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

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 155852

> wynnleaf:
> 
> First, many of us don't consider these "unfair."

Neri:
I use "unfair" here according to my very personal definition, as
shorthand for "a non-description that is used to fool the hero and the
reader".


> wynnleaf:
> Second, you
> originally said JKR didn't do this, now you say that there are "fair"
> exceptions.  Then you ask for "clear-cut" examples of "unfair"
> situations. 

Neri:  
In my original post on the subject
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148445
I defined "non-description" as something that the hero must know or
see, and yet the narrator doesn't describe. In that same post I
mentioned that the only example I know of JKR using a non-description
to fool the reader is a very special case in which it is the hero
himself who fools the reader (the Felix Felicis incident). Still in
that same first post I invented the term "unfair non-description" for
a non-description that the narrator uses to fool *both* the hero and
the reader, and pointed out that JKR seems to avoid them. I asked for
any counterexamples and none were found yet.

JKR uses non-descriptions all the time (she must, because she can't
describe everything Harry sees or knows). She also fools Harry and the
readers several times per book. Simple probability considerations
would suggest that she'd sometimes combine the two and fool us by
using non-descriptions. She did use a non-description in a very
purposeful way to enable Harry fool us himself. Yet until now she has
never has never fooled *both* the reader and Harry using a
non-description. This suggests to me that she also considers it unfair.


> wynnleaf:
> The PT *is* an example.  If it was "clear-cut" it
> wouldn't be misdirection at all and would be a failure on JKR's part
> to deceive us.  These things don't become clear-cut until after
> they've been explained in a "The Truth Comes Out" sort of scene, which
> can't happen until Book 7.

Neri:
The PT is certainly an example of a non-description, but it would only
become an example of what I call an "unfair" non-description if JKR
will use it to fool the readers and tell us that, for example, it was
Snape who cursed Greyback. This is yet unresolved (and perhaps there's
nothing to resolve). But in six books there are many examples of JKR
tricking us that *were* resolved. Why aren't any of them based on
non-descriptions? 


> wynnleaf:
> You were also given an example from the
> cursed broom scene in PS/SS, but I guess you don't consider it
> "clear-cut."  Many, however, do consider it clear-cut and not unfair
> at all.

Neri:
Again, my original definition for a non-description was "something the
hero *must* see or know and yet it is not described". You can't say
that Harry must have seen that his broom stopped bucking before Snape
caught fire. Therefore according to my original definition the broom
incident isn't a non-description. 

(The whole "clear-cut" thing only referred to a case in which we
change my definition ad hoc for the broom incident by generalizing it
to Ron and Hermione too, because other listees felt that the changes
in PoV should warrant it. But if we stay with my original definition
then the broom incident simply isn't a non-description.)


> wynnleaf:
> It is simply your own preference for how you care to be
> surprised and for how you do not wish to be surprised, that is moving
> you to label this form of misdirection "unfair."  I have not seen any
> particular literary tradition that considers this method "unfair."
> 

Neri:
The "unfair" is indeed my own private label, a shorthand for "a
non-description used to fool the hero and the reader". However, I show
that JKR hasn't used it until now.

It was you who reminded us about JKR's words that "the readers like to
be tricked but not conned". You also reminded us that JKR referred to
"Emma" as her standard for mystery writing. So had Austen ever used a
non-description to fool the hero and reader in Emma? If you can't find
such a case, it suggests that this is one of the things that JKR
considers as "conning the reader", and that she appreciates Austen,
among other reasons, for not using it.

> Mike now:
> <snip> 
> 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.

Neri:
I'm not sure I understand you comparison. If we assume JKR fools us
(as in an ESE!Lupin scenario) then Harry *doesn't* know who cursed
Sirius. He believes with us that it was Bella, but it was actually
ESE!Lupin, and Harry would be extremely surprised to learn it. This is
a very different situation from the Felix Felicis case, where Harry
knows the truth all along.


> 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? 

Neri:
By definition, we and Harry can't be treated to a non-description. My
definition of a non-description is something that Harry does see but
we don't. This isn't the case here. Yes, some things were absent that
perhaps shouldn't be, but Harry hadn't seen them as well. Therefore
it's not a non-description.

Here's a trivial example of a non-description, just to make things
clearer: Does Snape has a beard? Harry must see if he has or hasn't,
but the narrator never tells us. Therefore it's a non-description. 

> Mike again:
> 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.
>

Neri:
It's quite possible that JKR is either cheating here or has made some
mistake. It won't be the first time (she already corrected the priori
incantatum order) and she admitted that GoF was rushed to print. But
this still remains to be seen, and in any case, even if she cheated
here it wasn't by using a non-description the way I defined it.

Neri