Unreliable narrator (Was: Snape's stalling)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 117152


 
> > 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 ;-) .

Pippin:
Hmmm...I should clarify. I have hypothesized that some 
characters who appear to be working alone are  collaborating 
"behind the scenes" with other characters. That is the dictionary 
definition of a conspiracy theory, and my place in the safe house 
is assured. 

However,  I did not arrive at these theories by a process of 
subversive reading, if that is the theory that there is no 
foundational reading of the text as intended by the author, or that 
such a reading need not be privileged over other readings.

( I am not educated in these matters, having strenuously
avoided taking English lit in college, so I would appreciate any 
corrections. )

Rather, I approach the text as a conventionally constructed 
mystery --  there has been a crime or crimes committed which 
upset  the social order. This upset in the social order usually 
includes the accusation of wrongly suspected parties. The task 
of the sleuth is to restore the social order by finding out those 
who were guilty of the crime.

To this end, the author seeds the text with clues and with  
misleading information (red herrings) which both  the reader and 
the sleuth may use to arrive at the identity of the culprit.  Though 
according to the rules of a fair mystery, the author must not  
present false evidence without some clue that it is false, it is not 
cheating to have the sleuth draw false conclusions from the 
evidence he is given, and relate them to himself (and the reader) 
as if they were truth.

I note that Rowling uses several narrative voices, occasionally 
switching unexpectedly, for example in chapter 11 of PS/SS, 
which goes from third person limited to third person omniscient. 
This is usually considered a stylistic error, but in this case I 
believe it was done deliberately  to emphasize that the usual 
point of view in the books is limited to Harry and (IMO) is only as 
objective as he is. 

Harry is not very objective where Snape is concerned, therefore, 
IMO, the narrative voice is not either. However, I assume that 
Snape is one of the innocent parties and post on that basis. 
Does that clear things up? 

Pippin