Not quite. I don’t disagree that they were from the start supposed to be from the same individual, nor that ‘Santa Claus’ was meant to show Harry they were the same individual. It’s just that the first letter was not signed ‘Santa Claus’ and Harry says it was. This is a mistake on either Harry’s or Eliezer’s part, (with a lesser hypothesis being that the inaccuracy was a deliberate minor ploy on Harry’s part—but that’s a bit unlikely and silly)
Maybe he states them as both being signed ‘Santa Claus’ just because it’s simpler to do so. After all, in Harry’s mind the author of each note is very likely the same person, so the two notes may as well have both been signed ‘Santa Claus’. It potentially saves the time of having to explain (what is to him) a foregone conclusion. Whether or not that’s a detail Harry would normally skip is up to you I guess.
Of course it could just be an authorial mistake. But I’m willing to give Eliezer the benefit of the doubt on a minor point like this.
Maybe he states them as both being signed ‘Santa Claus’ just because it’s simpler to do so.
Ugh. That’s possible too, I guess, but it’d be rather hypocritical on Harry’s part given how insistent he is, in the very same conversation, about clearly distinguishing between observation and inference.
That’s possible too, I guess, but it’d be rather hypocritical on Harry’s part given how insistent he is, in the very same conversation, about clearly distinguishing between observation and inference.
Reasonably sure Eliezer did that intentionally. It’s very much his style.
Edit: This whole idea is a joke on the reader as well. So you’re convinced Snape is S and Dumbledore is Santa Claus? But all you observed was Snape burning some letters that could help Hermione, and Dumbledore saying “you know me too well” (note: not a real admission).
(Of course, considering prior probabilities shows that these doubts would be unreasonable. But the same holds for the first letter-writer being the same person as Santa Claus. All told, it looks like Eliezer’s poking fun at Harry’s “Observations, not inferences!!” diktat.)
Not quite. I don’t disagree that they were from the start supposed to be from the same individual, nor that ‘Santa Claus’ was meant to show Harry they were the same individual. It’s just that the first letter was not signed ‘Santa Claus’ and Harry says it was. This is a mistake on either Harry’s or Eliezer’s part, (with a lesser hypothesis being that the inaccuracy was a deliberate minor ploy on Harry’s part—but that’s a bit unlikely and silly)
Maybe he states them as both being signed ‘Santa Claus’ just because it’s simpler to do so. After all, in Harry’s mind the author of each note is very likely the same person, so the two notes may as well have both been signed ‘Santa Claus’. It potentially saves the time of having to explain (what is to him) a foregone conclusion. Whether or not that’s a detail Harry would normally skip is up to you I guess.
Of course it could just be an authorial mistake. But I’m willing to give Eliezer the benefit of the doubt on a minor point like this.
Ugh. That’s possible too, I guess, but it’d be rather hypocritical on Harry’s part given how insistent he is, in the very same conversation, about clearly distinguishing between observation and inference.
Reasonably sure Eliezer did that intentionally. It’s very much his style.
Edit: This whole idea is a joke on the reader as well. So you’re convinced Snape is S and Dumbledore is Santa Claus? But all you observed was Snape burning some letters that could help Hermione, and Dumbledore saying “you know me too well” (note: not a real admission).
(Of course, considering prior probabilities shows that these doubts would be unreasonable. But the same holds for the first letter-writer being the same person as Santa Claus. All told, it looks like Eliezer’s poking fun at Harry’s “Observations, not inferences!!” diktat.)