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

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 169948

> Carol responds:
><snip>

> 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.

Neri:
To say that "sometimes" Harry really does know is IMO somewhat of an
understatement. A simple counting will show you that the times Harry
does know overtake the times he's wrong by a factor of *at least* 30.
I don't see how something that works once in 30 times could be
considered a "red flag".

Saying that there are additional "red flags", like "he knew" or
"surely" doesn't solve the problem, because I'm pretty sure that if I
were to count cases of "he knew" and "surely" in which Harry was
correct I'd get similarly large factors.

Naturally, in *hindsight* it is easy to see that Harry "knowing"
something about one teacher (for example that McGonagall is interested
in the prospects of the Gryffindor team) is completely innocent while
he's "knowing" something about another teacher (that Moody only drinks
from his hipflask) is part of a mystery. Hindsight is a great thing.
But a red flag is something that is usually supposed to work without
the benefit of hindsight.



>  Carol:
> "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. 

Neri:
If I now count again, I see that two cases in which Harry "knew" and
was actually wrong, the Cedric case that Faith discovered and the
expelling case, don't actually have much to do with any mystery plot.
The third, the Moody case, is problematic because the real Moody does
drink only from his hip flask, and therefore Harry was technically
correct. His mistake was that this wasn't the real Moody, but the
narrator never actually tells us that Harry "knows" that this is the
real Moody. However, even if I do accept this case, then by my count
the "Harry/he knew" trick is employed by the unreliable narrator for
mystery purposes exactly *once in the entire series*. 

As a whole, I find that JKR isn't at all big about using unreliable
narrator technique to trick her readers, probably because she is not
interested in undermining the reliability of the narration in the
books. For example, lets look at the case that is frequently
considered The Classic Exemplar of unreliable narrator tricking in the
series, especially in regard to Snape as a red herring villain – the
case of Quirrell talking with the unknown person in SS/PS. Read it
again and notice the position of the narrator:


**********************************************************
Then, about a week before the exams were due to start, Harry's new
resolution not to interfere in anything that didn't concern him was
put to an unexpected test. Walking back from the library on his own
one afternoon, he heard somebody whimpering from a classroom up ahead.
As he drew closer, he heard Quirrell's voice.

"No – no – not again, please –"

It sounded as though someone was threatening him. Harry moved closer.

"All right – all right –" he heard Quirrell sob.

Next second, Quirrell came hurrying out of the classroom,
straightening his turban. He was pale and looked as though he was
about to cry. He strode out of sight; Harry didn't think Quirrell had
even noticed him. He waited until Quirrell's footsteps had
disappeared, then peered into the classroom. It was empty, but a door
stood ajar at the other end. Harry was halfway towards it before he
remembered what he'd promised himself about not meddling.
 
All the same, he'd have gambled twelve Philosopher's Stones that Snape
had just left the room, and from what Harry had just heard, Snape
would be walking with a new spring in his step – Quirrell seemed to
have given in at last.
**********************************************************   


You don't see here any "Harry knew that Snape had just left the room".
On the contrary -- the narrator is quite explicit about the difference
between Harry's limited point of view and objective realty. It is made
clear that Harry didn't see Snape, didn't recognize Snape's voice, and
was only "gambling" it was Snape – his personal conclusion based on
the available evidence. The reader is left free to consider this
evidence himself/herself and assess if Harry's conclusion is the
correct one, or if a different conclusion can be reached based on the
same evidence. Even those parts of the narration that have a slightly
vague position – "it sounded as though someone was threatening him"
and "looked as though he was about to cry" – turn out to be *reliable*
in the end. And of course a real clue is included for those readers
that made the correct conclusion: Quirrell straightening his turban.  

In addition, as I wrote her before, we have no evidence of JKR ever
using what I term "non description" to trick her readers, except once
when it is Harry himself who tricks the reader (the not using Felix on
Ron case). This is another example of JKR avoiding shameless use of
unreliable narrator technique in her mystery plotting. So based on
what we have seen until now I'd be very cautious using unreliable
narrator considerations to theorize anything about Snape, for example. 


Neri