Could Harry have saved Snape? (was Reacting to DH...)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 178107

> Alla wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> > I do not see how Harry could doubt for one second that he saw a 
> murder IMO of course.
> > 
> > And his eyes did not play a trick of him after all, no? There was 
no
> fake AK or anything like that. Harry did not have all information to
> figure out what happened on the Tower - he did not know about the 
> plan, etc.
> > 
> > But what he saw, was exactly what he saw - Snape killing 
Dumbledore,
> just on Dumbledore's request. Made me think again that importance of
> "Harry's filter" is really not that important in general.
> > 
> > Harry often does not have information, but what he sees, he sees
> correctly often enough IMO.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Which is exactly the point of the unreliable narrator (or,
> specifically, the Harry filter. The words and actions are accurately
> described (though JKR sometimes omits some crucial information, such
> as who spoke a certain line or who cast a particular spell), but the
> pov character's reactions and interpretation (based on 
misinformation
> or mistaken assumptions or whatever) is misleading. Let's look at 
the
> passage in question:
><SNIP the quote, go UPTHREAD to read it and the rest of the post too>

Alla:

I was arguing specifically against one charge against the narrator in 
this scene that facts are **not** described accurately, that is all. 
I mean, the facts as in Snape kills Dumbledore with real Avada 
Kedavra.  And Zara did not even exactly made that charge, I just 
extrapolated from her sentence that Harry saw nothing to that effect.

To me Harry saw exactly what happened, he just did not know the 
reasons for it.

Narrator does not have all the information and makes inaccurate 
conclusion based on that, but scene itself does not change into 
**not** killing, it does not change into fake AK, it does not change 
into Snape trying to save Dumbledore.

It is what is until we have additional facts, which do **not** change 
the facts that we already have in this scene IMO, Snape's expression 
IS still the same, just for a different reason. What I am saying is 
that if the definition of unreliable narrator or Harry's filter is 
that narrator **always** describes facts  and actions correctly as he 
sees them and his conclusions are wrong if he does not have all 
information, then sure, I can see that.

But if the definition of Harry's filter is that he inaccurately 
describes what he sees and interprets the facts that he **has**, then 
no I am not buying it. And I did saw definition like that as well 
somewhere.

Even with not all the information narrator is often correct. Narrator 
for example is absolutely and positively correct after his first 
lesson IMO.

Snape does hate Harry exactly as narrator tells us. We do not have 
all the information why he hates Harry, but that is the situation 
when I really do not care and I see no filter present and agree with 
conclusion that narrator makes. Harry's perception after first lesson 
was spot on, IMO. Not that it was so hard to make such conclusion and 
again IMO it really does not matter that Snape was in love with 
Harry's mother and hated Harry because of that too. The additional 
information only makes Snape more despicable in my eyes.

Not because he loved Harry's mother, but because he hated her child.

JMO,

Alla, who thinks that as long as we know that narrator's reactions 
are based on complete information we can trust him to make the right 
conclusion or at least I do. Sadly for the sake of the plot narrator 
does not always have complete information, heheh.