[HPforGrownups] Re: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower)

[Kemper]

No: HPFGUIDX 155751

> > > Neri:
>
> > <snip>
> > 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.
> >
> > Pippin:
> > Not true, I'm afraid. The narrator leaves Harry's point of view and
> follows
> > Hermione as she bumps into Quirrell and attacks Snape, precisely so as
> > to avoid telling us what Harry must know: when his broom stopped
> > bucking.
> >
>
>
> Neri:
> I'm not sure what you mean. The critical plot fact here is when
> Harry's broom stops bucking *in relation* to the events of Quirrell
> knocked off his seat and Snape catching fire. Are you saying that
> Harry, who was busy hanging for his life by one hand high above the
> stands, could notice Quirrell or Snape?
>
> ... snip ...
>
> So leaving Harry's PoV in this incident wasn't being unreliable. On
> the contrary – it allowed us to see many things that we couldn't have
> seen by staying with Harry's PoV all the time. The narrator was being
> fair with us.
> 


Kemper now:
Harry may have noticed Snape and Quirrell, but he wouldn't have noticed
Hermione lighting Snapes robes.

The narrator was not being fair.  She was intentionally unreliable in order
to misdirect and set up the reader to believe as wrongly as Harry believes
that Snape is the bad guy.

Sorry to pull out the Unreliable Narrator card, but come on, it's so
obvious. <g>

Kemper, who believes the narrator continues to be intentionally unreliable
though the story, though the intention is much more subtle (e.g., The
Lightning-Struck Tower)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]