The naive (aka ignorant) POV is one of the key types of "unreliable narrator."
And Harry is always ignorant.
That,isn't true because
always[/i ] implies an absolute.. Harry may be or can be ignorant in some areas, but he isn't always ignorant in all areas.. However if you want to agree that you too are always ignorant, I will admit to that as well, since there are a lot of things you and I don't know, thus are always ignorant.
He starts that way (q.v. Jim writing an actual, literal, "talking head" to "educate" Harry); but, despite how much he has learned, Harry stays that way:
he's a magical heavyweight, and he's fighting his way into the deeper & murkier end of the supernatural power-pool
he's also a PI, so he inquires & investigates as a central element of his professional life
Despite all he has learned, he keeps forging out beyond what he knows, into new areas... areas where he's still ignorant.
Or do you call that curiosity? Without curiosity there is no progress.. However exploring new areas isn't simple, it is always complicated, and an intelligent person knows he or she doesn't know everything.. So Harry is a detective, he is investigating to find answers, but with the answers come more questions to find answers to.. Yup, Harry is ignorant, just like you and I.
Finally, I reiterate: Jim himself says that Harry is an unreliable narrator. When professional writer (who has not only a bunch of successful novels, but a bunch of academic & workshop training in writing) says "I used this well-known method" ... I honestly don't understand why it's so important to you to deny it.
Just Googled it;
What Is an Unreliable Narrator in Writing? An unreliable narrator is an untrustworthy storyteller, most often used in narratives with a first-person point of view. The unreliable narrator is either deliberately deceptive or unintentionally misguided, forcing the reader to question their credibility as a storyteller.Sep 29, 2021
Yes, the Dresden Files is written in the first person.
Is Harry an untrustworthy storyteller? Sometimes due to his own errors and mistakes, but is he
always untrustworthy? No, he isn't..
Is Harry deliberately deceptive in his story telling? I'd say not..
Unintentionally misguided? Sometimes, but not always..
Forcing the reader to question their credibility as a storyteller? For some of you apparently.. However when you have lived as long as I have, it is easier to see the whole picture of a person's life, the series covers a huge chunk of Harry's life. Perhaps I am the only one here, but there is no way I could read and reread over a dozen books written in the first person if I felt the story teller had no credibility as a story teller.. What a waste of my time! And yes, Jim is a good successful writer,
he knows that as well! He skillfully mixes the two, the reliable with the unreliable, so we are looking for the truth along with Harry,
thenwhen the truth is found, and since it is written in first person, we the reader usually accept the truth, that Harry has found out and is reliably telling us!
OK, this is an entirely different point! And it can be a crutch, yes; but equally, it can be simply point out that just because Harry says such-and-such is "true" (like his early reports of Mab being "the archetypal evil queen"), that too isn't really "evidence" that "such-and-such" is a "truth" of the Dresdenverse.
Thank you, that is my point! Too many use it as a crutch..
Yes, I am merely pointing out that what Harry said when he was young and inexperienced might not be true,but for him in that point in time, it was true.. So the picture he paints of Mab in Summer Knight was unreliable. However as he gotten older and understands more, the picture he paints of Mab now, is much more reliable. Or if Jane Austin wrote "Pride and Prejudice" in the first person, that person being Elizabeth, or Darcy for that matter, both would be very unreliable narrators because their first impressions of each other were totally wrong.
