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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 169958

Neri wrote:
> 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.
<snip>
> 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. 

Carol responds:

When did I ever say that the unreliable narrator was related to the
mystery aspect of the novel? My whole point is that Harry's  (or some
other pov character's) perceptions shape the way the narrative is
told, and that includes what Harry "knows." Perhaps I shouldn't have
used the term "red flag," but it works as a red flag for me. (Harry
knows that, does he? Oops.)

Let me give you other examples of the unreliable narrator, which may
or may not be related to the mystery of the individual novel or the
overall Snape mystery. (I notice that you snipped "Kreacher, it
transpired, was lurking in the attic.")

The most obvious early example, which we know to be unreliable even as
we read it, is "He'd lived with the Dursleys . . . ever since he'd
been a baby and his parents had died in that car crash" (SS am. ed.
29), this is clearly Harry's perception, based on what Aunt Petunia
has told him, and it's clearly incorrect, as we've been told in the
previous chapter that Lily and James were killed by Voldemort. This
passage operates *for me* as a red flag that the narrator is limited
by a particular character's point of view (that's what a third-person
limited omniscient narrator *is*, by definition) and that the pov will
not always be accurate. (I mentioned a less obvious example of the
possible unreliability of the narrator regarding Vernon's view of
Petunia's behavior in the previous chapter; I really think that Vernon
is wrong and that Petunia is hiding something, which is why JKR chose
Vernon's pov rather than hers for that chapter.

More examples of the unreliable narrator (not involving "Harry knew"
but involving Harry's perception). A lovely one from SS/PS: "It
happened very suddenly. The hook-nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's
turban straight into Harry's eyes--and a sharp, hot pain shot across
the scar on Harry's forehead" (126). This short passage is absolutely
brilliant because the juxtaposition of the simultaneous events,
Snape's looking into Harry's eyes and the pain in his eyes, *implies*
cause and effect. Some readers to this day believe that Snape caused
the pain in Harry's scar. And then there's "Snape's sudden, sinister
desire to be a Quidditch referee" (217)--as we find out from Quirrell
later, there's nothing sinister about it. He's trying to prevent
Quirrell from jinxing Harry's broom again.

I've already cited examples from GoF and OoP, but I want to mention
the use of Frank Bryce's "innocent eye" pov in GoF. When the narrator,
reporting from Frank's pov, says, "Owing, no doubt, to a build-up of
earwax, he had heard the word 'Quidditch,' which was not a word at
all" (GoF am. ed. 2), the reader again *knows* that the narration is
unreliable. (Note "no doubt" as our signal word or red flag here, not
that it's needed.) Why place the limited omniscient narrator in
Frank's head, then? Obvious. To give us Wormtail's or Voldemort's
thoughts would give too much away, so we get an observer who doesn't
know what's going on, but correctly deduces that he's overhearing a
plot between a murderer and his accomplice. 

The technique continues clear through HBP, with, for example:

"This [his E in Potions] was the end of his ambition to be an Auror"
(Am. ed. 103). Wrong. He gets into Potions because Slughorn accepts E
students. Neither Harry nor the reader knows that, but the reader
alert to Harry's tendency to jump to drastic conclusions may suspect
that he's wrong some chapters before that suspicion is confirmed. Or
"She [Mrs. Weasley] gave Lupin an annoyed look, as though it was his
fault that she was getting Fleur for a daughter-in-law instead of
Tonks, but Harry, glancing across at Fleur, who was now feeding Bill
bits of turkey off her own fork, thought that Mrs. Weasley was
fighting a long-lost battle" (340). Here Harry, already misled along
with the reader by Hermione's theories about Tonks's depression and
Mrs. Weasley's dislike of Fleur, fails to connect the look with
Lupin's remark that Tonks has her own family and to infer the correct
cause of Mrs. Weasley's annoyance, Lupin's rejection of Tonks's
affections. Only on a careful rereading is it clear how JKR has misled us.

Carol, who doesn't understand Neri's resistance to the (occasionally!)
unreliable narrator, which is a sophisticated literary technique that
JKR uses masterfully