If I remember right, there really isn't such a thing as Dark Magic. This may be fanon, but isn't Dark Magic just spells that are listed as illegal by the Ministry? Spells that cause so much harm to another person, that the Ministry tacked a prison sentence or whatever to them? May not be canon, I dunno, been a long time since I read the books.

And you can't honestly tell me that Expecto Patronus is neutral. To use it, you have to summon up your happiest memory, correct? How is that NOT light?

 

Yes, yes, I know that. I'm not a retard. What I was saying, how is Dark Magic so different from regular magic? Isn't just a list of spells that aren't accepted by the norm? Spells that are illegal, or frowned upon by the general public. I knew exactly what you were talking about. What I'm asking, besides the unforgivables, what IS dark magic?

 

I think of 'Dark Magic' as simple as this.
'Dark Magic' is fueled by negative emotions.
Doesn't matter what the spell does, it just matters if the spell needs negative emotions.
The spells may or may not be addicting, the emotions themselves are.
I could be horribly wrong but it fits in well enough for me.

 

That's a bit of a jump (obviously not a huge leap in logic, but), just because there is Dark Magic does not mean there is 'Light' Magic. There have been references, hints and examples of Dark Magic/The Dark Arts throughout Canon, however (if I remember correctly) there are no references to 'Light' Magic or the 'Light Side,' which seems to be a prevalent theme in fanon.

The main point being, that the 'Light Side' and Dumbledore as the leader of 'The Light' is over done. Considering, with respect to Deathly Hallows, just how far Dumbledore is from 'The Light.'

 

Sorry, but I just had to say that you are over analysing this. We are discussing Harry Potter, not Marlowe or Shakespeare; simplistic ideas make up over half of the books.

This idea of there being a 'Leader of the Light' isn't a stretch from canon; surely one can see how the wizarding either idolises Harry or uses him as a scapegoat. These are both clear indicators that they view him not as a person, but a symbol; his ideas and ideals represent more then his own inner thoughts, thus he is a leader. And being of 'Light' is just a way to parrallel against the Dark.

Surely you aren't going to start calling Tolkien a cliche writer simply becuase he has a 'Leader of the Light' figure, or figures, in his novels? It is an idea which, although simple at the start, eventually bottles down to the origional Good vs Evil, and having 'Light Magic' opposing 'Dark Magic' isn't something you should argue about.

Now, what really pisses me off is when people try to argue the point in FanFiction such as "The Avada Kedavra was origionally used as a painless way to kill patients" or to "slaughter animals" is another one I've heard. You have to fucking hate and/or want to kill something in order for it to work. These are what sets the stakes for "light" and "dark", the intent needed for it to work.

Best examples from canon are the failed Cruciatus in OotP and the Patronus. Harry, who is portrayed, or so we are told, to be a 'great wizard' (not my opinion, that of JKR incarnate Hermione) can master the ligh Patronus with his strong emotions, but doesn't have the intent to actually cause someone pain even when in a blind rage. These are both perfect examples of Light and Dark magic, which are actually existant in canon but not to the extent, or description (lack of?), we see in fanon.

 

Dark and Light are ideas made by society. Magic is, to be cliché, gray. Magic doesn't classify itself as Dark or Light. Every bit of magic has a certain use, and society, not some mystical magical core, classifies certain spells as light or dark. In many societies the Killing Curse could be a truly humane way to put down criminals or to duel. I find it more humane to kill with a flash of green than to blow someone's head open with a bludgeoning spell or to cut open their neck. All I'm saying is that it is society, not magic, that splits magic down Dark and Light lines.

 

It isn't the spell itself that makes it dark, it's the intent that goes into it. Hence the Unforgivable curses. Yes, the AK WOULD be a great way to put someone down humanely... if there wasn't the little requirement that the caster loathe the victim so much that he wants him dead. This is why I laugh whenever a fic postulates that the Unforgivables were invented as medical aids: why would they run off negative emotions, then?

Pretty much any spell can be misused as a 'Dark' spell, which is why the few spells that require you to actively want to cause someone harm are illegal. By the same token, Expecto Patronum would be a light spell.

 

I agree, I just stop reading a fic if Harry tries to justify Unforgivables in some fashion; I don't mind Dark!Harry's, but if you are going to make him use a Dark curse don't turn him back to Pussy!Harry who only does it because it can been seen as humane.

I also dislike when people create whole tomes of Dark Magic... Really, I doubt it is big enough to be a seperate branch of magic such as Charms or Transfiguration. However, this does bring into question the title of the 'Defense Against the Dark Arts' class. Does any defense against the so-called 'Dark Arts' actually go on? The most we have seen is by the faux-Moody in GoF, the rest is 'Dark' creatures and then minor, what we consider, 'Light' hexes and such... Protego doesn't really count, unless Omnipotent!Harry casts amazing strength ones which can block the unblockable-Unforgiveables...