JKR didn't say "No: was re: Life-saving bonds

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 94799

I (Naama) said:

> > When JKR said "I don't think so", she knows (as anyone would 
> who is  an English speaker) that it's immediately interpreted as 
> "as far as I  know, no." So, if she said it and Snape *is* a 
> vampire, then she  deliberately tried to create a false impression 
> with the participants; which is to lie. <

To which Pippin replied:

> You've never heard anyone say, "I don't think so, I *know* so"?

Naama:

I certainly have. It is a humorous phrasing, based on the fact that 
normally, "I don't think so" is used for a softened "no." 

< To think is to exercise the power of reason, and of course, JKR 
> does not need to reason out whether Snape is a vampire or not.
>  As I pointed out earlier, JKR herself uses such a construction in 
> one of the very first references to Snape, "At the start of term 
> banquet, Harry had got the idea that Professor Snape disliked 
> him. By then end of the first Potions lesson he knew he'd been 
> wrong. Professor Snape didn't dislike Harry--he *hated* him." 

Naama:

But in her answer, she is not using "I don't think so" in a construct 
of any kind. She is using it au natural, so to speak. And again, in 
common usage, when somebody says "I don't think so" without 
additions, they mean to convey "as far as I know, no." 
What if the quote you bring would have been, "By the end of the first 
Potions lesson he knew he'd been wrong, Professor Snape didn't 
dislike Harry."? It would be senseless for the author to put it that 
way, for the reader to complete, in her head, "he hated him", right? 
In the same way, it doesn't make sense to interpret an "I don't think 
so" followed by a period, as the first part of a construct, ending 
in "I know so." 

> Dumbledore himself says something deliberately ambiguous  in 
> OOP: "Tonight was supposed to be the first meeting" -- where 
> Fudge takes the meaning of "supposed" as "intended" but we 
> know that  Dumbledore really means the other sense: 
> "presumed to be true without conclusive evidence." 
> 
> This is a deliberate attempt to mislead. But Dumbledore doesn't 
> appear to regard it as lying--more like he's giving Fudge a choice 
> about how to interpret his words, and letting Fudge jump to 
> conclusions.  

Naama:

I'm sorry, but in this case Dumbledore was flat out lying to Fudge. 
He falsely confesses to initating DA. (It's remarkable, though beside 
the point of this discussion, that it is the first time in the books 
that Dumbledore is lying.)

> All the books are filled with deliberate attempts to create false 
> impressions...that's what mystery stories are about!  But when 
> you have all the facts, you see how you were led to misinterpret, 
> for example, Snape's actions at the first Quidditch match, or what 
> Quirrell meant when he said "C-can't t-tell you how p-pleased I 
> am to meet you."  Rowling explains her attitude in the following 
> quote:
> 
> Reader's Digest
> December 2000
> J.K. Rowling: The Wizard Behind Harry Potter Tim Bouquet
> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1200-readersdige
> st-boquet.htm
> 
> "Readers loved to be tricked, but not conned."
> IMO, if she says, "No" plainly and the answer turns out to be 'Yes' 
> that would be a con. But if she gives an obviously cagey answer, 
> and we let our own eagerness to have the matter settled  supply 
> a certainty that isn't there, then we've conned ourselves, which is 
> a very different matter.

Naama:

But I disagree with you precisely on whether her answer is cagey or 
not. *I* don't think it's cagey at all, *because* (sorry for repeting 
myself) "I don't think so" has such a clear meaning in common usage. 
So, in my understanding, if it turns out that Snape is vampire, her 
answer is a blatant con.


Naama, who actually was growing quite fond of the Snape as Vampire 
theory