Truth or consequences

[nrenka]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...> 
wrote:

<snippity throughout>

> Talisman:
> Alas, DD never tells me anything.  I can only observe him telling 
> things to other characters, and in that context, he most certainly 
> does lie.

Given the oft-asserted proposition that we-the-readers are limited by 
Harry's viewpoint, is it worth considering to whom Dumbledore is 
speaking when he states things or omits them?  I think it is.  

> To repeat what I've noted so often before, there is no difference 
> between omissive and comissive lying. Oh, and asking subordinates 
> to lie for your purposes? That's culpable, too.  

I get the feeling that in the Potterverse, there are indeed 
differences between sins of omission and sins of comission, and that 
is a part of the author's horizon which comes out strongly in the 
treatment of characters.  I have a hunch this will be made more 
manifest, myself.

<snip>

> I have a feeling this is part of why some people don't like the 
> book.  I'm very encouraged to hear that Rowling expects some people 
> to dislike Book 6, because I`m betting she`s referring to the same 
> ones who are fussed now. (JKR Site/F.A.Q. /About the Book /"Do you 
> Like Half Blood Prince?" )

It could be those--but it could just as equally be those fans she has 
slagged on before.  You know the ones, those who love Draco because 
of Tom Felton or Snape because of Alan Rickman.  Or perhaps those who 
*love* Snape in general.  No proof to tilt it to one side or the 
other, no?

<snip long discussion of lying and perjury>

All the situations you have listed here are in OotP, and all are 
directed towards rather similar ends; defending himself and the group 
against those in denial whose agenda is profoundly harmful.
 
> Of course, I think DD did the right thing, if that makes you any 
> happier.  But, he certainly did lie.

JKR is certainly no Kantian, it seems; no noble categorical 
imperative telling the murderer where your friend is for one of her 
most major white hats.  But I ask you--is there any situation where, 
in direct address to *Harry*, Dumbledore has flat-out lied to him?  
In the first book he says he will not lie, so he will be open about 
not telling him.  Not quite lying unless you want to make the 
compression of omission and comission--then what is it to be honest 
about witholding?  In your example of Dumbledore and Tom in the 
atrium, Dumbledore is there--but he's not speaking to Harry, he's 
speaking to Tom Riddle.

This may be too fine of a distinction for some, but given our 
knowledge of how important the audience is in the determinant of both 
content and meaning of a speech-act...take it into consideration.

-Nora wishes she had a copy of PS/SS at hand, but rather has a full 
score for FrOSch