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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 155764

Neri wrote:
> <snip> 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. 

>
Carol responds:
You're misunderstanding the concept. It isn't Harry who's fooled, at
least not in this case (though he's certainly mistaken in the case of
Draco listening behind the shelves in the library). It's the reader
who's left up in the air.

The probabality, in fact near-certainty, that Harry shouts the first
Petrificus Totalus, the one that freezes Brutal-Face (Yaxley?), makes
some readers *assume* that he cast the second one as well. But I don't
think it's a matter of the narrator "not having time" to present every
detail. How long would it take to say/write/type "Harry said" (or more
likely "Harry gasped"? About two seconds. Nope. It's information that
we could have been given but which is withheld from us and which may
or may not be important. Notice that JKR has Tonks and Harry
discussing the words that snape shouted as he was leaving. Why bring
that up if all he shouted was "It's over"? The two puzzle pieces may
or may not fit together, but we shouldn't dismiss them as unimportant
because we don't want them to mean anything.

The narrator is misleading us in a variety of ways, in this case by
omitting important information (your "non-descriptions"). The
so-called Harry filter is only one weapon in the unreliable narrator's
arsenal. 

And of course, JKR herself is behind it. In addition to having the
narrator misreport or omit information, she uses other narrative
strategies to keep us misinformed or uninformed about things like
Snape's motives. She interrupts her characters just as they're about
to impart important information, keeps actions that might have saved
the day from taking place (for example, Trelawney reporting what
happened in the RoR or Harry going to Snape for help because Rosmerta
shows them the Dark Mark), and having dumbledore die without telling
Harry the supposedly exciting story of the ring Horcrux.

The unreliable narrator is not an invention of Snape fans. It's a
literary device that JKR is taking full advantage of. The "Harry
filter" is part of it--an important part--but it's not all there is.
And what makes the unreliable narrator most effective is that he or
she *is not always* unreliable, so many readers get in the habit of
believing him or her, or the unreliability (Harry was going to die
from the pain) is revealed immediately and the reader realizes that
that particular instance is only the "Harry filter."

But JKR is sneaky. Dismiss the unreliable narrator if you will, but
prepare to be surprised in book 7.

JKR is always dropping tiny clues and red herrings, as I'm sure you
admit. But she's also constantly misdirecting us. And withheld
information, whether it's Dumbledore or the narrator who's withholding
it, is one of her favorite strategies.

Carol, who wants to know, for example, who Imperio'd Rosmerta since
neither Draco nor Dumbledore tells us