Unreliable narrator yet again (Was: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'?)

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 177986

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...>
wrote:
>
> "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> 
> > he called her the worst name he 
> > could think of and immediately regretted it. 
> 
> I agree and I think we can all relate to that; we can all recall
> saying things we wish we had not. I think the reason it was Snape's
> worst memory was not because of James's humiliation of him, it was
> because when he said that word he lost Lilly's love. Note that in book
> 7 he refused to let anyone use that word in his presence.  
> 
> > the unreliable narrator at work again
> 
> I don't see why you say that. The narrator may be a bit too laconic
> from time to time, but I can't remember him being downright deceitful.
> JKR may be tricky but she plays fair. 
>  
>  Eggplant
>

Carol responds:

The unreliable narrator is a standard literary device in which the pov
character's perspective is inaccurate. It has nothing to do with being
unfair (though I suppose you could call it being tricky, just as red
herrings mixed with clues are tricky). An extreme example of an
unreliable narrator is Huckleberry Finn (who is both the protagonist
and the narrator) thinking that it's wicked to help the runaway Jim
escape because he's Miss Watson's property. The device can also be
used with a third-person narrator who reports events and describes
characters from the pov of a character who doesn't fully understand
what's happening.

JKR does that all the time, particularly with Snape, because she's
trying to mislead the reader into believing that he is, or might be,
as evil as Harry thinks he is.

Examples from various books include Harry's parents supposedly dying
in a car accident, Snape "causing" Harry's scar to hurt, Snape
"cursing" Harry's broom, Hermione at the Yule Ball as a pretty girl
Harry didn't know, the Thestrals as "terrible horses," the narrator's
assertion that "[Harry] would never forgive Snape. Never," and Snape
"Crucioing" Harry into insanity. The DH descriptions of "Bathilda"
that make her appear to be a besotted old woman (as opposed to a
snake-inhabited corpse) are also unreliable, reflecting Harry's
disastrously mistaken assumptions. Sometimes the unreliability doesn't
come directly from the narrator; it can take the form of overheard
conversations in which the speakers are either misinformed
(McGonagall, Fudge, Hagrid et al. in PoA; Dirk Creswell, Ted Tonks,
and the goblins in DH) or misunderstood (Harry's eavesdropping on
Snape in SS/PS and HBP). The effect is the same. Unless the reader is
alert to contradictory evidence or clues (such as the "cruel"
punishment administered by Snape turning out to be detention with
Hagrid), he or she accepts Harry's perspective (reflected by the
narrator) as true and accurate (despite the many times when the
unreliable narrator's comments are almost immediately contradicted,
such as the repeated assertions that Harry is going to die from a
Crucio or the times when the unreliability is transparent, such as the
assertion, reflecting Frank Bryce's pov, that there was no such word
as "Quidditch").

Here's just one clearcut Snape example from DH: "[Harry] felt even
more cheered at the thought that Dumbledore had had some reservations,
however faint, about Snape's trustworthiness" (DH Am. ed. 305)--an
assertion based on the false assumption by Harry and Hermionethat DD
had not told Snape about the fake sword which, of course, supports the
reader's false impression that Snape treacherously murdered DD. (Ron,
meanwhile, has the false impression that his sister is in terrible
danger from Snape.)

The last example I can recall is also in DH, a reference to
Dumbledore's "betrayal" of Harry. DD has not betrayed Harry; he has
only withheld the full truth from him (and Snape) one last time so
that Harry will willingly sacrifice himself rather than fighting back.
Only if Voldemort himself "kills" Harry (as DD tells Snape) can the
soul bit be destroyed and Voldie made mortal. What he doesn't tell
Snape (and Harry consequently doesn't learn till later) is that only
by willingly sacrificing himself as his mother did can Harry activate
the love magic that will protect himself and others from LV and that
the drop of blood will (probably) keep Harry from dying.

Once Harry understands the truth about himself and Voldemort and Snape
and Dumbledore--once all the mysteries are resolved and Harry's
blinders are off (symbolized, IMO, by the absence of his glasses in
"King's Cross"), the narrator ceases to be unreliable. That is, even
though he's still presenting events from Harry's limited viewpoint,
he's no longer basing his assertions on Harry's mistaken assumptions,
which have been revealed as mistaken by "The Prince's Tale" and
"King's Cross." (Forgive the generic "he": I'm distinguishing the
voice of the narrator, who is not omniscient and is sometimes
mistaken, from that of JKR, who, in theory, does "know all about
Severus Snape," as she claimed in an interview, and about her other
characters as well. I say "in theory" because of various
inconsistencies in the books and some apparently impromptu
explanations in interviews and chats that don't square very well with
the printed text.) 

As I'm sure you know, I did not invent the concept of the unreliable
narrator, nor did HP fans invent or imagine what they call the "Harry
filter." Many authors use an unreliable narrator when it's important
that the pov character be mistaken in his or her judgment of events
and characters because of limited or incorrect information and/or
misinterpretation based on faulty preconceptions (cf. "Emma," a
favorite work of JKR's). 

Misdirection in all its forms is a standard technique of mystery
writers. Since each book in the series contains at least one
self-contained mystery, along with the continuing mystery of Snape's
loyalties, it's not surprising that JKR often uses an unreliable
narrator along with red herrings and mistaken assumptions, erroneous
information, half truths and sometimes deliberately deceptive
statements in the mouths of various characters to mislead the reader
as Harry is misled.

Here's a definition from a scholarly website:

"UNRELIABLE NARRATOR: An imaginary storyteller or character who
describes what he witnesses accurately, but misinterpets those events
because of faulty perception, personal bias, or limited understanding.
Often the writer or poet creating such an unreliable narrator leaves
clues so that readers will perceive the unreliablity and question the
interpretations offered."

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/lit_terms_U.html

IMO, an attentive reader should question any assertion by JKR's
narrator (or any narrator) that clearly reflects the pov character's
assumptions rather than objectively depicting an incident or
character. In one of JKR's less articulate moments (she reminds me of
my mother in the way she interrupts herself <eg>), she stated, "we,
the reader, and I as the writer, because I'm leading you all there —
you are seeing Slytherin house always from the perspective of Death
Eaters' children." IOW, she starts off depicting a partial view of
Slytherin as represented by only three students: Draco, Crabbe, and
Goyle--but she's *leading* the reader (through Harry and the narrator
who usually reflects his pov) to a particular perception of these
characters, especially Draco, which will later change (through HBP and
DH), much as she's leading us (through Harry and the narrator) to a
particular perception of Snape, which will change as we read "The
Prince's Tale." (Even those of us who expected a good Snape were
surprised, not always pleasantly, by the revelations in that chapter,
which permanently alter Harry's perception of and reaction to the
now-dead Snape.)

Carol, who thinks that taking a narrator's assertions at face value is
dangerous at all times and especially in the HP series since to do so
validates Harry's mistaken perceptions