Harry Potter's Implicature

Speranza

J.K. Rowling Just Can’t Let Harry Potter Go by SARAH LYALL

By SARAH LYALL
Her juggernaut plows on, with a two-part “Potter” stage sequel and coming film spinoff. Some fans like it. Others don’t.

Let's examine this in more detail. I would call it Sarah Lyall's implicature, or is it a disimplicature?

Grice would call it a flout to the 'suggestio_falsi'.

i. Rowling's juggernaut plows on. Some fans like this. Others don't.

According to Grice (and Horn -- Horn is cautious because he presented this in his second chapter to his PhD dissertation at the Performadillo Conference, and while Grice uses and cites 'some' and 'all' he does not quite submit to the 'scalar implicature' view, explicitly) surely

ii. Some fans like this.

IMPLICATES

iii. Some don't.

So what is Lyall saying? Or doing, as J. L. Austin would prefer? Has she never read Grice (or Austin)?

Don't think so. It is a disimplicature?

No. It's like ASSERTING or EXPLICATING what is already being IMPLICATED. Of course the implicature, a standard conversational implicature here, is cancellable, as some (if not all) 19th century British logicians (according to Bartley, Grice is a 20th century British logician) have noted:

iv. Some, if not all, fans like this.

The phenomenon is so complex that one should leave it to Geary!