[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's POV?

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 15686

Kelley wrote:

> > I have a problem with this type of argument, but before going off
> the deep end, I wanted to ask, is there evidence that the stories are
> *coloured* by Harry's POV?
> > <snip>
>
> > So, is there evidence for such colouring of the narrative? I
> couldn't think of anything that fits, but maybe other people here can
> come up with examples?
> >
> > Naama
>
> I love where you're going with this, Naama, as this has never sat well
> with me, either.  Like Magda, Snape is the best I can come up with,
> and this doesn't really seem to fit your criteria of 'colouring' on
> Harry's part.  We're mislead in book 1, thinking that Snape is the
> 'bad guy' when it turns out to be Quirrell, though, at least thus far,
> Harry's belief that Snape hates him does seem to be correct.

<snip>

> As far as quantifying descriptions go, the "Harry's POV" argument
> holds no weight with me.  I have always taken any information we
> receive in this manner as straight from JKR,
> without any colouring or exaggeration from Harry.

I don't know if this is the sort of thing you have in mind, Naama et
al., but here's my take. I don't think you will be able to "prove"
coloring by Harry's viewpoint, simply because JKR doesn't step out of
his "eyes" much for any objective measure, at least of the things
Harry's seeing. The only time she's altered that were scenes where we as
readers needed information that Harry would not know or could not
supply.

I think Harry's interpretation of what he's experiencing *must* affect
how we interpret it. I think it's supposed to; we're learning about the
wizarding world and his past along with him. And one person's
interpretation can be valid, but still wrong or incomplete. For
example--totally off-topic--my husband. After we were married, he (whose
house had always been spotless) suddenly ceased doing anything around
the house. This was very irritating to me, to say the least, because I
resented him suddenly dumping it all on me and expecting me to take care
of everything.

Turns out, his father was a career Marine, who was gone for long periods
of time (WWII, Korea, Vietnam), and who, when he came home, had the
sense not to mess with the status quo of his wife's running everything.
And besides the fact that he didn't want to sail in, pat her on the
head, and do the "I'll take it from here, honey" dismissal number on
her, my husband's father considered the home and its decisions and
running to be the rightful domain of the woman of the house. My husband
had yielded control of his household to me out of respect and in
recognition of my status as his wife; he was taken aback that I had seen
it as him dodging his responsibilities. [We've since established a happy
medium.]

The point here is that Harry's interpretations of what he perceives may
be valid, and still not correct (or not entirely correct). It has been
demonstrated to us as readers many times, that things, connections, and
knowledge which are common as dirt to "native" wizards are often totally
missed by Harry. There's a big window for "coloring" right there, but it
will be invisible to us as readers until a character corrects Harry,
updating his point of view.

Knowing me, I thought of Snape's character, which is probably very
colored by Harry's viewpoint. I don't think there's any argument that
Snape hates Harry. But as I've pointed out before, if you ignore the
manner in which Snape does things, much of the actual actions he takes
are protective of Harry. His actions in many instances can be
interpreted as rising from several motivations, but Harry sees only one,
considers only one--Snape hates him and would love to get him in
trouble. Here's a situation where Harry's point of view and
interpretation are necessarily limited--Snape's not into explaining his
actions, and we don't know anything about Snape that Harry doesn't. So
clearly our view of Snape is colored by Harry's view.

I'm sort of rambling, I hope that made some kind of sense.

--Amanda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]