Harry's POV revisited

[naama_gat at hotmail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 16073

I'm sorry to be so late in responding, but I had an incredibly busy 
week (including hand feeding a week-old kitten that some nice, kind, 
sweet person put in a garbage dumpster). I'm answering here only some 
of the points raised in the posts. I hope I'll have time to continue 
with the rest in the following days.


Rina wrote:
>For me, it's a logical step to assume that if we only know what he 
>does, we're seeing it from his perspective, which is naturally 
>colored by his own thoughts.


This is a basic assumption that, I think, is at the base of many POV 
arguments. I disagree completely with this assumption.
There is really only one type of narrative which is *necessarily* 
coloured by the thoughts of the protagonist and that is a diary (I 
mean a real diary, not a story written in the form of a diary). 
To illustrate this point: If I write in my diary an account of what 
happened today at work, I am bound by my impressions of what 
happened, so necessarily the narrative is coloured by my thoughts, 
childhood experiences, associations, personality and so on. But, if 
I'm writing a story in which a character is telling a story, I can 
make that inner story completely factual or completely skewed by the 
story tellers perspective, as I choose. Since I'm the author, I'm 
the inventor of the incidents of which I'm writing, so I know what 
"really" happened, and therefore can make the character describe it 
as it really was. Or else, I may choose to have the character skew 
the facts. I can even choose to do both - have the character tell the 
facts and then add her take on them. 
So, even if the story was told completely from Harry's POV (and it 
isn't) I would still maintain that it doesn't follow logically that 
the story is coloured by Harry's POV. That would depend on JKR's 
intentions, on what the "jobs" are that her narrative is meant to 
perform. 
Which brings back my original question - what evidence is there that 
the narrative is coloured by Harry's POV? I'll phrase it in another 
way - are there any cases where what is presented to us as a *fact* 
turns out to be not a fact but a skewing of the reality (by Harry's 
POV)?
>From my reading of the books, facts are facts and they are clearly 
distinguished from what Harry thinks and feels about them. 

Charmian:
>Sometimes Harry just doesn't have enough information, and we are 
>misled. (you know, all those nice surprises at the end of the 
>books.)

Yes, Harry is misled and so are we. But, in all the HP mystery plots, 
I think that what actually happens is clearly distinguished from the 
interpretation Harry gives it (for instance, I didn't suspect Snape 
in PS; he was too obviously a red herring). Secondly, Harry is misled 
because the reality is misleading. It doesn't really have a lot to do 
with his personal view of things. Who did suspect Quirrel, Ginny, 
Scabbers or Moody? Everybody (except Snape with Quirrel) is taken in 
by the bad guys - including Dumbledore who didn't realize that his 
"old friend" is an impostor.
Compare this way of constructing a mystery with the "idiot sidekick" 
type of narrative (e.g., Dr. Watson, Captain Hastings). In this type 
of narrative, a lot of the misleading does arise because the teller 
of the story perceives the reality wrongly (Hastings always falling 
for the auburn haired women, for instance..<g> ).

Echo:
<snip>
>I agree that it is in third person limited, but that doesn't mean 
>that at least some things aren't seen in Harry's POV, and his 
>opinion of them.For example, when Dudley was described as "a pig in 
>a wig", I believe that's Harry's opinion of what Dudley looked like.


It *is* Harry's opinion and it is also *presented as* Harry's 
opinion:
"Aunt Petunia often said that Dudley looked like a baby angel - Harry 
often said that Dudley looked like a pig in a wig." (PS UK; p. 21)

My point is not that Harry's opinions aren't given. Of course they 
are. My point is that they are given in such a way that we easily 
distinguish them from the facts (that Dudley really is very obese, 
for instance). 


Amanda:
>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. 

<snipping out Amanda's husband>

>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.


I agree there's an opportunity for colouring, but the question is - 
does it actually occur? Does JKR use this opportunity? Again, I think 
not. 
It's true that Harry doesn't know a lot of stuff that a lot of the 
others do know, but I haven't seen that his ignorance has ever played 
any role besides causing the missing bit of information to be 
presented. He hears of Quidditch, asks what Quidditch is and is told; 
needs to use floo powder and is told how to use it, etc. I cannot 
recall a single incident where his ignorance causes him and us to 
*misconceive* part of the reality. 



Naama, who has quite a bit more to say but has to feed (and make pee) 
the cat..