[the_old_crowd] Re: Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word

[Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray]

Hi guys!

Bother - that was a long weekand. Fun, but very long. Anyway, back to
work at trying to scare up a little interest in my obviosuly weird
observations:

> To me it's just JKR
> holding back, an attempt to prolong the mystery a bit more, rather
> than any deeper significance via the character of Dumbledore.

Or David

>  [...] he simple keeps back what the power is.

Oh. I hadn't thought about that.

But is Jo/Dumbledore really trying to maintain any suspense here or
withhold any information? Isn't it obvious that the word is, umm,
*love*? 

It was to me, at any rate. (Maybe I need to dial back my touchy-feely
sensors.)

My guess was that, if anything, Jo, who is a good Englishwoman at heart,
thought it would be too cheesy to have Dumbledore waffling along about
the power of love. What with the long hair, round glasses and colorful
outfits, the only thing missing would a  Bob-Dylan sing along and couple
remarks about the lack of chamber pots at Woodstock. So, she opted for a
delicate elision, a sort of postmodern bowlderization.

But what I also thought is the paradox of how omitting a word can make
it even more present in the text. (Like the way jokes - particularly
jokes about sex - are funnier if you don't quite spell out what you
mean. Or like linguistic taboos about, say, the F-word or the S-word,
not to mention the inutterable Ü-word: they wouldn't bite if they
weren't banned.)

Hence, eliding both the V-word and the L-word give both of them more
power, more textual *presence* than if they were voiced normally.

Or am I just being obtuse?

Peace brothers! Love sisters! Baaaaaa! 

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, exiting in a cloud of purple haze,
with rastafarian ebullience.)
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, 
so that may not have been bravery...."