Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys)

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 163245

> Ceridwen:
> Before I looked it up, I wouldn't have thought so, either.  But, 
> having gone back and read the Potions class scene, I am not so 
> certain, and am leaning toward Harry's "haughty spirit" in this 
case 
> going before a fall. 

Neri:
I think there's a good reason why most readers assumed Snape dropped 
the flask on purpose in their first reading, but are not so sure when 
going back. I think the first impression is more precise in this 
case, because when you read throughout the book, you read everything 
in context of the previous chapters, the way the Author meant you to. 
You read the case of the "another zero" incident in the context of 
the first zero incident, which happened several chapters before. 

The interesting distinction here, I think, is not between "oops" 
and "whoops" (although that's very interesting too). It's between 
parts of the story that are supposed to be read just like they appear 
on first impression, with all the missing parts filled in by the 
reader in the most straightforward manner, and the parts that are 
meant to mislead the reader, and allow for a different interpretation 
after some revelation, like in red herrings. I agree the JKR isn't 
very good at making this distinction obvious, and in large part it's 
her fault that many HP readers have adopted a policy of "trust 
nobody" and "believe nothing". But my impression is that JKR is 
frequently genuinely baffled as to why won't her readers just take 
some things at face value. I think it's very likely that 
she "neglected" to describe here even Harry's own interpretation of 
the incident because she believed it was self-evident. In any case, I 
don't see why she'd use intended ambiguity here, unless you believe 
that The Case Of The Broken Flask will be reopened in Book 7. And 
even then it still doesn't explain why she didn't even us Harry's 
opinion at least.  


> Magpie:
> As a native speaker, I don't associate any difference in sincerity 
between 
> whoops and oops. The two words are very close, but the difference 
in my 
> experience is that usually "oops" just means a mistake after the 
fact while 
> "whoops" is more often used to punctuate a physical fumble or slip-
up, like 
> when you slip on the ice you say "whoops!" and when you do 
something wrong 
> you say "oops."

Neri:
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you describe. In any case I 
have to clarify here that I didn't mean so much informal *spoken* 
English (in which I certainly don't presume to know much) but more 
*conventions of writing* informal spoken English. The question here 
isn't so much what would be the exact transcription of the exact 
sound that each of us would utter when dropping something 
accidentally (I'm not sure about myself either...). The question is, 
why does a writer sometimes *writes* "oops" and sometimes "whoops". 
I'm not sure why I got the impression that the distinction relates to 
how authentic the surprise is, but I had it for many years of reading 
books in English, and when I checked the examples from the HP series 
unthread they indeed fit.
 
> Magpie:
> You say "whoops" to a baby or a toddler when 
> they fall down etc. So while "oops" would in my mind have to refer 
to 
> Snape's own mistake, "whoops" could either be Snape talking about 
his own 
> spill or Harry's.

Neri:
Yes, I certainly agree about the toddler example, but that fits my 
distinction too. That is, when you say "whoops" to a toddler it's not 
authentic surprise on your side, but something slightly artificial. 
More like "yes dear, I knew you were about to fall soon, but nothing 
happened so don't start crying on me."


> Jen:  
> Magpie and Ceridwen answered this point thoroughly and I agree 
> with Magpie that technically 'whoops' is directed toward someone 
> else's accident and 'oops' is said after one's own accident.

Neri:
I'm not sure this is what Magpie wrote, but anyway it doesn't work 
with Lockhart saying "whoops" about his own accident, and yet I've 
never felt that he should have said "oops" when reading this passage. 
Why? First because Lockhart doesn't say it when he actually drops the 
wand, he says it a bit *later*, when he picks up the wand. And 
moreover, Lockhart wants Harry to think that he just fumbled, but we 
know that he probably can't do whatever jinx he was pretending to 
demonstrate. IOW his "whoops" isn't written as an authentic, 
reflexive surprise sound. There's something decidedly artificial 
about it. 


> Carol reponds:
>  Ingenious, Neri, but unfortunately incorrect. "oops" and "whoops" 
are
> identical in meaning. Here's the Merriam-Webster Online definition 
of
> "oops":
> 
> Main Entry: oops
> Variant(s): or whoops also woops /'(w)u(&)ps/
> Function: interjection
> -- used typically to express mild apology, surprise, or dismay
> 
> "Whoops" doesn't have its own entry as its only a variant of "oops."

Neri:
Unfortunately, as any non-native English speaker can tell you, 
dictionaries (even Webster) are mostly useless when it comes to 
distinguishing subtle nuances of informal language.


Neri