Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at g...> wrote:
> 
> Or
Harry Potter because I think he has made quite an admiral attempt 
> at this so far. 
> I think the difference with Harry is that he loves without 
> boundaries. Harry has shown himself to save his enemy
 Pettigrew. 
> Pettigrew deserved to die but Harry sought justice rather than 
> revenge. 

Kneasy:
He spared his life because " I don't reckon my dad would've wanted 
his best friends to become killers - just for you." He wanted revenge
all right, a lifetime in Azkaban with the Dementors. Some might not
consider that to be particularly merciful.

> Snow:
> Victor Krum was nailed by a bludger at the World Cup and no 
> one noticed, but Harry wished that he could draw the attention of 
> someone to help, even though he did not support Victor's team. Dudley

> cruel Dudley has used Harry as a punching bag; was the reason Harry 
> hadn't any friends at school; and yet Harry feels bad for Dudley when 
> he was put on a diet and felt compelled to save him from the 
> Dementors. And there has even been a time when Harry went out on a 
> limb for a person he didn't even know, Gabriella. 
> 

Kneasy:
1. Harry may have wanted attention for Krum, but it was actually Ron who
voiced concern. Does that make Ron more 'loving' than Harry?
2. Harry expresses no feelings for Dieting!Dudley whatsoever. A truly
sympathetic, loving family member would doubtless have shared part
of the 4 Birthday Cakes stashed away under the floorboards.
3. The Dementors..... yes, he saved Dudders, but through love? I don't
think so. Altruism perhaps. Or maybe he was more anti-Dementor than
anti-Dudley.
4. Oh, it wasn't just Gabrielle, it was all 4 hostages he tried to save. Silly.
If Cedric and Krum hadn't turned up all 4  would have been 'lost' - that's
if anyone accepts that they would have been allowed to come to any harm
under any circumstances. Maybe it was an over-inflated ego, a wish to
prove himself the best rather than 'love' that drove him. Note that the 
Merpeople express amusement rather than admiration or concern - Harry
is doing it wrong again!
 
> Snow:
> Harry has spontaneous reaction to a person in distress whether or not 
> he loves them. Harry's reaction is protection and he administers it 
> without thought
and especially without fear. Everyone in the 
> Wizarding World, with very few exceptions, is greatly afraid of 
> something or someone. We hear of just about every person's greatest 
> fear, from Voldemort's name down to Ron's fear of spiders. Yet Harry 
> remains unafraid, which makes him the exception to the rule. He was 
> born without fear
never thinking of the consequence to his action. 
> Harry's biggest fault is that in saving someone else through his 
> fearless act, he ultimately puts someone else's life in jeopardy 
> (every time). 

Kneasy:
Let me get this straight ... you think that this is a positive trait, this 
compulsion of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread? 
What an odd idea. It's a fine way to narrow the the gap between the
dates on his eventual headstone, and as you say it's an excellent way 
to cause problems for everybody else -  terminally so for Sirius,
painfully so for Hermione, Ron and Neville -  let's not forget that
Harry's latest crazy scheme didn't leave them unscathed.

What it boils down to is that Harry doesn't trust anyone else to get 
it right when in actual fact he's the one that's getting it wrong. 

Somehow I don't think we're going to agree. What you ascribe to
'love' can equally be thought to be the result of mindless enthusiasm
verging on stupidity. 

> Snow:
> This would be a fearless love, a pure love, and an unconditional 
> love. There are only a few people who Harry has yet to exhibit this 
> love for and one of them is Snape. I'm certain we'll get there 
> though. 

Kneasy:
Argh! No! Anything but that!

> Snow:
> Love can't be taught; it is a driving force within you. Love, real 
> love can make you do things you would never seek out to do. No one 
> wants to purposely put their life in danger but when you see a 
> stranger trapped in a car that may just go up in flames, do you stop 
> to think or do you run or call for help
or do you run to the rescue 
> even though it may put your own life in danger? 

Kneasy:
I've done so, and love had nothing to do with it. It was because I was 
there and no-one else was. If one considers oneself human one accepts
certain obligations towards others, it's an inbuilt almost automatic reflex.
Doing nothing was not an option that I could comfortably live with (it was
in southern Algeria, miles from anywhere, a petrol tanker had over-turned
and was leaking gas from the trailer-tank, the driver had suffered severe
injuries - half his skull was missing exposing his brain, chances of
survival nudging zero - and the nearest phone was 5 hours away. He later
died.) Now you seem to class this as a species of 'love'. I disagree. It's
an in-built altruism, not uncommon in social animals and it is an evolved
survival trait - help others of your kind and the species has an advantage
over those that don't. Co-operation pays in the natural world. 

Unfortunately Harry expresses this survial trait to such an extent that it's
close to being a non-survival trait. As the books have progressed and
Harry has become more active and interventionist so the body count rises. 
Good intentions don't hack it.
But I suppose I'm just a cynical old fart.