The 'Seeming' Reality

[wynnleaf]

No: HPFGUIDX 155585

Be warned...long post.  :D

Rather than list a lot of other poster's quotes, I think I'll try to 
address several of the types of comments.

1.  It doesn't make any difference that Austen's books are 
completely different in plot, or the characters are completely 
different from the HP books.  The point of the similarities has 
nothing to do with similar or dissimilar characters, situations, 
etc.  The similarity is in how the authors approach how to trick the 
reader.  

2.  JKR said that she loves plotting and she loves who-dunnits, and 
she loves surprising plot twists.  Within that context, she said 
that "Emma" was the standard she aspired to.  She wasn't talking 
about character or plot comparisons, but the fact that "Emma" is 
such an excellent example of how to work plot twists that fool the 
reader.  Therefore, the primary thing to consider in comparing 
Austen and "Emma" to JKR and HP, is how Austen went about developing 
plot twists and fooling the reader, compared to how JKR seems to be 
going about it.

3.  Austen did not primarily fool the reader by getting the reader 
to accept everything that the primary character thought.  We aren't 
surprised at the end of "Emma" because we believe Emma's "take" on 
other characters.  Most readers have learned through the book to do 
just the opposite -- we learn that Emma is an unreliable judge of 
individuals.  The reader is surprised at the end of the book because 
the *narration* has convinced the reader of character motivations 
and actions that turn out to be untrue.  However, the narration is 
sort of "Emma-centric" just as the narration in "Pride and 
Prejudice" is focused on Elizabeth.   

If JKR is using similar methods to make plot twists work in the HP 
books, it would mean that we have to be careful of what the 
*narration* tells us, not just what Harry thinks.  The narration 
isn't 1st person Harry, but it is generally what I call "Harry-
centric."  It follows Harry and we generally only see what Harry 
sees.  But that doesn't mean that we can't back up a bit and see the 
action more objectively.  It's difficult, but it is possible. 

I read a fan-fic once from a Snape pov.  I can only remember one 
part of that story.  At the opening feast of Harry's first year, the 
writer had Snape enter the feast knowing he was going to see for the 
first time the son of James who he hated, and who hated him.  At the 
feast, he looks over at Harry and they catch each other's eye.  
Immediately, Snape sees Harry stare over at him with a rather 
dramatic grimace.  Snape glares back, assuming the son of James 
Potter has already heard about him and has decided to hate him.

It's not that I think that was what was really going on in that 
scene. But I use that example to show how juxtaposing certain events 
can create a certain impression.  Sort of a post hoc ergo proctor 
hoc.  You could take the same event, and see it from two different 
character's pov, and have a completely different understanding of 
what was going on.  Because JKR almost only uses Harry's 
perspective, it is easy for her to manipulate the reader's opinions 
of the situation to closely mirror what Harry thinks is going on.  

This doesn't make Harry somehow culpable for all of his views of 
what is going on or where he gets it wrong (not *all,* although some 
of his conclusions even *he* has plenty of evidence to the 
contrary).  Harry can't help many of his conclusions as he's doing 
the best he can with what he knows, sees or hears.  It certainly 
makes sense, for instance, at the end of HBP for him to conclude 
that Snape has murdered DD in cold blood.  

However, the reader is not caught up in events like Harry is -- 
especially with years between books and lots of friends to help 
disect the whole thing.  We should have plenty of time to spot at 
least some of those hints that JKR drops, unlike the reader of an 
Austen book who continues turning pages and doesn't take a break to 
put the text under the proverbial microscope.

Anyway, the long and short of what I'm saying is that we need to 
stop thinking the narration is *objective.*  It's just not.  
Consider that the narration is trying to lead you to a conclusion.  
The narration will be unlikely to lie to the reader.  That would 
break faith with the reader.  But the narration *is* going to try to 
misdirect the reader.  Not always, but in at least *some* very 
important ways.  After all, JKR wants to surprise us.  She can't do 
that without misdirecting us.

Now.... what I'm surprised at is that everyone mostly looks at Snape 
as the focus of the misdirection.  Yes, I think JKR wants to fool us 
about Snape.  But is that all?  After all, she made us think 
Quirrell was ineffective, fake-Moody was a great support for Harry, 
Sirius was a crazed murderer, and Scabbers was a nice pet.  If 
that's not tricking us about characters, I don't know what is.  
Especially with fake-Moody, who I *really* liked up until the end of 
GOF.  Could there be another character out there who is an unknown 
villian?  It's one thing to think that Snape is DDM.  But I really 
hate to think that one of the characters who I actually like could 
turn out, like fake-Moody, to be a villian.  Yet JKR has done this 
before and I certainly wouldn't put it past her to do it again.  
After all, Book 7 is the last book.  Don't you think she'll want the 
surprise twists of the last book to be the most surprising of all?

4.  Last, on what can be "misdirected."  In "Emma" the reader is 
completely misdirected about Frank Churchill's motivations.  He 
appears, through much of the book, to not only care nothing for Jane 
Fairfax, but to take some sort of slightly spiteful pleasure in 
teasing her and embarressing her in public.  We, the readers, think 
that perhaps he does this because he knows Emma doesn't care for 
Jane.  What we are unaware of is that he is secretly engaged to Jane 
and is, among other things, trying to keep his true relationship 
with her a secret.  This doesn't however, mean that his actions 
toward Jane are just fine.  She does get hurt through his public 
actions toward her.  We eventually learn some of his reasons, but we 
still think he enjoyed embarrassing her in public, although we (the 
readers) perhaps are willing to grant that he didn't realize how 
much it hurt her.  

Learning that possibly the nicest, most talented, beautiful, and 
generally likeable character in the book loved Frank doesn't 
necessarily change reader opinion about him.  But learning that he 
loved her, and was willing to commit to her regardless of her low 
social standing and lack of money (and we think he's really into 
money and social standing, btw), makes the reader accept Frank more.

My point there is that in the misdirection, we don't later discover 
that Frank was guiltless of the faults we thought he had.  He did 
have those faults.  But in general, we tend to find those faults a 
bit more acceptable because we learn his motivations, and we also 
learn some good things about him.

Like others, I don't think we're going to find out that Snape is 
really a "nice" guy and all those nasty things he said to Harry 
didn't really mean anything.  But it's possible that we'll learn 
more about what motivated those comments and actions, as well as 
other perhaps better things about Snape, that will change the way we 
consider the character.


wynnleaf