Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word

[GulPlum]

I've been otherwise engaged for last six weeks or so, but  I've spent the 
last couple of days going over what's been said since then. There are a 
couple of older threads (a couple of which were relevant to my last 
contributions) I want to go back to in due course, but in the meantime, a 
few comments on the current discussion.

Firstly, a short factual reply, even though I'm not David:

At 20:53 09/06/05 , Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray wrote:
>Only one problem: what the heck is "heptalogy?" I lost you there.

Not to be confused with "hepatology" (the study of the liver and associated 
functions), a set or series of seven books (from greek "heptalogia", 
derived from "hepta"=seven + "logos"=word). Scientific and academic 
terminology likes to stick to *either* Latin *or* Greek roots (before 
anyone says that "television" breaks that rule, I'll say it myself) :-) so, 
for the record, from the Greek words, we get:

Trilogy: three books
Tetralogy: four books (*not* "quadrilogy", 20th Century Fox and your 
misguided appellation for the "Alien" series of movies, please take note)
Pentalogy: five books (NOT "quintralogy", which I have seen used)
Hexalogy : six books (not, as I recently saw on another HP list, 
"sexology", which is the scientific study of sex...)
Heptalogy: seven books (NOT "septalogy" or, arguably worse, "septology", 
much beloved of HP web sites all across the internet, which drives me into 
a  blind rage).

end of Classics lesson. :-)

Now on to the meat of what I wanted to say...

At 22:32 08/06/05 , Barry Arrowsmith (Kneasy) wrote:

<snip>

>To go back to my earlier post - just which OED definition of the word
>(it gives 10 main ones) do you think JKR intends us to slot into the vacant
>position? Yes, I know that that is a very mischievous question - a veritable
>minefield for almost any answer that can be given.

Actually, I'd suggest all of them, and a few more besides. Whilst I've not 
bothered to look it up (I'd need to go up a flight of stairs to get my 
dictionary), I'm prepared to go as far as to claim that by the end of the 
series, JKR will have shown all of them to be true of Harry in some way. I 
do, however, NOT expect the Potter series to include any references to 
"MAKING love"... :-)

For want of a suitable definition, therefore (it is, after all, a 
"Mystery", in the DOM) in thematic and plot terms, it appears to be quite 
simply all that Voldemort is NOT: compassion; comprehension; solicitude, 
respect, generosity of spirit; capacity for, and valuing of, friendship; 
capacity for self-sacrifice; a "live and let live" attitude to life, and 
other related aspects, including a non-cynical approach to life and people, 
which in Harry's case admittedly verges on the naive (although a certain 
naivete is not only  understandable in, but part and parcel of being, a 
teenager).

I think one of the most blatant ways this juxtaposition manifests itself is 
the way the DA was instituted and run as opposed to everything we know 
about the Death Eaters and the way Malfoy Snr. conducts his affairs (seeing 
as Malfoy is presented as Voldy's second in command and his representative 
for a chunk of the plot to date). Just to give an idea of what I'm on 
about, the idea for the DA isn't Harry's, its purpose is not his own 
self-aggrandisement, and he doesn't need to cajole or bully people into 
joining. And once the DA starts its activities, Harry doesn't appear to 
want to show off (the thought doesn't appear to cross his mind) and is 
willing to learn as much as teach. Whilst most of these attributes don't 
really belong in any dictionary definition of "love", they are indicative 
of a certain predisposition, and it is this predisposition that I believe 
JKR is summing up with this particular unvoiced term.

>  [...] 'cos that demonstrated by Harry is very limited and very specific 
> - to just a few individuals.

C'mon, that's an unfair comment on several levels. First of all, few people 
reserve the label of "love" to more than a tiny handful of others at the 
best of times. To expect Harry to be any different is rather churlish. 
Secondly, while neither Harry nor the Narrator use the term about his 
feelings for anyone, this is hardly usual for a 11-15 year old boy (other 
than in hyperbolic circumstances e.g. "I love flying").

Mainly, though, as regards Harry's *propensities* rather than his expressed 
sentiments, his approach towards everyone he meets is to give them the 
benefit of the doubt until they make the first move. This then determines 
his feelings towards them. In the case of Sirius, of course, these feelings 
did a 180 degree turn, once Harry was equipped with the full facts.

The Magical World is a very prejudiced place, with many would-be "noble", 
"good" or simply sympathetic characters displaying all kinds of biases, be 
they towards Muggles or various races of beings, and House-Elves in 
particular. Harry displays very few of these biases, while accepting the 
status quo and doing little or nothing to fight them (e.g. regarding House 
Elves, by not taking much as interest as Hermione would like in SPEW). Of 
course, some characters/creatures may be scary or off-putting (e.g. first 
contact with Buckbeak, Dobby, or indeed Hagrid), but Harry doesn't stop 
this accepting them as *potential* dangers until he has reason to be sure.

Harry's ill-will is reserved to very few characters and while he has a 
passing dislike for several,  he doesn't act on that dislike. And all the 
people he *does* dislike or hate are themselves blameworthy for that 
feeling. Whether it's Snape, who was disrespectful and bullying during 
their first encounter (compounded by Harry's assumption about the origin of 
his scar hurting during the Feast), or Malfoy, who after the basically 
racist exchange at Madame Malkin's, adds to it by insulting Harry's first 
friend *ever*. And could anyone in his shoes *not* hate Umbridge?

Apart from them and, of course, Voldy and his minions, Harry basically 
would go a long distance to help pretty much anyone. There are several 
people he dislikes with varying degrees in intensity, such as the Dursleys, 
Filtch and Skeeter, but again this is because they have behaved badly 
towards him or those close to him. And done so *consistently*, not just on 
one-off occasions.

Whether or not he "loves" those he is willing to protect is a matter of 
semantics, and is certainly not a word Harry himself would be prepared to 
use. But the basis for emotional ties is there and this is what divides him 
from Voldemort, and it is (presumably) the concept of tying himself to 
another (which we may as well call "love") which is absent from Voldy's 
emotional, psychological and indeed physical makeup, but is so abundant in 
Harry's.

A frequent topic for HP-related polls of one sort or another are people's 
favourite lines. Mine has always been, since the first time I read it, not 
a pithy or humorous piece of dialogue, but this from his first journey 
aboard the Hogwarts Express:

" 'Go on, have a pasty', said Harry, who had never had anything to share 
before or, indeed, anyone to share it with. It was a nice feeling, sitting 
there with Ron, eating their way through all Harry's pasties ..."

Few things give Harry as much pleasure as the act of sharing, and if that's 
not a demonstration of one of the possible definitions of "love", I don't 
know what is. Almost all of Harry's friendships begin with some act of 
altruism, usually, but not always (e.g. Hagrid) on Harry's part.

Fair enough, seeing as it's pleasurable, your Darwinistic, deterministic 
view of human behaviour will insist that that's why he indulges in it. 
Except it's not. Harry doesn't do good things for other people because it 
makes him feel good. He does it because that's the kind of person he is - a 
(eugh!) "loving" person.

Contrast with the way Voldemort (exemplified by his chief lackey, Malfoy 
Snr., about whose methods we know more) makes allies and supporters: 
intimidation, blackmail, bribery, etc. Note, however, that Hermione has 
used these methods, and Harry's first reaction has usually been negative 
(e.g. she bullies Harry & Ron into joining SPEW, she blackmails/bribes Rita 
Skeeter into doing her bidding, etc).

Of course, this doesn't mean that Harry is pure as the driven snow and 
doesn't have a single bad feeling about anyone. Harry is capable of feeling 
hateful and even vengeful, and by my reading, it is those emotions on which 
Voldy feeds (and nourishes) during the course of the events in OotP, 
although not much is made of it in the book. But when push comes to shove, 
Harry is incapable of killing Sirius (while hating him with all his being) 
and thus gives Lupin his opening in PoA. Likewise, he's incapable of 
inflicting serious damage on Bellatrix after she's been responsible for 
Sirius's demise. In other words, Harry only *thinks* he "hates" certain 
people and is hardly able to act on those emotions, whilst his acts of 
altruism are capable of taking him to foolish extremes.

Yes, he is rightly accused of having a "hero complex", but it's not born 
out of a desire to be a hero, but to save those for whom he cares (another 
possible dictionary definition of the four-letter word).

Harry may or may "love" Dudley and the fact that he saved him may or may 
not be the result of animal herd instinct; but the Magical World, however, 
unscientific as it is, doesn't appear to set any store by genetics, 
anthropology (or any other -ologies) and would label it "love", or at the 
very least, an act of altruism born of a sense of responsibility for 
another human being. Lord Thingy certainly wouldn't have done it, and it is 
in reference to that more than anything else which makes it a positive 
trait on Harry's part.

Whether or not Kneasy's act of heroic bravery (the difference between 
heroic bravery and heroic stupidity is the outcome...) was an act of animal 
herd instinct or an act of altruism isn't really the point. The point is, 
would Lord Voldemort (or even Tom Riddle) have done it?

>I don't claim that you're wrong - though I'll be very depressed if you're
>right, I'd hoped for something more than an ending cliched even by the
>standards of daytime TV.

The cliched ending I am fearing (and which I consider increasingly likely) 
is that Tom Riddle will experience love for the first time in some deus ex 
machina fashion, and whilst not redeeming himself (I think I remember JKR 
ruling that one out), will breathe his last breath as a loved person. And 
worst scenario of all, the person doing the loving will be Harry. Yeuch!


--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who's just noticed that he's spent the last four hours 
scribbling the above, and is horrified by this effort-to-outcome ratio.