I would agree that it's more likely that certain types of people are more inclined to study the Dark Arts on their own than it is that the Dark Arts somehow supernaturally attract certain people to study them. But I don't think anyone was really arguing the latter to begin with.

Granted, one of the problems with discussing the Dark Arts is that they were never really defined in canon. We get plenty of tidbits of information and examples, but nobody ever gives us a "this is what the Dark Arts are" explanation. It is rather hard to say too much about Dark Arts users when there's not even a firm definition of what the Dark Arts are.

 

As FanFiction readers, a lot of us would agree that there's no difference between Dark and Light magic beyond their effects. An obvious and used example is, if you want to kill someone, just use a cutting spell on their throat. A lot messier than the killing curse, and probably more painful, but for some reason the killing curse is illegal. Why? No idea.

 

I think it is the convenience of it. Don't want to do something yourself? Impirus

User was banned from WbA for this post.

It's really simple, people. This post == bad post.
The one directly below == good post.

-Sesc

 

Sharply worded. Very well, I will contribute to the immediate discussion, beyond my general feelings previously expressed.

The backstories of the people who approach the dark arts (I'm mostly talking about Death Eaters here) are never really explored - we get Tom Riddle, and how his depressing and oppressive childhood drove him to his hatred of muggles, but as far as I'm aware (I could well be wrong), JK never specifies what drove him to the dark arts.

From the main series, I'd disagree with what you say here:

I will admit a certain ignorance as to what you specify as 'character traits' - I'm interpreting it as their personality and intelligence.

The majority of the low-ranking (and thus the majority of all) Death Eaters seemed to possess similar aspects - the usual villainous hatred, thuggish nature, low intelligence, and whilst it is likely that this is only because JK fulfilled the classic representations of evil, it is canon. Obviously we aren't given character profiles of every death eater, but I'm largely using the Snatchers from the Deathly Hallows as an example (as well as certain actions in the Department of Mysteries).

But, as I said, it is likely that dark wizards don't consist of those types of people. Unfortunately, we're only ever told about those that don't through Voldemort's inner circle, from where I'm sure many of the aristocratic members lingered. Examples include Malfoy, Snape, Lestrange. I feel it's important to stress that these are the minority.

I've rambled and lost sight of what I was talking about. I'm sure, if we were to ever be in the Harry Potter universe, the majority of us (I'm hesitant to use superlatives) would actively seek the dark arts, be they addictive and destructive or not, in which case I would definitely agree with how you say that character traits do not define someone's magical choices.

 

The Unforgivables are called Dark Magic because 'you have to mean them', which likely means they wouldn't work if you didn't desire the target to be dead/in pain/obedient.

A lot of other 'Dark Arts' magic is called such because people view them as too dangerous for whatever reason and (partially) because they disagree with the usage of said spells.
Kind of like how Umbridge didn't let anyone learn spells in her class but more subtle.

 

Unfortunately, J.K Rowling only gave us extremely limited information on the Dark Arts (the only spell I can actually think of beyond the Unforgiveables [which is also up for debate] is sectumsempra). This gives us a very narrow scope to discuss them and their uses.

You're probably right that Dark Magic has little difference from 'normal' magic, but where is that specified in Canon? I could well be forgetting something, but I can't recall where the Dark Arts are just used for something which could be done normally.

The main problem I'm getting at is, we just don't have enough information to make any informed decisions about this topic. The few dark spells used in the books are all designed to be inherently malicious, likely, as I said before, because JK has to highlight the contrast between evil and good. I can't refute your statement, but neither can I really agree with it. It's quite an annoying feeling.

On another note, surely a Dark Lord would be dramatic enough to create a new shoe-lace tying spell just to look snazzy? Maybe they'd arrange themselves into little snakes or something, or emit black smoke. Maybe he'd make his shoe-laces into Horcruxes? And laugh evilly as they strangled someone who dared to try and put his shoes on.

 

See, that's actually insight into why a spell like Sectumsempra is labeled "dark" and Diffindo (which from Hermione's usage is quite capable of causing slashing injury) is not. When you live in a society that can vanish bones and regrow them in a single night, things that can actually cause permanent injury (if only scarring) become all the more horrific.

Like I just finished this fanfiction (in another fandom though) with a similar premise; a character had a blade whose cuts could never be healed, or even so much as scab over (unless she herself was killed), and the other characters are so much more repulsed by its ability because they're so used to healing themselves with a thought.

Well, that and the sight of a slit throat constantly leaking blood for hours on end no matter how desperately they tried to heal it, but I'm sure that was secondary in their considerations.