Has JK actually answered this in an interview or something?

I generally think it's to do with the power, or the illusion of power that it offers the user. The quote "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course we've seen how it has ill effects on the practitioners such as Lestrange's insanity, Riddle's physical degradation, actually the general mental degradation of almost any frequent practitioner.

But why/how do these ill effects come to pass? Is it all to do with intent?

 

Personally, I dislike the idea that the magic itself is addicting, as if there's something fundamentally different with something like Sectumsempra as opposed to a banishing charm. Magic is magic, and it's the person using it that makes the difference.

BUT, I can get behind the idea of mental addictions. The feeling of dominating an opponent, having complete control over their actions, and being able to kill with a single word... power itself can be addicting.

 

I think the whatever destructive influence there is comes more from the person than magic itself. Magic is not the drug here - it's how the wizard perceives it. If there's an addiction, it's the belief in the Dark Arts' influence.

 

Monosodium glutamate.

...but magical.




Or what Jon said.

Or it's just another unexplored area of JKR's world that you should simply accept at face value because, if you keep poking at it with a stick, she's going to try and answer it via Pottermore and said answer will only make us wail and gnash our teeth.

 

The problem with this is that power is not solely limited to the Dark Arts.

I think it's not the Dark Arts that are addictive or destructive but the other way around. People who want destruction are lured to the Dark Arts since it provides them with the easiest way to achieve said destruction.

 

I think its more like the intent behind the dark art that is the problem here. As bellatrix said to harry when he cast crucio she say that harry have to mean it to make it work properly. And that is bad because the caster have to always have bad intention when cast the dark arts because then the caster mind would always have a bad and destructive thought. Just 2 cent of mine really.

 

Not necessarily. Bellatrix said that specifically for the Cruciatus curse, and not for Dark Arts in general. Harry was able to cast Sectumsempra without even knowing what it did (except that it was to be used on enemies).

While the caster has to want to cause pain to successfully cast a Cruciatus curse, it doesn't mean that they need to be destructive in general. For instance, Harry himself successfully cast the Cruciatus in DH. It didn't suddenly turn him into a Dark Wizard.

 

A lot of fanfiction approaches the idea of dark arts as a kind of cancer of the soul, a malignant force out of control.

 

The dark arts aren't addictive.
Fanon is addictive. The more you use it the more it consumes you, the more you must continue using it. Fear fanon lest you fall into a deep dark (plot) hole you can't escape from.

 

It's easy to forget that canon characters have a far more nuanced view of dark magic than fanfiction. It's not the case that all dark magic is this massive taboo where people automatically think you're evil if you use it. Jinxes and hexes are dark magic and no one gets accused of being a dark wizard for using them. You get a detention, that's all.

Ultimately what matters is not that it's dark magic but how you use it. A counter-curse is exactly the same spell as a curse - it's still dark magic - it's just that you're using it in a defensive way. We learn this in OotP, in Umbridge's first lesson. The DADA book Umbridge assigned argues that they shouldn't learn counter-curses because it's all dark magic. This is contrary to mainstream opinion and Hermione argues against it, saying she considers it acceptable to use counter-curses in defence.

The use of dark magic in certain situations is considered proper and Hogwarts teaches students to do so. Dumbledore himself, in HBP, tells Harry to use any counter-curses he wants, if they are attacked. Another example is Lupin urging Harry to kill in DH.

Now, of course there is some dark magic, like horcruxes, which is considered inherently evil, both because of its effects and casting requirements. But that's particular to the effects of the magic, not a blanket problem with all dark magic.

I think the best way to think about dark magic in canon is often to compare it to physical analogues. A jinx is like a BB Gun - largely harmless, but if you take it to school teachers will give you detention. A curse is like a gun - inherently dangerous, definitely something you should not be taking into a school, something to be handled with great care, but appropriate to use in certain situations. And someone who is obsessed with curses is viewed with suspicion in the same way you would be nervous around someone who likes to research bomb making on the internet. And a person with a horcrux is like a guy with a basement full of torture devices and a number of dead bodies buried in their back yard.

 

I think the Dark Arts in itself isn't addictive, but the destruction that comes with it often is. There's a distinct pleasure that comes from causing harm/destruction, such as breaking a vase (which I actually have tried once. It is really exhilarating.) Similarly, I would guess that casting a hex would feel like punching someone in the face, which does feel good in a sense. For a curse, it would be more serious like breaking a car or lighting a house on fire. So, some wizards could be addicted, not to the Dark Arts, but to the destruction that the Dark Arts brings, if that makes any sense at all.

 

So, I don't think this will make much sense in the JKR view of her world, but I love the idea of these addicting and particularly destructive spells having a basis in normal mundane addiction.

So, to oversimplify, dopamine is how the brain rewards good behavior in just about all complex life on earth; you feel "good" cause dopamine is being released. The basis of addiction is always related to some abuse of this dopamine reward system, and some but not all of the dark spells we see in harry potter could tie into this. They feel good because somehow they affect the casters brain chemistry, and particularly destructive for being linked with sacrifice of normal brain function, symbolically or w/e.

 

This is very similar to how I'm inclined to view the Dark Arts. As to their intended nature in canon, we can only kind of speculate, but especially with things like the torture curse or even the creation of horcrux, I can't see them as just neutral magic that is evil strictly because of the requirements for casting.

I always felt like in canon the jump from Tom Riddle to Voldemort implied some form of the degredation of the mind due to the dark path he took. Given, we don't know that much about Tom Riddle, but I see some dis-continuity from brilliant, yet abused student with sociopath nature to the crazed, ruthlessly cruel, power hungry Voldemort at the end of his life. It would make more sense to me if the Dark Arts had some sort of degrading effect to explain this.

Same with Bellatrix. Seems like she managed to get through her Hogwarts education, so she must not have been completely insane and sadistic during her youth, but she ended up that way at the end of her life. True, you can point to Azkaban in order to explain some of that, but Azkaban didn't normally make people as crazy as her. She is probably the other individual besides Voldemort most steeped in the Dark Arts through her life so again it makes sense to me if that contributed to her mental state.

 

Part of the issue with discussing the Dark Arts in HP is that Rowling never really defined what exactly the Dark Arts are. Like my old college professors used to say, you can't have any sort of discussion until you define your terms.

Now, from what I got out of canon, The Dark Arts basically consist of two types of spells:

1: Classic evil magic like necromancy, horcruxes, etc.
2: Spells whose primary purpose is to inflict severe harm on the target.

I think the second definition is particularly important, because it helps explain a lot of characters' attitudes towards the subject. In short, Umbridge was not entirely wrong to point out that Defense Against the Dark Arts is in some ways making a false distinction. After all, it's hard to teach someone magical defense without teaching them any spells designed to cause harm to the target. DADA just draws the line at what degree of harm is considered acceptable.

But then even in canon, we see a lot of nominally good characters condoning the use of Dark Arts. During the first war with Voldemort the Aurors were allowed to use all dark magic, including the Unforgivables. And by Deathly Hallows, Harry is tossing out the Imperius and Cruciatus Curses without anyone lamenting that he's fallen to the dark side, and Remus even suggests he consider adding the Killing Curse to his arsenal.

In short, a lot of the Dark Arts aren't inherently evil and corrupting magic so much as inherently violent magic, which the powers-that-be naturally frown on. After all, the Killing Curse has no purpose other than killing people, and murder is generally something governments frown on. However, using the killing curse under circumstances that would be ruled justifiable homicide would be no worse than using any other spell. Dead is dead.

I could theorize a bit more on the subject, but that might end up derailing things a bit. As interesting as I find some of the political parallels Rowling brought up with Umbridge, this thread doesn't need to go into politics. At all.

 

I don't think they are addicting nor destructive, they just have different practical uses. Be honest, aside from conquering the world, what use is a horcrux? aside from causing agony, how else can the cruciatus be used? They aren't destructive, they're just geared towards destructive people that use them for destructive purposes.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but I completely disagree with your reasoning.

The use of a Horcrux is for immortality, not conquering the world. Sure, that's what Voldemort did, but if he really wished for immortality more than power over others, he could have lived in isolation, kind of like the Flamels did.

A Horcrux is evil, but that is for reasons quite different from its non-existent consequence of causing someone to conquer the world. Tom Riddle wanted power over others long before he even knew about Horcruxes.

Also, the goal of the cruciatus is to cause agony. That doesn't directly equate to destruction. Harry cast the cruciatus just fine on Amycus Carrow to stop the Death Eater from attacking McGonagall. Could he have used something else? Absolutely. Did he use the cruciatus to cause destruction? No.

 

I've often found it interesting to try to unwind the motives of the "evil" characters in various works of literature. It's interesting that we see a strong aversion of death in Voldemort, but he acts in a way that inevitably brings him into conflict with powerful forces.

It is interesting to note that his desire to dominate others is so strong to force him into inciting conflict so early on in his life. It seems more rational, if I were Voldemort and had secured immortality with various horcruxes, to spend a longer period of time gaining strength and knowledge before going head to head with a wizard like Dumbledore.

He obviously wasn't confident in his ability to outclass Dumbledore in battle. He could've waited a few decades for him to die off, and spent the time continuing to refine his own knowledge and strength. After all, if he is going to have an indefinite lifespan, fifty years is a drop in the ocean. He would be a much more fearful villain if he were a bit smarter in how he went about attaining his desired endgame, imo.

 

Why is this even a question? Everyone knows the dark side has cookies.