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

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 155844

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>> <snip>  Harry knows he didn't spike Ron's pumpkin juice with 
>> Felix, yet we are led to believe he did, until we reach the 
>> locker room scene after the match.
> 
> Neri:
> Yes, you found the example I mentioned as a special exception in 
> the post where I first suggested the term "non-description":
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148445

Mike now:
Ok Neri, I went back and checked the post you're talking about. Here 
is the paragraph from that post:

"The most famous example of a non-description in the series is 
probably the curse that killed (or not) Sirius in OotP. Harry surely 
saw at least what color it was, but the color isn't described. Harry 
probably also saw if it was Bellatrix who shot it, or at least he'd 
know, if he thinks back about what he saw, whether it could have 
been somebody else. So if the author is going to take advantage of 
this non-description to tell me later that it was somebody else (like
ESE!Lupin, as Pippin suggested) who shot the curse, I'll feel 
cheated." <snip> "a tacit agreement that she has to
describe anything *relevant* that Harry sees."

So let's compare the two scenes side-by-side (assume JKR cheats us):
Harry knows who cursed Sirius = Harry knows if the juice is spiked
      We believe Bella did it = We believe Harry spiked it
It was really Lupin who did it = Harry really didn't do it

In neither case is Harry surprised by the outcome because he knows 
the truth. But in the case of Lupin cursing Sirius, you said you 
would feel cheated. Yet you don't feel cheated that for an entire 
chapter we are lead to erroneously believe that Harry spiked Ron's 
juice. Yes, I know the degree of importance is not equal, but we are 
talking about literary devices, aren't we? Does she need to use 
this "non-description" device to make the chapter work? Yes. But you 
have to admit that this is JKR *cheating* us, while we are in 
Harry's POV.
 
> Neri again: 
> In that post I issued the challenge of finding an "unfair"
> non-description, that is, a non-description that is used to fool  
> both the hero and the reader. See also:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148501
> where I answered some other counter-examples raised by other      
> listees. <snip>

Mike again:
OK, this is the only one I could think of. Bertha Jorkins emerges 
from LV's wand and tells Harry "don't let go". The unreliable 
narrator describes the three 'shadows' circling Harry and LV, 
whispering stuff. Then Lily comes out of the wand. Nothing is 
described as emitting from the wand between Bertha and Lily's 
emergences.
 
What happened to the AK (or whatever it was) that LV used on Harry? 
He just described being ripped from his body and pain beyond pain. 
We are lead to believe that the crucios are manifested by 'priori 
incantatum' as emissions of screams of pain. Even if you don't 
adhere to the belief that the rebounded 'AK' killed LV's body and 
that his body should have appeared as the rest did, at least we 
should have gotten a scream from "pain beyond Pain". Haven't we and 
Harry been treated to a non-description? Does anyone believe LV 
endured pain beyond pain without a peep?

Doesn't knowing what happened after Lily's death seem like something 
that JKR does not want to release, yet we and Harry should have 
gained some insight during this whole priori incatatum scene? Maybe 
not necessarily fooling us, but surely keeping us in the dark when 
we should have been enlightened if she is "playing by the rules" 
that she made up regarding priori incatatum.