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

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 155858

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi@> 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.
>  

Renee:
Neri isn't the only one who would feel cheated if it turned out to be
 Lupin who killed Sirius in the case that Harry had seen who did it. I
would feel cheated, too, because nothing in the final chapters of of
OotP, or in HBP, indicates that Harry "knows" anything of the kind. If
he did, it would be completely out of character for him to interact
with Lupin the way he does after the MOM, and therefore ridiculously
bad writing. 

JKR omitting to tell us Harry never spiked Ron's juice is not bad
writing. It's an isolated incident, the results are described and
dealt with fairly soon after it happens and no one's acting out of
character. To me, it's an obvious case of "tricking but not conning".
 
The cheating in the case of Sirius's death would not reside in the
non-description itself, but in the way Harry's knowledge *has no
consequences at all in canon after the event*. If Harry weren't the
POV character, the narrator could get away with such a thing, but he is. 

Also, what you overlook in Neri's statement is the word "relevant".
Looking at the big picture, Harry spiking Ron's juice is of very minor
relevance, compared to Sirius's death. These two cases can't be compared. 

Renee