Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 174658

Carol earlier:
> >Snip>
>  And part of that journey, the only part I'm concerned with here, is
the clearing of Harry's perception. By the end of the novel, the
narrator, reflecting Harry's pov, is no longer unreliable.
> > "Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing," DH Am. ed. 692) is
*one of the last* instances. Another [near-final instance] is
"Dumbledore had overestimated him. He had failed" (693). The last
instance I can find is "He saw the mouth move and a flash of green
light and everything was gone," which tricks us for a second into
believing that Harry is dead. 
> 
> 
> Jack-A-Roe:
> Don't all those statements actually make the narrator and Harry 
incorrect?

Carol:
Exactly. They're the last vestiges of the unreliable narrator. But
you're right that they don't follow from the topic sentence of the
paragraph, which should have been, "The narrator remains unreliable
until the 'King's Cross' chapter, when Harry finally learns the truth
about himself and Dumbledore, as well as the solutions to the
mysteries." (True, that solution is not as clear as it might be, but
that's Dumbledore for you.)

My apologies for the nonsequitur. I can see how it could have been
confusing to posters unfamiliar with my twelve million or so posts on
this topic. *Of course*, DD didn't betray Harry, but Harry and
therefore the narrator, thinks he did. Ditto for Harry's "failure" and
"death," which of course are as incorrect as "Snape was going to
Crucio him into insanity" or some such line in HBP. I realize now that
these examples, which illustrate the *last vestiges* of the unreliable
narrator, don't follow from the lead-in, which states that the
narrator, though still limited to Harry's pov, is no longer unreliable
by the end of the book. I jumped the gun a bit.

You snipped my next paragraph, which supports the assertion that I
made prematurely in the quoted paragraph:

"At any rate, by the end of the book, JKR's narrator has become
reliable. Harry's pov as reflected by the narrator and JKR's as author
have merged. When Harry says that Severus Snape was probably the
bravest man he ever knew, we know that JKR believes that, too. And the
name of his second son, Albus Severus, shows that he forgave both
headmasters, one for his spiteful bitterness redeemed by courage and
love, the other for his manipulation, which Harry no longer regards as
a betrayal."

Let me try again.

The narrator, who is limited (most of the time) to Harry's pov is not
the author, who knows from the beginning what is really going on and
how it will all end. The third-person limited omniscient narrator (a
standard literary device) can't know what will happen in the future or
what is happening elsewhere or know the thoughts of any character
other than Harry. He is limited to what Harry sees, hears, thinks,
feels, knows, or thinks he knows, the last being most important in
terms of reliability. As long as what Harry "knows" or perceives is
different from what the author knows, the narrator will be unreliable.
(Think Lemuel Gulliver vs. Jonathan Swift or Huckleberry Finn vs. Mark
Twain/Samuel Clemens.) Granted, JKR is using a third-person narrator,
who is just a voice telling the story rather than a character, that
narrator will be unreliable as long as the character doesn't know what
the author knows. An astute reader who knows that JKR tends to use
this device (we've been fooled by everything from Thestrals to Mad-Eye
Moody) should be alert to the disconnect, anticipating a revelation
regarding Snape or Dumbledore that clashes with Harry's perception. As
I said before DH came out, "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" in
OoP leaped out at me as a statement by the unreliable narrator begging
to be overturned. (The plot structure of HBP suggested the same thing.)

At the beginning of this book, as throughout the series, neither Harry
nor the narrator knows what JKR as author knows. An astute reader can
read between the lines, but even we don't know exactly what's going on
because we're limited by what Harry hears and sees. (We're free,
however, to interpret that information differently than Harry or the
narrator does.) As soon as Harry learns "the truth" (which he has been
seeking throughout this book, at least regarding Dumbledore and the
Hallows and Horcruxes, the truth regarding Snape being something he
did not anticipate), the narrator ceases to be unrliable. The
disconnect between Harry and the narrator, on the one hand, and the
voice of JK Rowling, on the other hand, ends.
 
At the beginning of the book, Snape is presented (by the narrator and
by the characters) as the Death Eater who "casually" killed
Dumbledore. Scattered throughout the book are clues that this view may
not be accurate, for example the "terrible" detention with Hagrid and
the doe Patronus, mixed with red herrings (George's ear) that fit the
evil Snape picture. By the end of the book, Harry and therefore the
narrator have a clear view of Snape, thanks to "The Prince's Tale."
Snape was an "abandoned boy" who became "Dumbledore's man" because he
loved Lily. Harry's view of Snape is now JKR's, as confirmed by her
interviews. (BTW, anyone who's unhappy with Lily as Snape's initial
reason for turning to the good side and who thinks he didn't evolve
from there despite DD's obviously changed attitude toward him should
read "Snape's Supposed Great Love, or, Why Book 7 Doesn't Make Snape
Any Less Interesting" at
http://rexluscus.livejournal.com/254445.html#cutid1 )

DH!Dumbledore is the ambiguous figure that Snape has been in the
previous books, and ther reader, like Harry, is presented with
conflicting information about him. The narrator reflects Harry's
confusion while the reader is free to reach conclusions that are not
the same as his. By "The Forest Again" (when Harry knows the truth
about Snape and we cease to hear unreliable statements from the
narrator about *him*), Harry's distrust of Dumbledore has reached its
peak and we get the sentence about "Dumbledore's betrayal." Harry,
believing what DD told Snape in the Pensieve, opens the Snitch with
the words, "I am about to die." He faces Voldie holding that belief,
reflected by the narrator, because the reader, too, must believe, or
fear, that Harry is going to die. (Of course, we've heard "he was
going to die" a little too often, and the book still has three
chapters to go, so the reader may be a step ahead of Harry and the
narrator here.)

"King's Cross," in which Harry is shown *without his glasses* and DD
is restored to the benevolent figure of previous books, with twinkling
eyes and a healed arn and hand, gives Harry "the truth" that Harry has
been seeking (the Seeker?) and that the author (and her spokesman,
Dumbledore) has been withholding from him and from the reader via the
unreliable narrator.

We are still in Harry's head. The narrator is still limited by what
Harry can see and hear. He still can't know anyone else's thoughts any
more than a real person can. But his perception is no longer distorted
by doubts and fears and preconceptions. We can trust the narrator now.

Carol, asking other posters to let her know if they find any instances
of the unreliable narrator in the last two chapters, in which case she
may have to rethink her position regarding the healing of the
disconnect between narrator and author at the end of the book