Unreliable narrator (Was: Snape's stalling)

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 117107


> 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.
>

Neri:
This is good to know. I hope you won't have troubles being admitted
into the Safe House after that last statement ;-) . Still, there are
quite a few members in this list who claim to employ "subversive
reading" or similar such things. Don't you find it strange that none
of them tried to investigate this suspicious hole in the plot? Or
perhaps they are all Snape apologists, too? This was my original
question. Is "subversive reading" a code name for being a Snape apologist?

> Pippin:
> 
>  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. <snip>
>

Neri:
I'm sure I have proved by now that I know things in the Potterverse
are *sometimes* not 
what they appear to be. I just think that there are certain things
that cannot be faked. But I think I'll leave out the Lupin discussion
until reading the promised ESE!Lupin treatise. My question was
concerning Snape.  
   
> Pippin:
> 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. 

Neri:
Waiting at least 4 hours, some of them after dark, without even
updating HQ about the situation, seems a bit of stretching it. Yet I
know that pretty reasonable alternative explanations can be found. But
this never stopped the conspiracy theorists before, so I just wondered
why it stopped them here.
 
> Pippin: 
> 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.

Neri:
Hmm. An interesting theory. I would feel better about it if it had
some support in canon other than the common theme. Snape trying to
change is not something that happens every day, after all ;-)

> Pippin:
> 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.

Neri:
The moral core wasn't my metaphor and I'm also not sure it is a very
good one. I'll leave this discussion for those who came up with it. 

Neri