The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower)

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 155742

> > justcarol67 wrote:  
> > 
> > > Let's just say that the unreliable narrator
> > > has set us up once again.
>  
> >Eggplant: 
> > If you play the "unreliable narrator" card you can make any theory fit
> > the facts no matter how crazy. But where's the fun in that?
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> The fun is, with JKR's unreliable narrator,that you never know when the 
> unreliable narrator is right or when she is wrong; or when you just 
> think she is trying to mislead.

Neri:
I agree with Eggplant that the unreliable narrator card was
overplayed. Originally this argument was that the narrator describes
things from Harry's PoV, and therefore it can represent Harry's
personal interpretation rather than objective realty. Fair enough. But
now people claim that the narrator sneakily avoids describing facts
that Harry *must* notice and has no personal reason to avoid
describing, like if it was he who hexed Fenrir. This is a completely
different thing. Surely nobody here claims that Harry doesn't know if
he shouted "petrificus totalus" or not, or that it's a question of PoV?

I termed such situations in the past "non-descriptions". This is when
the narrator does not describe a detail that Harry must see or know. I
pointed out that these non-descriptions are quite common. For example,
just one page before Harry hexes Fenrir he also hexes Brutal Face in
the same manner, and again it is not described that Harry said the
incantation or even that he raised his wand. So technically it's
possible that Harry also didn't hex Brutal Face, but for some reason I
haven't noticed anybody suggesting it.

It's not surprising, really, that we have so many non-descriptions,
because the narrator just doesn't have time to describe every detail
that Harry knows or does (especially when the pace of the action
quickens). But I pointed out that until now JKR had never used a
non-description to spring a surprise on Harry and us, and for a good
reason, I believe. We were recently reminded about JKR saying that the
readers "like to be tricked but not conned". To avoid describing
details that Harry knows and later would turn out critical, that would
be conning, I believe. When JKR has the trio looking into Borgin and
Burke trying to see what object Malfoy is talking about, she writes
that the cabinet was obscuring the view. This is tricking the readers
– describing the critical fact in a way that makes the reader overlook
it. Failing to mention the cabinet although Harry had seen it, and
then using it for Draco's plot – that would have been conning the readers.

Invoking the unreliable narrator for everything is a mistake, IMO. We
should remember that the narrator can't take that too far without
becoming, well, unreliable. And becoming really unreliable in the eyes
of the reader is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to any narrator. 

Neri