What's in the locked room?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 89108

Looks like I'm ploughing an almost lonely furrow again.
(Only one other poster (thank you sawsan_issa) has responded  so far.)
It's not for the first time. I'll even confess that it can get to be 
addictive, promoting ideas, speculations, theories that deviate from 
the comfort of the mainstream consensus.
It can be a lot of fun, just so long as I remember to support the case 
with some sort of logical argument, however slight or elliptical.

This time it's a bit different. Ever since  OoP was published there has 
been discussion centred on what is locked up in the Dept. of Mystery 
that DD  sets so much store by.  Fandom doesn't seem to have reached a 
consensus yet, though the new poll  announced a couple days ago may 
solidify opinions somewhat. Admittedly, there are a few front runners;  
love, truth and integrity being among the favourites. Each has 
something going for it, each has adherents and each has opponents 
determined that their own preferences achieve primacy.

In this particular instance it's more a matter of personal taste than 
of clues or evidence in canon, particularly when one examines and 
rejects the choice of others. Well, it is with me; you can and will 
speak for yourselves on that, and realistically there's no reason why 
my offering should be considered to be any more compelling than any of 
the others posted. But  that's never stopped me from cluttering up the 
site with speculations that don't  enthrall the membership in the past, 
so why change now?

Whatever is in *the room* is supposed to be a damn near irresistible 
force, outranking death, intelligence, natural forces and other 
mysteries such as the nature of time. That narrows the field down for 
us. It is also not unique to Harry;  DD implies as much at the end of 
OoP. Besides, if it were unique to Harry how could the Ministry 
possibly study it in a locked room that he has never entered? It is, 
however, a force that he is full of, suffused with, and that Voldemort 
detests it. It is presumed to be the force that saved Harry at Godric's 
Hollow and prevented possession in the Ministry battle.

To  the fans rooting for steadfastness, fidelity, courage, love etc., 
this confirms them in their beliefs. "See? Doesn't that prove it?" Er, 
no. When apparently conflicting ideas claim the same bits of evidence 
as proof you begin to wonder. Are they different entities after  all? 
Some of them are quite difficult to separate with overlapping causes, 
effects and appearances. Or could it be that they are all parts of the 
same thing? It seems to me  that these are all evidence of a living 
being - they're by-products of human existence. No life and there's no 
love, nor staunchness, nor intelligence nor any of them.
Life is the root of all.

What more fascinating subject to study? What is it? How did it start? 
Can we recreate it?
Questions to keep the Natural Philosophers going for centuries. Even 
the Alchemists are in on the act - can we prolong it indefinitely?

I don't see  how most (all?) of the other  suggested forces could be 
subjected to study or examination - the  terms are too subjective and  
wooly. For example, is the love one feels for a partner the same as the 
love one feels for a parent or child? Nope. Can one love someone that 
you have never met ( necessary for the outbreak  of universal 
togetherness proposed  by some who see Harry as a Redeemer figure)? No. 
Empathy is not the same as love. And I  don't  think JKR would be that 
controversial; lots of real world  problems in that direction. You  may 
love, you may give love, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted - or 
  reciprocated. It's a very individual thing that does not exist unless 
there is a person or thing as cause or object for the emotion. It's 
more of a reaction than a universal absolute. I see it as an omnibus 
word used to describe a plethora of personal feelings that may or  may 
not signify something important or permanent. Most unsatisfactory.

There was a thread  a few months back on courage, bravery and 
such-like. Very difficult  to define the terms. What some may perceive 
as 'bravery' by Harry others see as rashness or lack of foresight. He  
gets himself in a pickle and somebody else has to come along and get 
him out of it. Not convincing.

Similarly attributes such as fortitude, steadfastness, heart (whatever 
that is) could be dismissed as pig-headed stubbornness. Let's face it, 
he's  shown a lot of that over 5 books.

Truth. That's an interesting concept that  has attracted some. What is 
truth? Depends who you ask. To  some it is a proof based on strict 
logic;  to others the basis  of their personal philosophies and not 
subject to logic at all. Most importantly, how can truth be applied to 
young Potter? He doesn't have a clue what's true and what isn't so how 
can he be 'filled' with it as DD suggests?

Sorry, folks. I'm not persuaded.
But Life can be studied objectively. It is a demonstrable property of 
some forms of organic matter, it can be ended, it can be propagated, 
and it is a powerful force.

It's what Lily gave to Harry with her sacrifice, it's what Voldy wants 
to remove from Harry, it's what Voldemort has perverted in the denial 
of his mortality, it's what he denies with the name given to his 
supporters. And if, as DD says of the Flamels, death is the *next* 
great adventure, what was the first?  Life, of course. Well worth 
investigating.

You probably don't agree. Am I  down-hearted? No; while there's life, 
there's hope.

Kneasy