Unreliable narrator (Was: Snape's stalling)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 117020


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" 
<nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> 
> > Pippin:
> > LOL! I had the opposite impression...that  anti-conspiracy 
> > theorists are always saying JKR didn't *mean* to make  
Lupin  
> > look bad <g>.  
> 
> Neri:
> Yes, the anti-conspiracy theorists are consistent. They claim 
that certain people are just obviously good, and Lupin is one of 
them. They don't employ "subversive reading" in the sense that 
the conspiracy theorists use it. If the conspiracy theorists are 
consistent, they should distrust anybody, including Snape. But 
for some reason he turns out to be the hero in any conspiracy 
theory I can remember.
> 

Pippin:
I'm not following you here...if  a reader points out something in 
the text that makes Lupin worse than he appears to Harry, that's 
subversive, because Lupin is just obviously good, and anything 
that makes him appear not as good must be a flint. But if a 
reader points out  something that makes Snape  worse than he 
appears to Harry, that's not subversive because???

Harry is angry because he thinks Snape didn't take him seriously  
in front of Umbridge. He then finds out that Snape actually 
contacted the Order twice -- once on Sirius's behalf and once on 
Harry's own. He does not challenge this information or ask  why 
it took Snape so long to contact the order for the second time, so 
assuming that this is significant and not a flint is a subversive 
reading, right?

Pippin