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

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 155916

> Nikkalmati:
> I guess that the Fennir PT situation is a potential clear-cut  
> non-description.  If Harry did the PT, he knows it and we don't.  
No  non-description cheat.
> If Harry did not do the PT, he does not know who did  it and we 
don't either. 
>  If the PT turns out to be important in Book 7, we  both have been 
fooled?  
> Is this right?

Neri:
Yes, that is right. Note that we and Harry would be fooled in 
different ways. Harry would be fooled because he was stupid enough 
not to find out who did curse Greyback. We would be fooled because we 
didn't even get the information Harry got, so we didn't have a fair 
chance to prove ourselves smarter than Harry.

 
> Mike now:
> 
> <snip> For the "unfair" to kick in, it's not only we the reader who 
> must be tricked, but Harry must be "fooled" also, when she utilizes 
> a "non-description". Is that right, Neri? 

Neri:
Yes, and I hasten to add, only "unfair" by my own private definition, 
although it seems to coincide with JKR's.

> Mike again:
> 
> This is where I'm still hazy. How can Harry be fooled if the 
> definition includes him knowing? IOW, is it "unfair" if later on 
> Harry walks up to Lupin and says, 'I know it was you who cursed 
> Sirius', or only if Lupin surprises Harry by admitting, 'I was the 
> one who got Sirius'?

Neri:
Ah, I see the confusion. When I say "Harry knows" I don't mean he 
knows the solution to the mystery. I mean he knows the clue. For 
example, in the PT case he at least should know if it was he who 
cursed Greyback or somebody else. This is still a long way from 
knowing the answer to the mystery of who cursed Greyback (assuming 
there is one).

> Mike finishing off:
> 
> I submit that it was a non-description. IMO, something must have 
> come out of LV's wand, representing the AK thrown at Harry, between 
> Bertha and Lily. Further, I submit that Harry would have 
seen/heard  
> it, but it wasn't described to us the reader. Cheating or mistake, 
I 
> still think this qualifies as a non-description.
>

Neri:
I think calling it a non-description would be a confusion of terms. 
If according to JKR rules something should have come out of the wand 
but didn't (which I'm still not convinced) then it is a flint, or it 
is an actual case of JKR cheating us, but it doesn't fit my 
definition of "non-description".


> Random832:
> I think it's a lot more fair if we're fooled because Harry is fooled
> (it's not a "non-description" if it really is a misconception Harry
> has for one reason or another) than if we have a false impression 
that
> anyone who was actually there never could have gotten.

Neri:
Er... sorry, I've lost you. Could you clarify that?


> Pippin:
> I think JKR's definition of 'tricked but not conned' doesn't refer 
to
> anything so specific as Neri's 'non-description'. I think she simply
> means that while both play on human gullibility,  the con artist 
> never allows her victims to doubt, while the trickster freely admits
> that she's trying to fool you and  plays a game of 'catch me if  
you 
> can.' Rowling uses many devices to trick the reader, but AFAIK, 
> she never uses a device in  a plot twist that she hasn't already
> demonstrated to the reader. I observe the following:
> 

Neri:
Ah, now I feel we are on the way for making some useful 
generalizations that can be tested immediately.   

> Pippin:
> No magic has ever been used in a plot twist before it was explained 
> to the reader. (animagi, polyjuice potion, portkeys)
> 

Neri:
I generally agree but there seems to be some notable exceptions. 
First, Voldemort coming out of the back of Quirrell's head when the 
possibility of possession wasn't mentioned (let alone explained) 
before. Second, Hermione's time turner when the possibility of time 
travel wasn't mentioned before. However, both possession and time 
travel are known plot devices outside the Potterverse, and in both 
cases there were additional clues (Quirrell's turban and Hermione 
going to more than one lesson at the same time) so I tend to agree. 

> Pippin: 
> No improbable event has ever occurred as  a plot twist that wasn't
> shown to occur before. ( Hagrid tells us that it was hard to know
> which wizards you met were trustworthy, setting up Quirrell's 
> surprise.  Voldemort's death is pronounced to
> be codswallop, setting up Peter and Barty. Sirius escapes from 
> Azkaban before Barty does. Snape gives fake veritaserum to Umbridge 
> before Harry gives fake felix to Ron.)
> 

Neri:
I don't think the plot twist of the accidental priori incantatum was 
shown to occur before. However, it wasn't the solution for an 
official mystery, so I tend to agree.

> Pippin:
> No character has been  revealed to be innocent in a plot twist 
> whose character was not previously vouched for. (Hagrid vouched 
> for Snape in PS/SS, Madame Rosmerta vouched for Sirius in PoA.)
> 

Neri:
Hmm. Who vouched for Dobby in CoS? Well, you certainly can say that 
he vouched for himself, but that's kind of stretching it, isn't it?

> Pippin:
> No character has ever been revealed as guilty in a plot twist who 
was 
> not previously  challenged. (Snape challenged Quirrell, Dumbledore
> challenged Riddle, Crookshanks challenged Scabbers, McGonagall 
> challenged Fake!Moody.)
> 

Neri:
Who challenged Ginny in CoS?

> Pippin:
> No character (including the narrator) has been revealed to have 
deceived 
> the hero or the reader in a plot twist who had not previously 
appeared to
> be unreliable.
> 

Neri:
Well, I'm not sure that saying much because I have trouble thinking 
of any characters (including Ron and Hermione) that *weren't* found 
to be unreliable at least once in the series. Perhaps only very minor 
characters like Sprout or Flitwick, who simply never played any 
significant role in the plot.

Also, I think the narrator is a case for herself, she is not like any 
other character out there. Are you saying that, since the narrator 
had deceived the hero and the reader several times in the past, she 
is now allowed to do *anything*, because she gave us "fair warning" 
that she's unreliable? This would contradict the rules you are trying 
to formulate here, which suggest that the narrator did accept certain 
limitations upon herself.

> Pippin:
> That Harry would mistake the origin of a hex that happened 
> right in front of him is an improbable event, but to determine 
whether
> it is possible according to the rules above, we need only ask if 
such 
> an improbable event has already occurred in canon. Of course it 
has, 
> when a whole street full of Muggles thought they had observed 
Sirius 
> hexing Peter. Hermione also mistook the origin of the broomstick
> hex, so this is not an error limited to Muggles.

Neri:
There weren't any jets of light involved in those cases, though, 
which made them much less improbable. In fact both these mistakes 
were very probable under the situation. 
 
> Pippin:
> The same incidents also allow the device of the narrator letting us
> presume that a character has observed something when he hasn't.
> 

Neri:
I think you generalize too much from too specific cases. The deceived 
characters in these two cases weren't the hero, and the narrator 
doesn't tell us directly what they see and think.

Some of your proposed rules boil down to "wherever the narrator casts 
any doubt – anything goes". However, since JKR excels in releasing 
large schools of red herrings, and since your standards for casting 
doubt are quite permissive, then in practice your rules boils down to 
just "anything goes". Please forgive me for wanting to be a bit more 
specific than that <g>.  

I am very interested in your rule that no magic has ever been used in 
a plot twist before it was explained to the reader. It needs 
reformulating, but here I feel we are approaching something a bit 
more accurate.


Neri