Unreliable narrator (Was: Snape's stalling)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 117074


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" 
<nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
(too closely argued to snip)

> 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 theoristssaying 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 nterest, 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. <

Pippin:

Well, I won't deny that I am a Snape apologist. <g>  I don't see 
myself as a "conspiracy theorist reader" as you defined the term.

 I am trying to be an intelligent reader. As an intelligent reader, I 
have noticed that things in the Potterverse are *sometimes* not 
what they appear to be, including things that seem so obvious 
that they are hardly worth investigating --Scabbers as an ordinary 
rat, for example. 

It seems very obvious to some people that Snape has such 
major character flaws that his allegiance to Dumbledore must 
be phony, however things may appear. 

 It seems very obvious that Lupin has such minor character flaws 
that he could never support Voldemort. 


And yet Rowling tells us, in words that I consider beyond doubt, 
that it is our choices, not our abilities that show what we are. So 
it is to the characters' choices rather than their proclivities that
I look when I want to understand them. 

Lupin, IMO, has made some very disturbing choices, and the 
rationales offered  on his behalf  are for the most part not in the 
books. One might suspect that the motive is Lupin apology 
rather than a careful reading of the text <g>


Snape has made some disturbing choices too, but we've been 
given some explanation for most of them, including the one at 
issue here. The explanation for the delay was that Snape was 
not concerned about Harry's whereabouts until he failed to return 
from the forest. That is in keeping with the general theme in OOP 
of people doing the wrong thing for the right reason. 

For once, Harry keeps his curiousity in check and doesn't use 
the mirror. For once, Dumbledore gives into his feelings for Harry 
and doesn't tell him about the prophecy. For once, Hermione 
stops nagging Harry and accompanies him to the MOM without 
any further complaint. For once, Snape holds back his usual 
feeling that Potter and his friends are  running blindly into danger 
with no idea of what they are doing, and does not interfere until it 
becomes obvious that something is wrong.
 

My understanding is that Snape, despite having some very 
disturbing character flaws, has put himself under Dumbledore's 
guidance. He indulges his sadism and vengeance-seeking 
only within the bounds that Dumbledore and his society have 
set. 

OTOH, Lupin, who has only minor character flaws, has put 
himself under Voldemort's guidance, and is being led, slowly 
and surely, to moral ruin.

After all, if goodness stems from some sort of moral core, as 
some on another thread are positing, then there's no need for a 
moral code or moral guidance, and there's no point to Rowling 
writing what she calls "very moral books." People who lack moral 
cores won't be influenced, while people who have them don't 
need to be influenced.

Pippin