TBAY: What Harry "knows", (Was: Why we'll get no further revelations ...)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 169907

Carol earlier:
> > And anyone who wants a red flag to alert them to the presence of
the unreliable narrator, meaning Harry's perception of anyone or
anything, not just of Snape, being wrong, can just watch for the
phrase "Harry knew."

Neri responded, TBay-style:> 
> "Isn't it wonderful, this observation of Carol?" Neri asked Faith.
> "All we have to do is just watch for the phrase `Harry knew', and
> we'll immediately know that he's wrong."
<snip> 
> 
> "What?" said Faith distractedly, marking something in her notebooks,
> "oh, not again, Neri. How many times do I have to explain this to
you? The narrator must be reliable at least 95% of the time,
especially in a fantasy series, especially with a mystery plot going.
There's nothing worse that can happen to such a narrator than losing
its reliability in the reader's eyes." She went back to her notebooks.
> 
> "But there are still those remaining 5%?" said Neri hopefully.

> "Wouldn't it be great if we had some kind of a
 er
 a red flag, to
let us know when the narrator is *really* unreliable?"
> 
> "Such a red flag doesn't exist. It's a theorist myth. Now stop
> bothering me, I need to get some work done."

> "I never cheat about canon," said Faith indignantly. "So unless you
> can show me another `Harry knew' phrase where he's proved wrong,
> please stop wasting my time with red flags. I need to get some work
done."
>
Carol responds:

"Well done, Neri. Well done, Neri," said Dumbledore, clapping his hands.

Of course, the narrator has to be right at least 95% of the time, or
there would be no point in reading the books. We'd just be confused.
But the point of the unreliable narrator is to mislead the reader into
believing that he's *always* reliable because he *usually* is. 

And, of course, there's not just one red flag ("surely" is another).
Of course, not all passages with "Harry knew" indicate the unreliable
narrator; sometimes, as you indicate, Harry really does "know" what
the narrator says he knows. I'm talking about inferences and hearsay
passing as knowledge. And sometimes there's no flag at all, but Harry,
or the narrator presenting Harry's pov (or, for that matter, Frank
Bryce's) is simply wrong. It's one of a number of devices
(conversations in which the characters are mistaken, actions that
occur outside Harry's view, partially overheard and misinterpreted
conversations, red herrings disguised as clues, to mislead the reader.

Any time the narrator is reporting events and conversations in a
straightforward manner, without interpretation or commentary (or
feelings on Harry's part)--any time it's stripped from any element of
subjectivity, IOW, we can trust it. For example, there's nothing
unreliable in "Nobody else was looking. Harry bent low to retrieve the
book, and as he did so, he saw something scribbled along the bottom of
the back cover in the same small, cramped handwriting as the
instructions that had won him his bottle of Felix Felicis...." (HBP
Am. ed. 193). There's a clue buried in there, however--We've seen that
small, cramped handwriting before on Severus Snape's DADA exam in OoP.

If the narrator is simply saying that Harry is hungry or that he split
Cedric Diggory's bookbag with a curse, we can take it as fact. "Snape
was being mean to Harry" is a bit more doubtful, especially when it's
not backed up by actions, and "Snape hated Harry" is always Harry's
perception, whether or not it's true.

But I'm talking about places in which the narrative clearly reveals
Harry's perception, which turns out to be untrue. I've already given
you two "Harry knew" quotes, but I'll repeat them here of the sort I'm
talking aabout, but I'll repeat them here:

"He was going to be expelled, he just knew it" (SS Am. ed. 130) turns
out to be false (far from being expelled, he's made Gryffindor Seeker
and given a state-of-the-art broom). While this perception is quickly
turned around, it helps to establish the narrator as unreliable.

And the lengthy quote on Fake!Moody drinking from a hip flask,
"Perhaps she [Rosmerta] thought it was an insult to her mulled mead.
But *Harry knew* better. Moody had told them all during their last
Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson that he preferred to prepare his
own food and drink at all times, as it was so easy for Dark wizards to
poison an unattended cup" (GoF Am. ed. 322) is only partially true. As
I already explained, what Harry *knows* is Barty Jr.'s cover story,
the real Mad-eye's reasons for drinking from a hip flask, which Barty
Jr. is borrowing as he borrows Moody's identity, mannerisms, and
magical eye. The real reason that Fake!Moody drinks from a hip flask
is so that he can publicly drink Polyjuice with no one the wiser. So
this "Harry knew" quote is a splendid example of misdirection by the
unreliable narrator that makes us believe, with Harry, that "Moody" is
Moody and fail to see what Fake!Moody is really doing.

To address Sherry's point before I go on:

Sherry:
Did you forget about Draco in HBP? Because Harry had a gut feeling,
and he was sure right! It's the turning point, where Harry is right,
and now nobody will believe him, instead of the tired boring, Harry is
always wrong. it's time for Harry, the *hero* to be right.

Carol responds:
Harry, as usual, is partially right. After all, he followed Draco to
Borgin and Burkes, where Draco threatened Borgin, and it's obvious
that he's up to something more than usually bad. Harry also knows that
Draco has vowed vengeance for his father's imprisonment. But he
arrives at some wrong conclusions as well as right ones, and I'm
pretty sure that DD knew more than he did about what Draco was up to.
(Not enough, unfortunately.)

But I'm not talking about Harry's detective skills, which have
certainly improved (if you don't count spying on Draco and getting his
face stomped on) since SS/PS, nor his judgment of character, which is
slowly but surely improving. He's starting to understand and
appreciate Neville and Luna and even to understand and feel a tinge of
pity for Draco (whom he nevertheless still holds in contempt). The
last step, IMO, will be to understand Snape.

But I'm not talking about Harry as a character. I'm talking about a
narrative technique that misleads the reader by presenting Harry's
reactions and impressions as fact. If the whole book were told in the
style of "Spinner's End," it would probably be easier to judge events
and characters for ourselves, but it would also be less easy to
empathize with Harry. The third-person limited omniscient narrator is
a wonderful device for leading the reader to empathize with the pov
character, usually the protagonist, but to make the same mistakes in
judgment that he does. Which is why readers who don't want to make
those mistakes would do well to look out for it.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that "Harry knew" *always*
throws up a red flag, or that it's the only indication that the
narrator is unreliable. That isn't the case, and I'm guilty of
casually tossing out an overgeneralization, just as JKR casually
tosses out exaggerations (hands the size of a garbage bin lid on a
person who's only head and shoulders taller than everyone else and can
ride on a train).

Other examples of the unreliable narrator involve "surely":  "His head
was surely going to burst with pain" (GoF Am. ed. 661); "He would
surely die of this agony, Snape was going to torture him to death or
madness" (HBP Am. ed. 603) just before Snape rescues him from the Crucio.

Sometimes there's no red flag; we just know (or learn later) that what
Harry "knows" isn't true: "He was going to die like Cedric; those
pitiless red eyes were telling him so" (GoF 661); "Kreacher, it
transpired, had been lurking in the attic" (OoP Am. ed. 516)--but
"lurking in the attic" is Kreacher's cover story; he was really
visiting Narcissa Malfoy.

So, thank you, Neri, for forcing me to clarify and revise my position.
And next time I toss out a casual remark about the unreliable
narrator, please be aware that it's based on a thorough observation of
JKR's narrative technique. 

Carol, who will try to be careful of overgeneralizations but fears
that they're as unavoidable as typos (e.g., "hiding their faces behind
their heads"--meaning "hoods," as Pippin rightly guessed)