The 'Seeming' Reality

[wynnleaf]

No: HPFGUIDX 155519


> Hickengruendler:
> 
> 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".

wynnleaf

These were excellent examples and point out that it's important not 
to solely think of this as whether or not there's misdirection about 
Snape.  JKR could be doing it with any number of characters or 
circumstances and we haven't seen it yet.

It's also important to realize that with Austen, and in particular 
in "Emma," the misdirection is *not* achieved by simply getting the 
reader to think the character, Emma, is correct.  In fact, the 
reader picks up on the fact that Emma is often wrong.  No, the 
misdirection takes place through the *narration.*  Through 
skillfully selecting what events, dialog, facial expressions, etc. 
the reader learns about -- and presenting them all in a manner 
similar to the way the lead character sees it -- the narrator can 
lead the reader into conclusions that are not correct.  And the 
reader *thinks* he's gotten it right, because even if he's learned 
to not trust the lead character, he still trusts the narration to be 
objective.  But the narration is *not* objective.

This is why it's so important that JKR thinks of Austen, and her 
book "Emma" in particular, as the "standard" to which she, JKR, 
aspires.  If JKR is using the Austen approach (note, I didn't say 
her "style," but her approach at tricking readers), then we have to 
realize that the narration itself is not completely trustworthy.  
Not that the narrator is lying to the reader -- oh, no.  The problem 
is that the narrator is working from mostly the same vantage point 
as the lead character (Harry, in HP), and the writer picks and 
chooses what the narrator will reveal to the reader and the manner 
in which it's revealed, specifically *in order* to lead the reader 
to particular conclusions.  Many of the conclusions are of course 
correct, otherwise the reader would completely loose faith in the 
narrator.  But the reader is also duped into believing 
certain "facts" which later, in the surprise conclusion, turn out to 
be completely incorrect.

JKR has done it with every single book.  HBP is a little different 
in that JKR has stressed that it's more like the first half of one 
bigger book -- HBP and Book 7 together.  

I am certainly expecting to see that Harry and the narrator have 
been misdirecting us about Snape.  What I'm very curious to see is 
whether or not JKR is misdirecting us about somethings utterly 
unexpected, as well.  

wynnleaf