The 'Seeming' Reality

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 155513

 
> 
> Alla:
 
> What I do **not** see Harry being wrong about is Snape being nasty 
> bastard, because for that to be true, the **words** that leaving 
> Snape's mouth should be different, or in other words, Harry has to 
> report distorted picture, completely distorted picture.
> 

Hickengruendler:

I agree with you about Snape. (Well, that he is nasty that is. I 
disagree with you about his loyalties, but I guess you already know 
this. ;-) ).

But IMO there are some characters, where she has Harry and his 
friends (and by extention the readers through the narration) 
misinterpret their intentions completely. Mostly it are the secret 
villains, but I would also add Crookshanks and maybe Sirius in PoA to 
the list.

Take the fake Moody for example. He helps Harry during the 
schoolyear, both in some "daily life problems" /the ferret incident) 
and in the Triwizard Tournament, and both Harry and the readers see 
this as a sign, that he's Harry's friends, while in fact the reasons 
for his good deeds are very sinister one and don't come out into the 
open until the very end. Similarly, after the first DADA lesson he 
seemingly consoles Neville, which makes him sympathetic. In truth, 
however, he mentally torments the boy in basically showing him, what 
he did to his parents (giving away his real self accidentily for a 
very short time, when he doesn't stop using Crucio on the spider 
before Hermione makes him stop), just to use him in a scheme and 
create a reason to give him the Herbology book. Quirrell and Tom 
Riddle fit the example as well, in that their real actions are 
disguised, but they may fit the bill less, because they had not the 
seemingly omnipresent pagetime the fake Mad-Eye had, and therefore 
were less able to gain the readers trust/sympathy. 

And on the other hand we have Crookshanks, whose intentions were 
completely misinterpreted by everyone (even his staunchest defender 
Hermione). What JKR is doing here is using one of the oldest stories, 
the cat and mouse game, and basically turn it around. The cat is the 
hero and the mouse/rat a dangerous murderer in disguise. I mean, 
prior to the Shrieking Shack scene I suppose the most one could say 
in Crookshank's defense was, that it is normal for cats to try to eat 
rats. JKR also rather cleverly doesn't introduce Crookshanks before 
PoA, which gives the reader not one but two reasons to sympathise 
with Scabbers. Not only is he the seemingly weaker animal, but he's 
also around longer and the readers are gotten used to have him around 
(may even like him in a "isn't he cute" way), while Crookshanks is 
the seemingly disturbing intruder.

Therefore I think JKR does indeed sometimes use the "Austen 
technique".

Hickengruendler