Unreliable narrator (Was: Snape's stalling)

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 117032


> 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?

Neri:
I think the part that you don't follow is that I'm not talking about
"a reader". I'm talking about particular kinds of readers. To use your
terminology, I'm talking about the "conspiracy theorist" reader and
the "anti-conspiracy theorist" reader.

The "anti-conspiracy theorist" reader believes that distrust has its
limits. There are some things in the text that are just plain true and
you have to trust them. Some anti-conspiracy theorists (probably most
of them, certainly myself) believe that Lupin is obviously a good
person. Therefore anything that makes him appear not good has some
explanation (usually not a flint. It could be a flaw or a mistake of
Lupin that makes him more human, but not ESE). You can of course
disagree with such a reader, but at least he is consistent. He does
not claim to be what he is not.

The "conspiracy theorist" reader, in contrast, claims to use
"subversive reading" and distrust anything, especially things that
appear to be certain. His/her motto is "things are not necessarily
what they appear to be". For example, you have often justified
ESE!Lupin by saying that he is presented as such a nice person and
above any suspicion, therefore he must be the traitor. Now, since
Snape usually appears to be a bad person, the conspiracy theorists
saying that he is actually the hero seems like proper "subversive
reading". But then we arrive at the end of OotP, and Snape appears at
least as an OK guy. The great DD assures us Snape did everything he
should have done to prevent the MoM battle. The narrator clearly tells
us (I think you have recently quote this yourself) that Harry blames
Snape only to relieve his own guilt. Superficially, Snape really
appears to have done things right here. But then, a bit of subversive
reading discovers a 5 hrs hole in the plot, which Harry DIDN'T notice,
which makes OK-guy!Snape look very suspicious, and which DD appears to
be covering but doesn't deny outright. What should a REAL conspiracy
theorist do? He/she should immediately try to get to the bottom of
this and find out who is the ESE here, or at least who is the puppet
master, right? So how come all the conspiracy theorists either lose
interest, or try to save Snape's honor by any means including assuming
a flint? It seems that they are inconsistent in their own doctrine.
One would suspect that they are actually more of Snape apologists than
real conspiracy theorists. 

I hope I've managed to clarify my meaning.

Neri