape might mean the parchment had a
spiriit trapped in it - something like Peeves, perhaps. But he'd
hardly accuse it of being a soul-sucking Evil.
(hob) It Wants to be used, because each time it is used, the collective Darkness is fed by the life force or magic of living beings.
(wh) In that case, the Dementors are Dark magic, and the Ministry is using
them openly. I mean, I think they *are* Dark, very dark - but the
Ministry tries to promote them as a Good Thing and On Our Side.
Could it do that if they were the very epitome of a unified force
defined as Evil with a capital E?
Persdoally I think you'd be better going with the demon idea. That
way, there's a risk of all the things you mentioned - of being
seduced, of being sucked in - but it's not as immediately obviously
dangerous and Evil, and *can* be controlled and even used for good by
very skilled practitioners. That explains the ambiguity, why Remus
is definted as a Dark creature (because the were part is a demon,
without necessarily being outright evil) and why Sev erus might think
a talking parchment was Dark.
That still leaves you to wonder why he'd call Sectumsempra Dark
magic, though - since as far as one can see it is neither demon-
powered nor soul-sucking.
(hob) Young Severus Snape wanted knowledge and to undo the victimization he'd suffered in childhood and at school. He would be more powerful than those who sought to hurt him, and he would achieve the recognition and acclaim he'd been denied.
(wh) Except according to JK he joined because he was insecure and wanted to belong to something bigger than himself, and because he thought it would make him look cool and thereby impress Lily.
(hob) I posit this because Tom is, at best, evil with the small E if
all he's got is bigotry and the desire to live forever. Even as a man who
kills and tortures others, he's hardly a threat to the World Itself.
(wh) That depends on how grandiose his ambitions were. Look at the amount of damage Hitler or Pol Pot managed to do with obsessive bigotry and conventional Muggle weapons. If Tom wants a wizarding hegemony everywhere in the world, he could turn out to be Pol Pot with nukes.
(hob) He's more Faustus than Antichrist. And in my story, he needs to be Evil.
(wh) Sure - but that's an AU scenario.
(hob) But it's important to note that my Snape *was* a Death Eater-- he was wholeheartedly following the Darkness when he joined Voldemort,
(wh) Acording to JJK he was an insecure teenager who wanted to look cool. And the internal evidence in the stories, and her comments at interview, suggest he was never very fierce and probably never killed.
What you need him to be for your story is a different matter.
(hob) And it certainly explains how he could be so verbally and emotionally nasty to those around him
(wh) He's much less emotionally nasty than Dumbledore, and as for being
verbally nasty this really needs no explanation except stress, a rather spiteful temperament and a northern English cultural tradition which values both sarcasm and blunt speaking.
(hob) In some ways, seeing the world like this solves some Dumbledore sized problems-- D serves the light, but he is hardly its embodiment. Like an impious priest, the man's faults or lack of faith do not affect the reality his ceremonial actions represent.
(wh) That would be useful, if the rest of it fit.
(hob) In other ways, it's even more of a problem-- how does Dumbledore with the same character flaws not get seduced by the darkness himself? Or does he and then pull back for much the same reasons Snape does?
(wh) Because it would mean handing over control to another entity?
(hob) Because the Prophecy-- that only Harry can be the one to cause Voldemort's end-- is another of the Elemental Truths of this story's universe. It has and creates a Reality of its own.
(wh) I think it has in the HP universe too, whatever Albus says. It may
not be immutable, but it at least describes a very strong probability
which it would take great effort to avoid.