His summoning charm is the bomb, though

 

Even the summoning charm is dark magic if you summon their heart.

 

Oh Wildfeather you stole my heart.

That said yeah having an affinity towards dark magic does sound plausible given canon.

 

What does Dark Magic really constitute? Something you need hate to perform, or just something that harms the victim, with different levels depending on the spell. If it's the latter, Harry's wickedly talented. In fact, he taught the DA dark magic too.

Is there any difference between dark magic and the Dark Arts, though? I remember the latter being capitalized in the books, was the former as well? If not, does it imply there's a difference?

 

I have always thought that dark magic was magic which was designed to harm and do nothing else. So the disarming spell isn't dark magic because it is meant for defense and protection - not to harm the person on the receiving end wheras the Cruiciatus curse was designed to only cause harm. However this definition falls apart when you consider the Imperious curse which doesn't cause harm to the person it is used on, yet it is still classified as dark magic.

Most likely you can't say specifically what counts as dark magic and what doesn't with a single definition, I believe the best way to decide what spells are dark and what are not would be on a case by case basis.

 

The Imperius Curse takes away a person's free will. That's harmful enough for me. But then spells like Confringo and Furnunculus come under dark magic, too. As well as the full body bind. And a stunner. None of them do good things to you.

 

I am pretty sure all we know about the Dark Arts is what Snape said:

We also know that using the Dark Arts to kill people damages the soul. That's it.

 

2 questions:

Does the Prior Incantato always pull out the memory/imprints of people killed with the AK, or was that a special case for Harry and Voldemort? Otherwise, go to a murder suspect, use the reverse spell effect, talk to the guy who was killed...case closed. This is, of course, in situations where the AK was used.

And what was the point of hiding the prophecy from Voldemort in OOTP? Didn't Voldemort know enough for that he'd come after Harry no matter what? Dumbledore knows the whole thing, so there's really nothing extra that'd prove key to Harry defeating Voldemort. Why not destroy it and be done with it?

Also, just struck me, so question three...why not put a Taboo on Unforgivables, just like Voldemort did? Surely people use descriptions like the Killing Curse/Imperius Curse/Cruciatus, instead of the actual name of the spell? Or be told to?

 

The whole point of Dumbledore defending the prophecy was the pointlessness of the prophecy. The genius of the plan was making Voldemort waste a year of his time on something useless by acting like it was actually important.

 

IIRC, the Prior Incanto spell only shows the very last spell used, so any murderer with half a brain would cast a innocent spell before being interrogated. The all ghost reunion was because of the link, I think.

As for the Taboo thing, you couldn't talk about the curses, and it would be a problem when you try to teach people (be it students or Aurors) how to recognize them and how to react. There would be too many exceptions for it to be really useful. Also, it's possible that it is dark magic.

 

Are some wands (and wizards) more powerful at magic than others? I know all that 'magical core' thing is BS, but I was reading through Philosopher's Stone and I noticed something interesting.

I know that the Elder wand is supposed to more powerful than any other wand, but I figured that was the exception, rather than the rule.

Also, does a wand choose a wizard with similar abilities? If the wand is good at a certain branch of magic, does that mean that its chosen wizard is also talented at that branch of magic? Would James' wand having a little more power than Lily's mean that James had a little more power than Lily?

 

A theory at best. There is no evidence in canon that this is indeed the case.

 

No, this is indeed the case. There's a scene at Grimmauld Place with Sirius and others where they discuss Voldemort's focus on the prophecy.

 

Hmmm. Which one? The only conversation I can find refers to the prophecy as 'a Weapon'.

Hardly any of this makes the prophecy out to be bait. Is there another conversation that I missed?

 

Before third year, who knew of Lupin's lycanthropy ?
Snape, Sirius, Peter, Dumbledore... anyone else ?

 

Are you talking about Harry's 3rd year? If so everyone on staff knew, and according to the conversation with Fudge at the end of 4th year it seems as though the ministry knew as well.

 

Yes, Harry's third year.
But I'm talking before that, so before Lupin was nominated as Professor : so I doubt that at this moment all the staff knew ? They were informed when he came to teach ?
I don't remember the conversation with Fudge, I'll search this.

Thank you.

 

Well certainly Pomfrey knew before Remus was a professor because she would walk child Remus to the shrieking shack. That was canon from the books. As for the conversation with Fudge it happens in book 4 "Parting of ways".

 

Huh.

If they are indeed talking of the prophecy there, that means Sirius and Molly both knew of its existence and at the very least, it's impact on Harry. Somewhat strange (IMO) that Harry only shows ill-will towards Dumbledore, then. Or maybe not, seeing as Molly is the nearest thing he has a to a mother, and Sirius just died. Nevertheless, there's also Lupinand Arthur. The rest of the Order at least know about the prophecy.

Are there any hints that anyone else knows any of the contents (besides Snape and Voldemort?)

 

I'm pretty sure all the teachers from when Lupin was a student knew. I don't have proof for that but it seems logical.