A Whisper About Time-Travel

[Talisman]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> Talisman wrote:

> So, Rowling <snip> heard a bit of whisper about "time-traveing" 
characters, but she's willing to put associated theories to rest by 
assuring us that "NONE of the characters in the books has returned 
from the future." >SNIP< Why not rule out someone from the past? 
>SNIP part where Talisman indicates past travelers are the 
implication of the exchange.<

Dave:
>Well, it is a puzzle: but the question is, why debunk anything at
>all?

Talisman:
Why have a site at all? Why give interviews and answer fan
questions? It would seem that she enjoys it, to some extent. Beyond
that, she is aware of the remarkable phenomenon of her fandom and is
game enough to interact.

Clearly, there are times when she is simply debunking rumors. I
really don't care whether Dr. Murray is still working, but
apparently she feels the needs to tell us. In such cases, there
just isn't anything else to it. Her comments are
unambiguous and raise no useful implications.

In addition to quashing rumors, she uses her site to feed us scraps
from the cutting room floor. Bits of this and that which were no
doubt properly omitted as superfluous, and similarly have no utility
in our mystery solving games. These are in the nature of appetizers
from the not-certain-to-appear Book 8 of lost details.

Ditto the bits of trivia about Rowling, herself, for which some
ardent fans, possibly limited by restraining orders, may yearn.

Finally, among the reasons explicitly stated in her "Welcome," she
says she finds the site a useful place to "give you hints and clues
about what's going to happen to Harry next."

These, however, do not come in a separate category entitled "Hints
and Clues," rather they are sprinkled among all other categories.
Not every item is invested with an operable clue, but many clues are
present in every format in which information is offered. (Or are at 
least possible; the trash heap, so far, is not yielding much fruit.)

Dave:
>However she replies she is bound to draw attention to ideas
>that are close to the one she is debunking but not *quite* ruled out
>by her remarks.

Talisman:
I have to disagree with you here, Dave. By choosing to raise the
issue of time-traveling characters--which is not a current pot-
boiler as far as I can tell--and then choosing to rule
out (emphatically) the possibility that any character has come from
the future, Rowling has simultaneously raised and left hanging only
one other prominent idea: the presence of visitors from the past.

This is not a "forced" implication, nor is it merely one of a
multitude of implications. If you can gin up any other implications
at all, they will not have the weight and immediacy caused by the
underlying proposition that Potterverse time-travel involves
movement from both the future and the past.

Had she chosen to say "None of the characters in the books is there 
because of time-travel," she would have left ground for
contortionists, only. But, she chose to say something else.

Dave:
>We have two ways of looking at it, I think. One is that the
>debunked speculations are close to the mark and she wants to
>misdirect by getting naive fans to go somewhere else entirely. In
>that case travellers from the past are possibly something she's
>trying ineptly to draw us away from.

Talisman:
We have a third way of looking at it: that she is salting a clue in
with the mix. Trying to excite interest in something that has died
off for lack of kindling.

If she were trying to lead us away from the idea of travelers from
the past, she would have to be inept, indeed. It's one thing to
acknowledge a Homeric nod or two, it's a different proposition--and
one I don't think is well taken--to process Rowling's utterances as
if she were incompetent in the English language.

I understand that some readers, especially the ones who think DD
isn't in control and doesn't lie, are in the habit of attributing
every inexplicable bit of evidence contra to authorial error. Once 
you are down that hole, I suppose it is hard to see out. <veg>

Nonetheless, by raising the topic of time-travel, decimating the
possibility of future travelers but failing to address past
travelers at all, Rowling has created what linguists call
a "conversational implicature." Implicature is merely academic
jargon used to describe part of what Paul Grice located as the way
the English language is actually used, by competent communicators.
It is part of what we assimilate during childhood as we learn the
unspoken rules of language.

The short version, relevant to this discussion, is that when a
competent speaker includes too much or too little information in a
reply, the competent hearer understands that additional information
is being communicated by implication, relevant to the context.

Let's say that I inform you that Fleur has invited you to dine
with her a Chez Delacour, you lucky dog. You inquire whether she is
a good cook, and I respond that she has VERY lovely china.

I will be quite disappointed if you don't catch a snack on the way
over. Must keep up one's strength, you know.

I've used the word competent a number of times in this explanation,
and not just to be annoying--really. While lack of it has an
unfortunately pejorative connotation, it's used in linguistics as a
qualifier to indicate how implicature is ineffective for
some communicators. 

Sometimes non-native English speakers fall
into this category. If you've ever studied a foreign language, you
probably appreciate that it is much easier to make or understand a
straightforward statement than it is to understand or use a pun,
idiom or subtle innuendo.

I have a German son-in-law who is very fluent in English. So fluent
that it's easy to forget that it is not his primary language. The
reminder will come when a double entendre, or other joke that hinges
on figurative interpretation, causes him consternation.

But there are also native English speakers, who for various reasons,
process language very concretely. These individuals--no matter how
intelligent, no matter how educated, no matter how capable they are
in other areas--have difficulty "reading between the lines." They
are not likely to feel comfortable with information gathered this
way, even after it's explained to them, and usually believe that
subtext is a figment of the imagination.

You know when you are in the presence of such individuals because
they don't use "playful" language successfully, or at all, and
clearly have difficulty identifying, or grasping the meaning of,
language used in a non-literal manner. Once pried from the shores of 
solid denotation, they are all at sea.

Rowling is clearly not in this category. Because she is competent
with the English language, and because she has clearly raised the
implication, I posit that this is the best "reading" of the matter.

Oddly enough, I'm indifferent to the appearance of time-travelers.
For some reason it doesn't excite me at all. (Though Kneasy could 
probably do somethig about that, by applying his admirable creative 
talents.) Still, I won't be surprised if some turn up.

Dave:
>The other is that the speculations are so far from anything in the
>books that she (mistakenly IMO) wants to save fans the bother of
>pursuing them. In that case the admittedly slipshod deduction that
>time travellers are ruled out completely is probably safe.

Talisman:
Slipshod deductions are never safe, I advise use of a prophylactic.

Dave:
>Similar reasoning applies to the case of Flamel and the putative
>Potions Master vacancy.

Talisman: Ditto, in spades.

Dave:
>In neither case does JKR come very well out of it. The best way to
>conceal future developments is simply to remain silent about plot
>matters, and if fans enjoy off-the-wall speculations why should she
>feel responsible for shooting them down?

Talisman:
The best way to give tantalizing little clues about what is to come
is to sprinkle them amongst the otherwise innocent verbiage. As for
shooting speculations down, that is entertainment of a different
nature, widely enjoyed by the hoi polloi, as well.

>David, glad that Talisman's tattoo won't get all dirty and smelly.

Talisman, aw thanks, but not to worry. It was just a little skull-
and-serpent number that gained me entry to some interesting places.
It's all lathered away now, though I do have a few extra tucked away
for future festivities
 <g>