While I agree, this is one of the few Fanon ideas that I like. If used right it can really add a lot to a character. Still, I get what you're saying.

 

Doesn't the books hint that any destructive magic is Dark Arts but ranges form some harmless schoolchild jinxes to magic fueled by murder (IIRC the creation of a horcrux requires not killing but murder. Correct me if I'm wrong)?
IMNSHO it's more what the people makes with them.

 

This is partially true, but I think it's more of a rectangles-squares scenario. That is to say, all dark magic is on some level destructive or harmful, but not all destructive magic is dark. Case in point: Bombarda, the charm which causes explosions.

 

It's funny because that spell is non-canon.

Because it is from the movies. Which are not canon.

 

Touche. Diffindo, then. In book 7, it was shown that the charm could also cut people.

 

Granted. Reducto could work too.

 

I think the attempt to find any unifying trait to all Dark Magic is futile. I don't believe Rowling really bothered establishing a legitimate system for it - in one interview she said that jinxes, hexes and curses are all forms of Dark Magic, but that doesn't really touch Voldemort's regeneration potion (which he called "an old piece of Dark Magic"), or Dark creatures like Acromantulas, nor explains James' hatred of Dark Magic (while he used illegal hexes). Dark Magic does seem to be harder to heal or combat - like the permanent effects of Sectumsempra, the curse on Dumbledore's hand, Cruciatus, and the Unforgivables in general.

We get Snape's lecture in HBP that gives Dark Magic a very fluid character, and I think that if Snape (and therefore Rowling) couldn't really give it a simple definition, it doesn't have one. It's a complex blend of magical effects, cultural constructs, and legal implications. With all the casual Dark Magic use by the "good guys" in the last two books, I doubt it even matters.

 

The difficulty is when fanfic authors possess their characters to give a long-winded speech about how dark magic is just a stupid, bureaucratic distinction that doesn't actually mean anything. And then have Harry use a token (non-canon) dark spell that the author shoehorns in to make Dumbledore and all the other "light" characters look stupid/inept.

So yes, to a reasonable person, this shouldn't matter in the long run - but not every fanfic writer is reasonable, and some of them get really caught on this minor issue.

 

Even if it's not clearly canon, I think de can establish two diferentes kinds of dark magic on the Harry Potter universo. One would be the magic categorized as such because of legal, or cultural reasons. This magic would be potentially dangerous magic or easy to be abused by individuals an hard to control by the government. It would change from one country to another and from one time to another and it would not have any inherently bad effects on the caster. The other kind of dark magic would be, for example, the rituales used by Voldemort to increase his power or the horcruxes. This kind of magic will always have a great cost on the caster hurting his own soul or making him lose his humanity causing madness or a great mental inestability. This effects seem to be unavoidable and would cause this kind of magic to be a taboo even across diferentes cultures and ages.

 

I personally do not see the Dark Arts as particularly addictive. My reasoning for this is based off of the character Lucius Malfoy (or any other Death Eater who walked free). While Lucius did continue using dark magic after the first fall of Voldemort (or at least stockpiled dark artifacts), I didn't see anything in canon to suggest that he continued to kill people until Voldemort's next rise to power. While he did not go cold turkey on the Dark Arts, he did tone it down dramatically, which would probably not happen if he had a strong psychological dependence on the power the Unforgivables granted.

The one piece of magic in canon that I do believe is habit-forming is the creation of a Horcrux. Damage to the soul likely damages the mindset of the person. Other magic does not appear to damage it directly; it is murder, not the casting of the killing curse (though the two are often entwined) that fractures the soul. Thus, the act of creating a Horcrux damages the self in a way that even the most horrible of acts cannot. Presumably, this damage would then cause the caster to become more likely to commit evil deeds, which would likely be accomplished through the use of dark magic. In this way, the creation of the Horcrux would influence the person to use the Dark Arts more.

 

Hmm. Difficult question.

I myself had some problems with Harry's spell choices in the 7th book. Not the fact that he'd cast such spells in the first place - this minor plot twist actually lines up with my view that even in a children's book, the "hero"'s hands are never clean - but the way that they were handled in the plot, and Harry's reasons for using them.

First, the Imperius - no problems there. It was needed, it saved their lives, there were extraordinary circumstances - all fine.

But the Cruciatus. The spell served no obvious function. It was completely unnecessary, an emotional choice, not a practical one, not to mention out of the blue. He could have disabled the Carrows with Stunners instead, but chose to torture them. Story-wise, little if any difference were shown between the circumstances in which the curse was cast this time and the previous time (in DoM), despite Bellatrix's clear advise that one needed a different intent for it to work. In addition to this, the spell was handled in the book in such a way so that it seems to tell the reader that not only is it justified, (which I doubt), since Harry showed no remorse over it and there were no follow-ups, but that it wasn't a big deal at all.

Yes, it was in the middle of the great battle, people are dying left and right, but still - this is Harry Potter and the nastiest pain-inducing curse in canon that we are talking about here, a curse that was created for the explicit purpose of torture.

With that said, there are differences, however small, between Harry's casting in Book 5 and his casting in Book 7. In Book 5, he was in great emotional turmoil when he shouted the spell. Even though he may have believed himself to have focused the spell on Bellatrix, his condition at the time and his wavering intent (shouting "I'll kill you!" seems to suggest he couldn't decide between death and pain for Bellatrix) would indicate otherwise. He was unfocused, in both intent and target.

In Book 7, things werea little different. Yes, there was righteous anger when he jumped to McGonagall's defense, but he was significantly calmer this time, more focused. He knew very clearly that he wanted to cause pain, not death, he knew clearly that Carrow was his target, and this time the underlying guilt was out of the equation. (That is, Harry may have been in guilt after Sirius's death, subconsciously already recognizing his own role in the death.)

So it would seem that intent does matter. But does it matter to every single Dark spell? Like someone else said, it would seem that no, at least the Imperius didn't seem to require ill intent, only the intent and willpower for control. Therefore, it is unclear in canon terms just how much ill intent is required for how many percent of Dark spells. Obviously, some require malicious intent, some does not, and even then, it's questionable whether these bouts of ill intent is enough to warp the mind of the caster, even if one does so every day for ten years.

So I would say that the maddening effect of Dark Magic comes from somewhere else, and I have a few theories.

The first is the psychological one. We know that many nasty pieces of magic have horrible effects - twisted limbs, lost organs, blood sucked dry, things like that. To be able to wish that upon your enemy, not to mention inflict it with your own hand repeatedly, requires a lack of compassion and empathy not easily found in the everyday person. But we know from canon that many witches and wizards born into Dark families are desensitized from a young age (see Grimmald Place and the Dark objects in it, also see Malfoy's fascination with a severed hand at age 12), as a sort of conditioning so that they may be able to inherit the legacy and pass it on, and this distinctly sets them apart from those born into non-Dark families or Muggle ones. Immersion in this kind of environment will obviously have its effect on the mind, mainly that it may make one easier to view others as Non-Human. You sort of cut-off your sense of empathy towards them, like soldiers in war. And once you start to view people, living and breathing people, as things or beings that do not feel the same pains and possess the same emotions and level of intelligence as you, then you're in a very dangerous place. Yet this place is precisely what is required to cast some of those nastier Dark spells, regardless of intent. After all, you must expect the result, even if you're not thinking "lose your all your blood!" when you are casting a blood-sucking spell, you must know what the end result will be like.

And like a vicious cycle, once you've used such a spell, it desensitizes you even more, pushes you a little more over the edge. I feel like this is what happened to the Lestranges and Bellatrix - what is one more Cruciatus? They all scream the same way! I've cast so many before - what's the big deal?

Desensitization is a dangerous thing to play with.

The second one is the morality of it. Dark Magic can be a slippery slope for the weak-willed. Once you step out of line - what is it to you if you just walk a little further? And a little further than that? And even further still? Without a sense of boundary, before long one might find oneself at the edge of a cliff.

For a person who does not have a strong inner moral-compass, it's easy to start making justifications to yourself. "Oh, so what if I used a suffocation curse on them? They were about to attack me, and could have used something far more lethal on me!" But what if in reality, a stunner would have worked just as well for the purpose of self-defense? There is a nebulous line here, a line that could be easily overlooked in a moment of passion or revenge. It's the difference between reporting someone to the authorities and tying them up in a chair to torture them for their wrong doing against you, in a sense.

 

I actually thought it's like alcohol. Successfully casting dark spells feels good, it's intoxicating, makes you want to cast it again.

 

Well I guess that makes me fucking Voldemort.

It's a good analogy. Feels good right up until the point it doesn't, and yet you still need it. Crave it. Just one more horcrux on the rocks. So use to it, chasing the buzz that no longer comes before you pass out. Dark magic, like alcohol, has the power to stimulate mystical faculties otherwise denied to the sober.

And, I guess the analogy can be taken a step further, when you add ego to the mix you never get a happy drinker.

There's a clever novel in there somewhere, waiting for one of the 3am drunks of the world to get his shit together.

 

Vilas also are seen as creatures, by the way. Well, I don't know if they are considered dark, but just look - warewolves, vilas, vampires and house els have the same status as.... flooberworms? Doesn't make much sense, does it? Ministry seems to despise non-human beings and always consider them as bad and aggressors.

I think 'destructive' problem may be with inforgivables and similiar surses, because if you repeatedly summon hate or desire to kill, it's only logical that in long-run these emotion will be first to surface in many situations. So I think it's not magic, but requirements to some of curses that make wizards unstable.
And in the case of Voldemort - if I remember correctly, his change of appearence was deliberate, intentional. I can guess he was experimenting with rituals that need some sort of payment, wanted to be scarier or being snake-like hybrid have it's adventages(who knows?). Other case is the fact he became raging-mad after ressurection - but that would be 13 years of agony. Happy time, for sure. That the most victims of prolonged pain end in similiarly seems irrelevant to many readers - opponents of dark magic. And I doubt Tom was ever entirely content and healthy.
So, to take it graphically - dark magic is like a sword and if you are stupid you can end piercing your own guts - as same as when you use this weapon for fun and tricks. Does anyone here watch One Piece? There was a scene when Zoro tossed damned sword to try if it could cut his arm. I think many users try something like this and don't have as much luck as Roronoa.

 

I personally think that its more to do with the mind set than anything else.
All spells require intent behind them... when you talk about curses (The serious dark arts ones) there is an intent to harm involved which is probably why they are disliked by the ministry and their use is discouraged. It could pretty much be like how masterpeng stated in his post that its like alcohol. You initially start with a spell here and there but you cannot stop because you start giving into those destructive impulses or when you start using them constantly its just the first thing you think of and pretty much go through with it.

An argument could also be made about the people using the dark arts (and that its not the dark arts that are evil but the people using dark arts). As we see in HBP Tom developed a habit of liking to harm other people and enjoyed his power over others. When you say that bellatrix and Voldemort are far too immersed in dark magic you also have to remember other death eaters who are and remained perfectly sane (well as sane as you can call them for going out and killing people under masks). If you look at Bellatrix and Voldemort, How they were raised is probably a major contributing factor leading to the insanity. There are already allusions to Wulburga being insane. It could very well be an early desensitization to violence and exposure to such spells that might have led to Bellatrix's insanity.

 

It is addictive for the allure of power I think. The feeling of being superior to your peers is a familiar trait of some of the dark art practitioners. Snape, for example, was a loner and immersed himself in the dark arts to prove his superiority to others - the maurauders. Also it was a way so that he could protect himself since he didn't have much friends. The seduction of the Dark Arts also leads one to believe that with it, they have much more knowledge of magic and thus will make them a better wizard.

 

It's not from canon - My post was just my own personal thoughts on the subject. If that's inappropriate, then my apologies.

 

To be fair to the new guy, his position seemed to be less "The Dark Arts are addictive" than it was "the Dark Arts hold a certain allure to those who are hungry for power and socially maladjusted."

That much has plenty of canon support, given what we see of Voldemort and Snape's personalities and development.