post- mortem storytelling?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 89797

Andrew asked: 
> Does it really matter what perspective JKR writes in? She is the 
> author, she has a creative license to write in whatever style she 
> wants. She could jump from perspective to perspective any way she 
> wants, whatever she sees fit she will do. Something has been 
> bothering me ever since I first visited this site, people seem to 
> mix thoughts. They will either treat the charactars in the books as 
> real people, with real thoughts, real motives; or, treat it from 
> JKR's perspective, asking her motives, her thoughts etc. Should 
> theories be limited to one or the other?


Carol:
Yes, it matters very much. JKR's (or any author's) choice of narrator
is not just a matter of style. It's a deliberate choice by the author
to reveal or withhold information, and even sometimes deliberately
mislead the reader. If she had used an omniscient narrator who
revealed everything, the books would be much less challenging. We'd
know Snape's thoughts and Dumbledore's thoughts and everyone else's
thoughts, and the statements of the narrator could be taken as
absolute truths (within the context of the novel). As it is, we're
trapped for the most part in Harry's perspective. We learn as he
learns and all too often, we misjudge as he misjudges. But some of us
on this list have learned not to trust the narrator when he (or she)
makes statements that could be colored by Harry's viewpoint, which is
why some people on this board won't accept Harry's Pensieve-based
memory of "another Gryffindor quidditch player running his hands
through his hair" (quoting from memory here) as reliable evidence that
James Potter was indeed in Gryffindor. (I think he was, but I see
their point.) Others think that Remus Lupin or Dumbledore or Bill
Weasley is or may be evil. (That's not my view, but JKR's use of a
limited omniscient narrator who is not always reliable and who drops
both hints and red herrings leaves those possibilities open to
exploration.)

I don't know what to say about your second point. There are a huge
number of people posting here and we all see the characters in
different ways and from different perspectives. I'm also pretty sure
that we, as individuals, use different methods of analysis (or
speculation) depending on what we're talking about. When I talk about
point of view, I'm speaking as a former college English teacher with a
Ph.D. in English. When I'm talking about Snape, I'm talking about a
character who fascinates me (in part because of JKR's narrative
strategy of not allowing readers into his mind). When I'm talking
about Mark Evans, I'm trying to figure out what role he might play in
the books based on my knowledge of the way JKR has introduced other
characters in previous books. (Remember "young Sirius Black," whose
motorcycle Hagrid borrowed in Book One?) When I see a theory that
intrigues me (Harry's mother put a protective charm on him that, along
with LV's Avada Kedavra, created the scar in a distinctive and
significant shape), I try to find canonical evidence to support it.
When I find one I think is wrong, I try to argue against it, using
canonical evidence when I can and logic when I can't. Sometimes I'm
forced to speculate, but I try to base the speculation on what has
already happened in the story or what JKR is known to have done or said.

Enough said. I know you weren't talking about me in particular when
you talked about mixing thoughts. I was just trying to explain why all
the posts (and posters) use different approaches, using myself as an
example. It might make things a little less confusing if you skip the
FILKS and T-BAY posts since the perspective there is creative rather
than analytical. Just a suggestion!

Carol, who hopes this post has been helpful and that she doesn't sound
too much like a grown-up Hermione.