Theoretical boundaries / Dursleys' abuse/Narration

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 120473


Del:
Great post, Laurasia!

Laurasia:
Thanks!

Del:
The fact is, by putting us right
inside Harry's head and heart, JKR isn't really leaving us a chance to
use *our own* emotional response : we're supposed to go with *Harry's*
response. I get the feeling that she really intends us to be angry
when Harry is angry, frustrated when he's frustrated, happy when he's
happy.

Laurasia:

I think what I meant was that there is only one level of mediation-
the events through the eyes of the character, instead of the
additional layer through the eyes of the narrator on top of that. (And
if we read about what JKR says we have another layer of mediation -
that of the author - standing between us and the events.) My point was
that by getting rid of the narrator's point of view the emotional
response JKR intends isn't reaffirmed multiple times. Just once; by
the recounting of events as Harry sees them. IMO, this means that
there is *more* opportunity to project your own emotional response
onto the events. (How much space there was in the first place is
debateable.)

I think it's far easier to disagree with/question a character than an
omniscient narrator. I think there is less chance of questioning the
events of PS than OotP. I understand that Dursleys in book 5 may be
cruel. But in PS they are absurd- Vernon rips out *half of his
moustache*. Vernon's rage is not cruel when Harry and the narrator are
both giggling about how stupid Vernon looked with only half his
moustache. Vernon's rage is not cruel when the narrator says he backs
down "at the risk of being speared on the end of a pink umbrella by a
giant" who has just asked for tea and cooked a few sausages. 

Del wrote:
It wasn't so much like that in the previous books. Because the
narrator was more telling the story, I felt more free to respond like
Harry or not. I was *told* about how he reacted, but I didn't somehow
feel forced to *feel* like him.

Laurasia:
A good point. When there is the narrator as a buffer/mediator between
reader and character you don't so feel obligated to respond exactly as
the character does. I think there is a difference between what
character point of view asks us to do- empathise with a situation, and
what a third party narrator asks us to do- judge the situation. If you
can't empathise with a character, I think that's just bad writing. If
you have to make up your own mind about whether something is tragic or
hilarious or both, that's just the author asking you to think. 

~<(Laurasia)>~