Hiring Mistakes -- More POV

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 27587

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., bookraptor11 at y... wrote:
> There must be reasons why Dumbledore decides to hire them [ed: the 
> DADA teachers].  Otherwise the only person Voldemort fears (besides 
> Harry) makes three potentially disasterous mistakes three years 
> running.

Surely this comment, too, was a (potentially disasterous) mistake?  
Surely you didn't mean three years *running*?  Surely you meant that 
the mistakes were Quirrel, Lockhart, and Crouch/Moody?!  Surely you're 
not saying hiring LUPIN was a mistake?!!  Surely you aren't trying to 
incur the wrath of a staunch Lupin supporter, who is as loyal to this 
fictional character as Hagrid is to Dumbledore?!!! <growls fiercely>  
Surely you do not have a death wish?!!!!

(Surely you realize I am only kidding.)

***

Anyway, I have pretty much NO time to post right now, but I did go 
through some of my older draft responses (yes, I make draft 
responses on my harddrive; and no, much of it will never see the light 
of day) and pull out something, although I don't have the time to make 
it more insightful, so you'll just have to put up with the stupid, 
rambling original.  The following is in reply to some of Cindy's 
questions about our former POV discussion (about what? a week ago?).  
Those of you who thought this discussion was over (and thank heavens) 
will now be sorely disappointed.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., cynthiaanncoe at h... wrote:
> I take it that the narrator can also report things that Harry could 
> observe, even if Harry isn't ideally positioned to observe them.
>
> In PoA, JKR seems to do this, as when Harry is regaining 
> consciousness yet is able to accurately recount a conversation 
> between Fudge and Snape:
> 
> [Conversation about Order of Merlin, confundus charm, etc.]
> 
> "Harry lay listening with his eyes tight shut.  He felt very groggy. 
> The words he was hearing seemed to be traveling very slowly from his 
> ears to his brain, so that it was difficult to understand.  <snip>"

Ah, but this says "difficult", not "impossible" so I think we can 
assume that Harry did make out the same amount of conversation as we 
did.  I don't think we're hearing any more of it than Harry heard.


> [More conversation]
> 
> "There was a pause.  Harry's brain seemd to be moving a little 
> faster, and as it did, a gnawing sensation grew in the pit of his 
> stomach."
> 
> This seems to suggest that our viewpoint character is able to report 
> things, even if he is not alert or is otherwise impaired.  I am 
> guessing that there must be a minimum level of consciousness and 
> awareness before the author has to abandon the viewpoint character 
> POV, although I am not sure what it is.
>
> For instance, could a baby be a viewpoint character?  I don't know.

I've seen it done.  But it's often cheesy.  However, it's only 
*really* cheesy, when it's first-person, at which point the baby is no 
longer the viewpoint character, but the narrator.  Still, you can do 
it.


> On the other hand, I suppose that we can't assume that the viewpoint 
> character is reporting everything that he is positioned to observe. 
> In the conversation above, for instance, can we be sure we have 
> heard everything Fudge and Snape discuss after Harry wakes up?  
> Hmmm.

I'm going to pretend this was a rhetorical question and therefore 
ignore it, because I have no idea what you're asking.

No, I'm just kidding.  I'll try, but I need to know what you are 
asking first.  Are you asking if it's possible for the narrator to be 
witholding parts of Fudge and Snape's conversation that Harry himself 
DID hear?

If that's the case, then it's possible, but not at all likely.

Narrators generally withold information that a viewpoint character 
possesses only because it's unimportant (non-lying ones, anyway--see 
below).  They leave out extraneous details that don't really need 
mentioning.  I'm talking about VERY extraneous things here, where it 
can be assumed they took place without them being descibed.  
Obviously, that wouldn't be the case with this conversation, as there 
is no part of this conversation that would be deemed readily assumable 
by the reader.  "Assumable" is the key word here.  If its not 
something that the reader would assume happened even without their 
being described, then it is generally not left out (although all rules 
are breakable).  In other words, this can't be used to justify holes.

Of course, they can leave out all kinds of things if the viewpoint 
character doesn't notice them (for example, the presumed first part of 
the conversation that Harry himself did not hear), but this has its 
generally-accepted limits too.  I would discuss this further, but it 
gets rather off-topic from point of view.

As a related extension, even third-person non-character narrators can 
actually lie (I mean to go into that someday with the Authorial Theory 
of Misinformation), but whether or not we assume they do is based on 
precedent.  JKR has given us no reason (no precedent) to believe that 
her narrator ever lies, so we can assume it does not.  Usually a book 
with a lying narrator will somehow make it clear that the narrator is 
being allowed to lie.  Also, this is extremely rare, as you can 
imagine, and it certainly isn't likely to come into a book like Harry 
Potter.


> Are you sure that the Jordan/McGonagall exchanges aren't still 
> Harry's POV?  I had always thought that Jordan's voice is magnified, 
> and McGonagall's voice is also because she sits next to him.  We are 
> following Harry as he listens to the commentary, as it is important 
> that the seeker pay attention to the commentary so he'll know the 
> score, among other things.

My point was that it is not Harry's POV because with Jordan's 
description of the match we are supposed to be picturing the events of 
the match, not picturing whatever Harry is seeing or picturing Jordan 
himself speaking the words.  Jordan's commentary doesn't function like 
normal dialogue; it really functions like exposition/description.  
Hence there is a "viewpoint focus" of the events of the match, not a 
viewpoint character.

So it is entirely possible that Harry was listening to Jordan's 
commentary, but I don't think that's relevant.  (You are, of course, 
correct that Jordan's voice is magnified so that the audience can hear 
it, BTW.)

Think about it like a film.  If it were a film (as it soon will be) we 
would hear Jordan's commentary as a voice-over to on-screen images of 
the match.  Hence, "viewpoint focus" on the match.

However, there are other instances of Jordan's commentary later on 
that are most likely still from Harry's POV, like the line:

   "Slytherin in possession," Lee Jordan was saying, "Chaser Pucey 
ducks two Bludgers, two Weasley's, and Chaser Bell, and speeds toward 
the--wait a moment--was that the Snitch?"

This one is probably still in Harry's POV, because all of the 
surrounding context is in Harry's POV.  It is unlikely we are 
switching out of it for two seconds only to join up with it again 
immediately after.  More likely it is just Harry listening to Jordan 
and watching the described events.

But the other initial instance I was discussing is a full and lengthy 
paragraph that appears to be entirely seperated from Harry's POV.
 
> In any event, there is one rather strange POV shift after the 
> Quidditch match, however.  Harry, Ron and Hermione go to visit 
> Hagrid, and they plan on telling Hagrid that Snape was cursing 
> Harry's broom:
> 
> "It was Snape," Ron was explaining, "Hermione and I saw him.  He was 
> cursing your broomstick, muttering, he wouldn't take his eyes off 
> you."
> "Rubbish," said Hagrid, WHO HADN'T HEARD A WORD OF WHAT HAD GONE ON 
> NEXT TO HIM IN THE STANDS.  "Why would Snape do somethin' like 
that?"
> Harry, Ron, and Hermione looked at one another, WONDERING WHAT TO 
> TELL HIM.  Harry decided on the truth.
> 
> Why does JKR give us the viewpoints of Hagrid, Hermione and Ron for 
> just these (capitalized) clauses?  Is this just a glitch, or is it 
> some omniscient narrator POV creeping in?  If so, why?

Indeed, that is strange.  I didn't bother going that far into the 
chapter in my analysis so I'm glad you found and brought this up.

I do have a bit of an idea, though I'm not positive.  The first 
instance you pointed out ("who hadn't heard a word of what had gone on 
next to him in the stands") is possibly more like a statement of fact 
by the narrator than it is Hagrid's POV.  Because Hagrid's POV 
wouldn't include commentary on things that did not occur to him, of 
course.  It is a kind of bizarre instance though.

The second instance you pointed out ("wondering what to tell him") 
includes Harry, so it makes more sense.  They are sharing a look, and 
when you share a look with someone, you guess what they are thinking. 
 So even though the text doesn't need to say it outright, it is clear 
that this is guessing on Harry's part about what the shared look 
means, and presumably he's 100% correct in his guess.


> A couple of points.  First, it seems really odd that JKR gives us 
> the viewpoint of Bryce, a minor and unimportant character who is 
> going to die in a few minutes anyway.  In some ways, it seems like a 
> waste.  Would it have been possible (and effective) to do this scene 
> from Wormtail's POV instead?

I think Amy explained this well from the "is it a waste?" side of 
things and how this might affect the powerfulness of his death.

Now then, could this have been done from Wormtail's POV?  Yes, but it 
would slightly alter what events we witness.

Should it have been?  No, I don't think so.  I think the scene is more 
powerful from the perspective of Bryce.  It is usually (though 
*definitely* not always--don't treat this as a hard rule) a good idea 
to choose a viewpoint character based on who the reader will identify 
with most.  Not in personality, necessarily, just in predicament.  In 
this case, that's Bryce.  The reader has pretty much no idea what's 
going on and has to interpret the whole of Wormtail and Voldemort's 
conversation.  So does Bryce.  If we were in Wormtail's POV, then he 
would know much more about what was going on than we, the readers, 
do--which would not be effective.  Bryce is preferable in that he 
knows less than or the same as we do (depending on whether you read 
the earlier books--note that his confusion on HP specific terms is not 
only logical, since he is a muggle, but helpful for people that are 
reading GOF before the other books).  Also it would seem very random 
if we didn't know why Bryce was there spying on them, when he is later 
caught.

> Anyway, now that you mention it, Luke, JKR does the same type of POV 
> shifting in the first chapter of PS/SS.

Right, this chapter has been brought up in other discussions of POV, 
and I, in my absent-mindedness just happened to forget about it at the 
time I wrote that.

> We start with exposition about the Dursleys, then we move straight 
> into Vernon's POV, although I'm not sure I can pinpoint the exact  
> place where the transition happens.  Vernon gets into the car and 
> backs out.  Then:
> 
> "It was on the corner of the street that he noticed the first sign 
> of something peculiar – a cat reading a map.  For a second, Mr. 
> Dursley DIDN'T REALIZE WHAT HE HAD SEEN – then he jerked his head 
> around to look again."
> 
> But it might be this subsequent passage instead:
> 
>   "Mr. Dursley gave himself a little shake and PUT THE CAT OUT OF 
> HIS MIND.  As he drove toward town he THOUGHT OF NOTHING EXCEPT A 
> LARGE ORDER OF DRILLS HE WAS HOPING TO GET THAT DAY."

Actually, I think the transition might be a teeny bit earlier than 
either of these.

The narrator can be said to be taking on a viewpoint character, not at 
the moment that the narrator starts telling that character's thoughts, 
which technically the narrator never has to do (Remember the 
non-omniscient (I still can't remember the real term, BTW) narrator 
type?  It can still have viewpoint characters.), but at the moment the 
narrator begins following the movements of that character at the 
exclusion of other characters.  For example:

"At half past eight, Mr. Dursley picked up his briefcase, pecked Mrs. 
Dursley on the cheek, and tried to kiss Dudley good-bye but missed, 
because Dudley was now having a tantrum and throwing his cereal at the 
walls.  "Little tyke," chortled Mr. Dursley as he left the house.  He 
got into his car and backed out of number four's drive."

The transition could be considered to take place anywhere in this 
paragraph, it doesn't matter exactly where, really, as it's not 
supposed to be clean-cut.  But the first moment at which we are 
obviously following Mr. Dursley and not the other two is when he 
leaves the house during the last two sentences *and we, the readers, 
go with him*.  We don't stay with Petunia or Dudley, so they can't be 
our viewpoint characters.  This is of course confirmed when we start 
hearing Vernon's thoughts.  But he was already our viewpoint character 
before we hear his thoughts.

> After spending some time with Mr. Dursley's POV, it seems we get a 
> pretty clear transition from his thoughts to a viewpoint focus on 
> Privet Drive in the middle of the night with no viewpoint character.

Correct.

> Vernon falls asleep, then we get an objective account of the cat's 
> activity, then Dumbledore appears.  JKR seems to take pains to stay 
> out of his viewpoint, as she uses phrases like he "didn't seem to 
> realize he had just arrived in a street where everything from his 
> name to his boots was unwelcome."  And "the sight of the cat seemed 
> to amuse him."

Right, this is a good example of the "guessing" I talked about that 
comes into a non-omniscient narrator.  All the "seemed to" phrases 
achieves this.

> In fact, she uses phrases like  "seemed to" and "it 
> was plain that" a great deal.  It comes off as quite stilted – is 
> this a necessary evil of trying to communicate the character's 
> emotions while having a viewpoint focus instead of a viewpoint 
> character?

Indeed it is.

The alternative would be to make either Dumbledore or McGonagall the 
viewpoint character, which would probably not be wise.

> Then, when Harry is left on the doorstep, JKR comes close to giving 
> us his viewpoint:
> "One small hand closed on the letter beside him and he slept on, not 
> knowing he was special, not knowing he was famous, not knowing he 
> would be woken in a few hours' time by Mrs. Dursley's scream 
<snip>."
> 
> I have a feeling that this is exposition, not Harry's POV, but I'm 
> not completely sure.  Opinions?

Well, it is kind of his viewpoint in a way, though in a way it's more 
of a viewpoint focus centered around him than actually taking him on 
as a viewpoint character just yet . . . so, yes, it is kind of like 
exposition.

You could make a decent case that the "not knowing" stuff is not proof 
of Harry's POV, again because you can't really use someone's POV for 
the purpose of saying things that they don't know.  Harry is not 
thinking, "I don't know that I'm famous."  So it's just a comment by 
the narrator.

Sort of like when a narrator says: "Emily arrived home, looking 
forward to a relaxing swim in the pool.  Fate, it seems, had other 
things in mind."  This last sentence is the narrator bringing their 
own knowledge (of future events) into the story and it is in no way 
dependant on Emily's POV.

So the narrator in PS/SS Chap. 1 is forecasting a future event here 
that "he [Harry] would be woken in a few hours' time by Mrs. Dursley's 
scream as she opened the front door to put out the milk bottles".  It 
is clearly that it is the narrator who has this knowledge, and 
therefore it is not dependant on anyone's POV.

But the overall paragraph does kind of have Harry as a viewpoint 
character, regardless of whether that "not knowing" locution is 
supposed to represent his (non-)thoughts.

> If we take the first chapter of PS/SS, the Quiddich match in PS/SS, 
> and the first chapter of GoF, are these the only viewpoint shifts 
> anyone can recall in the HP series?

Those are the only ones I know of.  If anyone else finds others I 
would love to hear about them.

-Luke