Omniscient Author (was: Harry not catching details was Re: Chill out, guys)

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 25845

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Haggridd" <jkusalavagemd at y...> wrote:
> I don't think that you can reasonably assert that the HP books are
> written from the perspective of an omniscient author

Of course, you are correct that I wouldn't be able to assert that the 
HP books have an omniscient narrator--and I didn't.  I said they are 
written by a LIMITED-omniscient narrator.  I apologize if this 
terminology isn't clear--I don't like it much because it causes 
exactly the kind of confusion you are expressing--but I didn't invent 
the terminology, so what can be done?

The term omniscient of course means all-knowing, and when english or 
writing professors use the term 'limited-omniscient' it is confusing 
because it seems to be contradictory at best and wrong at worst.  
Because it doesn't really mean the narrator is omniscient at all or 
even partially omniscient.  What the term means is that the narrator 
is privy to the thoughts of only one or a few characters (instead of 
everyone, which is what they mean by omniscient narrators).  In the 
case of HP, we only get Harry's thoughts (except in PS/SS chapter 1 
and GOF chapter 1).  So it's called a limited-omniscient narrator, 
however misleading a label that may be.  But this doesn't mean we are 
limited to seeing what Harry sees, only that we can't get in other 
character's heads.  With a third-person narrator as in HP, our view is 
outside the characters, including outside Harry, and we can perceive 
things that he might not.  The extent to which this happens is left up 
to the author.  In most cases, the relationship between narrator and 
symbiote character is quite close, and such is the case in HP.  But 
you can't use that to relationship explain away things that don't 
happen by saying the character didn't see them so the narrator doesn't 
report them, unless they happen outside the presence of that 
character.  It just doesn't work like that, unless there's precedent 
to it set up at other points.  Without the precedent it violates the 
Authorial Theory of Misinformation (again, still need to explain 
that).

Did that explanation make things better . . . or worse?  :-)

-Luke