Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word

Barry Arrowsmith arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid
Mon Jun 6 20:00:25 UTC 2005


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray" 
<aberforthsgoat at h...> wrote:
> 
> 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*? 
> 

Kneasy:
Oh, I hope not. 
I realise I could upset a few people here.
In general terms it'd be trite, banal in the extreme; slushy verging on
the worst excesses of Disney (spit) and a cop-out.
Define 'love'.
The OED gives a long list of meanings, the last of which:
"in a game, nothing, no score."

Others include "a marked affection for a person or thing" which is not
not a feeling limited to Harry, even in the books, and further mentions 
the Messianic variety, any hint of which would stir the touchier fractions
of the religious into a frenzy.

> Mike:
> 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.
> 

Kneasy:
Not certain, but possible.
The mid '60s to early '70s - the era of hippie-dom, all you need is love,
the hi-jacking of bits of eastern mysticism without understanding their
context and pudgy girls calling themselves Galadriel - LOTR was popular
then too, though the books, not the films - has entered the realms of 
mythology. 
Like most of the past the memories are better than the realities. What I
recall most about it was how infrequently most of the celebrants washed. 
It helped a great deal if you were more or less permanently stoned. Those
too young to take part have been spun a load of tripe by those who leapt 
with a great "Yes!!" into a social scene mostly powered by soft drugs and 
the first reliable contraceptive pills. No wonder we were so eager to embrace
the 'alternative' lifestyle. But mind altering substances and willing partners 
have little to do with love. Unfortunately there are still some around who 
claim that peace n'love nearly, should have, taken over the world and we'd 
all now be living in a sub-set of Nirvana. Nope. It's not possible to love 
someone/everyone that you've never met, never heard of - unless you're 
John Donne or pissed.

And who are the objects of Harry's affections?
Well, there's Sirius, but he's dead; there's mum and dad - but he never knew
them, just a few disturbing memories that haunt his dreams; DD perhaps; Ron 
and Hermione - doubt he'd classify it as 'love,' exactly.   
Hardly exceptional, is it? Yet whatever the power is, he's supposedly full of it.
Doesn't seem to match up, somehow.

Sorry to  be such a miserable grump but I don't, never have, seen love as a
sort of universal panacea, the cure for all ills, apply liberally and all your
troubles will vanish. Even love for an idea or ideal won't do it, 'cos what
matters there is the merit inherent in the ideal, not the affection lavished on it. 

Pandora was provided with Hope as a comfort in a world of troubles. That's
as good as anything, I suppose. Jo has said that a major theme of the books
is death, but counter to death is life or life-force. If I had to make a choice
that'd be mine for the power in the room.








More information about the the_old_crowd archive