Unreliable narrator--a better example

[justcarol67]

It occurred to me as I was driving home this afternoon that the
clearest examples of unreliable narration in the HP books can probably
be taken from chapter one of SS/PS because we know that JKR doesn't
share the Dursleys' views. Take, for example, "Mrs. Dursley pretended
she didn't have a sister, because her sister and her good-for-nothing
husband were as unDursleyish as it was possible to be" (SS Am. ed. 2).
Here the point of view is actually Petunia's rather than Vernon's. The
first half of the sentence is a statement of fact (in the context of
the novel), and the "unDursleyish" part could be considered objective
or at least accurate (even if the reader and Petunia disagree as to
whether being "unDursleyish" is good or bad).

But "good-for-nothing husband" is clearly Petunia's opinion, neither
objective nor accurate (from JKR's perspective). If we believe that
James outgrew his bully phase to become a loving father and husband
and a decent, courageous man, we have to reject the narrator's
description of him as "good-for-nothing" as reflecting Petunia's
limited and distorted POV. If, however, we argue that the narrator is
reliable here and throughout the books, then we must accept at face
value the assertion that James is no good--a nice piece of ammunition
for the James bashers. IMO, it works to support the argument that
"that awful boy" is James (at least Petunia's view of him would be
consistent) but it doesn't prove that he really was no good. (Not to
get sidetracked here, but if James treated Petunia as he treated
Severus, we can at least understand where her view of him came from.)

My point, though, is that the narrator is no more reliable in
presenting people and events from Harry's perspective than from the
Dursleys'. It's just that the flaws in Harry's perspective are not so
patently obvious. He's the protagonist and we're supposed to empathize
with him, after all.

Once again, "limited omniscience" merely means that the narrator's
"omniscience" (bad term, but I didn't invent it!) is limited. Far from
knowing everything, he (or she) knows only what the POV character
knows, or thinks he knows, or perceives. The fact that the POV
character occasionally changes doesn't make this perspective any less
limited, not does it make it more reliable. In fact, I would venture
to say that the only time the narrator is wholly reliable is when
there's no POV character at all, as in the description of what's
happening or will happen around the sleeping baby in the last
paragraph of SS/PS.

Carol, hoping she's not boring people who would rather talk about
British food!