Unreliable narration

Hi Guys,

My summer reading was Zoe Heller's Notes on a scandal and A.L. Kennedy's Paradise which I can highly recommend.
What is so fascinating about them is that throughout the novel the reader has to realise that the narrative is highly unreliable and it becomes hard to know what is, or isn't true... and it becomes even harder when you sympathise with the characters who have acted immorally. This is particularly the case in Heller's novel, where you stop caring about the act that the main character has done, and start to hate the narrator.
I find it fascinating that contemporary British fiction can work in this way, and "convince" the reader that the things we read in the paper's (such as sexual affairs with minors) are not so bad, and that we can, through the narration, end up sympathising with the character.
I would love to read more books like this, which address moral issues, or ethics, and where we, the readers, end up feeling sympathy for the wrong character through the narration.
Does anyone have any recommedations?
Thanks
Sabrina

Sabrina: in this writer's humble opinion ALL narrators are unreliable but I see what you mean and I'm sure our mad crew of avid readers will be able to suggest any number of great titles for you.

The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro
(Also, by the same author, An Artist of the Floating World)

It's been awhile since I read it, but Private Memoirs of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg may be an early example of this. Hogg tells two stories, each by a different character, but taking place concurrently so they cover many of the same events. The change in narrator gives a very different sense of right/wrong, good/bad, and why one would behave in a certain way. Being an early 19th century work, it may not be for everyone, but I found it fascinating.

Os.

While i didn't care for the book esp, Philip Kerr's a philosophical investigation was very much of this sort, where the reader ends up being a bit more sympathetic towards the serial killer who self-identifies w/ Wittgenstein than towards the other characters. Kind of a bummer, as I'd previously just read a quiet place by the same author which i'd enjoyed a good deal.

Wittgenstein's Mistress by David Markson

I'm not sure "unreliable narration" even begins to describe the narration in the book, but it's a start...

Haha, if the narrator in WM is taken to be reliable, it becomes a much stranger book than it already is. Some of my favorite unreliable narrators are in Faulkner's stuff. The Sound and the Fury, As I Lay Dying, and particularly Absalom, Absalom!.

Lolita, obviously.

"If I dwell at some length on the tremors and gropings of that distant night, it is because I insist upon proving that I am not, and never was, and never could have been, a brutal scoundrel. The gentle and dreamy regions through which I crept were the patrimonies of poets---not crime's prowling ground."

Incidentally, what is the earliest example of the unreliable 1st-person narrator?

The first two that come to my mind are by a couple of relations of mine, Ellis Bell's Wuthering Heights and Acton Bell's The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.

Thanks for the recommendations! Indeed, especially 19th century fiction deals a lot with unreliable narration.
A stunning case is Lolita. Martin Amis: Money, A suicide note, kind of goes into the same direction, although I didn't relly sympathize with John Self myself.

Does anyone know some more recent books? That is what I really like about Heller's and Kennedy's books, that they challenge topics that we read in the tabloids every day...

Try The End of Alice, A.M. Homes. Lolita was a good suggestion, too.

7> The cool thing about Wittgenstein's Mistress is that the narrator is unreliable whether she is actually alone or not.

Do the memoirs of Henry Kissinger count?

***

What about Beckett's Trilogy? Since a narrator presupposes the existence of a self, corporeal or otherwise, the three novels slowly dissolve the self, along with plot, character, setting, and all other attributes of the "realistic novel."

If we unpack the notion of reliability (which is similar to the weasel word, "authenticity"), what do we get: sentience, sanity, and sensibility.

Actually the history of Wittgenstein and Karl Popper meeting/argument/discussion @ the Cambridge Moral Science Club just after WWII in Wittgenstein's poker has many unreliable narrators. Or at least features multiple POVs of the same incident which, long after the fact, aren't in accord with each other. Did W. pick up a poker? did he "threaten" Popper with it? Is philosophy just words or is it words about real problems?

Funnily enough had some discussion on this in my 50 book thread prompted by Engleby by Sebastian Faulks.

Turn of the Screw is meant to be an unreliable narrator book but I've not read it myself.

16: Actually, that is debatable. Henry James never indicated that, and many modern scholars think that this interpretation was yet another trendy
Freudian analysis. Britten's opera of this novella, however, certainly allows for this interpretation.

Where do sacred texts fall in terms of (un)reliable narration? What makes the narrator in Genesis any more or less reliable than the narrator of the Quran or the Book of Mormon?

Or is this thread entirely devoted to secular "literary" works? I don't want to inadvertently hijack the discussion.

I think that the point of the unreliable narrator technique is that the unreliability of the narration is revealed during the course of the book. It demands a degree of interaction from the reader.

IMO religious texts do not fall into this category. Their reliability is dependent on the belief of the reader.

18:
Unless you're reading the Bible sardonically, I don't see how you could consider a text that was purportedly dictated (ie more or less narrated) by God to be unreliable.

>20 Sutpen:
The 'narrated by God' view of scripture is held by only a portion of members of the Christian community. A large number (majority?) would prefer to use the phrase 'inspired by God', which would allow for unreliability due to human limitations/weaknesses/temptations.

However, I agree with jintster regarding the point of the OP.

Os.

How about Nick Carraway from The Great Gatsby? He's a snobbish prick if there ever was one...

>22 SilverTome: - For some reason he was my favourite character in the book, perhaps by default since I didn't like anyone else...

23:
You didn't like Jay Gatsby? I loved that guy!

How about the Underground Man, or the narrator in The Stranger? Ooh, or any of the narrative voices in House of Leaves.

>Nice point! I think Nick was the only character to really show any growth throughout the novel, making him slightly more likeable than Gatsby (and way more than Tom).

22: I never really fell for The Great Gatsby and the narration is probably to blame for it.

21: It also depends on the context of the narration in a sacred text. In the Koran, it is God speaking directly to Muhammad and Muhammad relaying the information to his transcribers. I bring this up, because it is a major plot point in The Satanic Verses Following Muhammad's death, his disciples burn all "conflicting" transcriptions, thus insuring the reliability of the narrator.

In the Book of Mormon -- which constantly changes due to the LDS tradition of "continuous revelation" -- Joseph Smith transcribes the "reformed Egyptian" texts that were compiled by a previous Mesoamerican culture with alleged Semitic roots. Doctrine and Covenants is closer in style and delivery to the Koran than the BoM.

***

I'm bringing these examples up, not to be snarky or blasphemous, but to emphasize the need to understand the sacred texts and how the Western Canon has critiqued, venerated, and subverted them.

Considering how literary production is dependent on an author's relationship with his or her Muse(s), the production of sacred literature via God -- if we limit ourselves to the Middle Eastern monotheisms -- then it is worth examining. In Paradise Lost, Milton venerates both God and the classical Muses who inspire him to create the poem.

What makes the narrator in Genesis any more or less reliable than the narrator of the Quran or the Book of Mormon? ... I'm bringing these examples up ... to emphasize the need to understand the sacred texts and how the Western Canon has critiqued, venerated, and subverted them. Considering how literary production is dependent on an author's relationship with his or her Muse(s)...

I think you are confusing an unreliable narrator with an unreliable author. The narrator is a literary character; the author is a real person.

So you are attempting a quasi-hijack of the thread.

I think you are confusing an unreliable narrator with an unreliable author. The narrator is a literary character; the author is a real person.

How would you unravel In Search of Lost Time? There is the author (Marcel Proust), the Narrator, and the character Marcel (who is not the author).

And let's not forget the modern trend of novelists who write novels with the main character having the same name as the novelist. A notable example is Crash by JG Ballard

Does an author using a pen name make the author any more reliable? When we look at our modern, media-saturated age, authors have become artificial constructs based on the demands of their audience. Granted the novels are crap, but would the real VC Andrews please stand up. And how does that compare to the fabrications of James Frey and the folks who believe and buy fake Holocaust memoirs? (The Holocaust being real, but the persona constructed by the con artist being a fabrication.)

I think this discussion should also discuss the tensions between fact, fiction, reality, and fantasy that goes through the chipper shredder of Modernism and Postmodernism and whatever -ism we're in presently.

I use the word "real" and "reality" with extreme caution. As Robert Anton Wilson has said, " 'Reality' is what you get away with."

Quasi-hijack? Is that like being quasi-pregnant?

You are moving on to full-hijack mode...

How would you unravel In Search of Lost Time?

Well, pace Benjamin and Painter, it is NOT auto-biography; it is fiction. This passage in La Prisonnière seems to make a distinction (while at the same time giving the narrator knowledge of the author!):

"Then she would find her tongue and say 'My---' or 'My darling---' followed by my Christian name, which, if we give the narrator the same name as the author of this book, would be 'My Marcel' or 'My darling Marcel.'"

Authors are as reliable (or unreliable) as all other humans. I follow Davidson here. A person has lots of beliefs, and a great majority of the beliefs are necessarily true beliefs, but the person is never certain which ones are true.

I use the word "real" and "reality" with extreme caution.

But certainly you can make a distinction between a literary character and a real person, yes?

I think the Gnostics might say that the narrator of the Bible and maker of the world was unreliable, a false, deceiving god or demiurge.

Karl, you're a quasi odd man...

I think this discussion should also discuss ice cream.

I like ice cream.

I also think you'll find an interesting take on the unreliable narrator in Bright Lights, Big City. Compare with Thomas McGuane's Panama.

Both feature a drug-damaged narrator who denies his recent family history, and is pursued throughout by a family member. One is written in the first person, and the other in the second. Both are considered, incidentally, to be highly autobiographical works -- not that this really makes one whit of difference to understanding them as works of fiction.

Neither features strawberry-ripple ice cream, which I think makes them both highly suspect -- and yes, in case you're wondering, it will henceforth be my policy to push all discussions in the direction of ice cream, ice cream being my pet hobby horse.

30: You'd think I'd be in this group if I wasn't?

Good point with the Gnostics. It is worth examining the schizoid genius of VALIS by PKD. In the novel, there is Philip K. Dick and Horselover Fat, and both discuss Gnosticism and limits of knowledge. Trippy as hell.

You Bright and Risen Angels by Vollmann has competing first person narrators. Makes for a jumbled reading experience.

29: Also that the "Marcel" in the novel is nominally heterosexual, whereas the author, Proust, was not. Pretty much a dead giveaway.

31: We all scream for ice cream.

Unreliable narration is a literary device, not a judgment of truth.

Your certainty fascinates me...

There are literal meanings and underlying truths, symbols, metaphors. Depends of the perspective and discernment of each individual, don't you think?

Quoting from Mr. Lewis Carroll's classic:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means what I choose it to mean, neither more or less."

The Bible's narrator IS unreliable. He withholds things, important truths, displays an astonishing mean-ness and solipsism, especially in the first half of the novel. And then in Part 2, he brutally kills his son. Not exactly a warm and fuzzy character, is he?

Depends ... depends ...

Like the word "real," I use the word "truth" sparingly. Literary devices don't exist in a vacuum.

Look at 2666: each successive section subverts the previous section, using a variety of narrative devices (1st person; 3rd person; etc.). If Bolano wasn't making a judgment, I'm not sure why he was writing it in the first place?

***

American Psycho by Ellis has an unreliable narrator. The reader is constantly trying to figure out whether Patrick Bateman actually did those atrocious acts or whether he imagined them or whether he's totally insane (and the inevitable combination thereof).

Similarly, the narrators in Sade's books, usually all female: are they reliable or not? Were these Sade's genuine feelings or was he writing dark comedies satirizing his amoral libertine age? (Sade wasn't an aberration, he just got caught and was a decent writer.) Sade's books also lack any lengthy descriptions of ice cream or flavorful icy treats.

There is a delicate balance between Author and Narrator and Reader. If one does not "get" the other, then disaster usually strikes. When the reader doesn't get the jokes, it's easy to accuse the author of cruelty and malice.

The art of fiction, even at its most facile and disposable, is the author's attempt, via untruth to express his or her opinions on the true and the good.

"The art of fiction, even at its most facile and disposable, is the author's attempt, via untruth to express his or her opinions on the true and the good."

Why, Karl, that's rather lovely. And suspiciously lacking in skepticism and protruding barbs...

>34 CliffBurns:
A pretty good argument for God not being the narrator of the dozens of books collectively referred to as "The Bible" (or, at least, not all of them).

Os.

Oz...you're good. I'm glad you picked up on that. I ain't against the REAL Creator.

Just the false constructs and old tyme genocidal daimons...

We're getting perilously close to getting sidetracked--perhaps any further theological debate should be moved to the "Political and religious" thread? Just so we can keep on topic re: naming works that feature an unreliable narrator.

Has anyone mentioned THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD?

Unreliable narration is a literary device used in fiction. As a matter of genre, the Bible is not fiction, at least not in the sense that a novel is fiction.

Most religious texts are written in an odd, convoluted way. This is partially due to the time they were written and quality of translation. Being odd and convoluted is different than the literary device of an unreliable narrator. There are innumerable narrators in the bible anyway, so if you want to make a case for unreliable narration in the next - point it out.

What is 'truth' in fiction? What if a narrator says something 'false' that they believe to be 'true'? Does unreliability mean 'getting the facts wrong' or intentionally misrepresenting events and emotions? Lying vs. being wrong...

**I'm holding my tongue re: last post**

Just wanted to add another facet to the discussion, not sidetrack it entirely.

Let's see more unreliable narrators ... how about Pale Fire? The notes to the poem were written by someone obsessed with the poem's author who may either be a political agitator and/or insane.

Infinite Jest is another. While there are multiple narrators, the footnotes are used as a means to undermine the authority of the text.

>41 inaudible:
What is 'truth' in fiction? What if a narrator says something 'false' that they believe to be 'true'? Does unreliability mean 'getting the facts wrong' or intentionally misrepresenting events and emotions? Lying vs. being wrong...

In non-fiction, a totally reliable narrator (i.e., a narrator that never gets the facts wrong') doesn't exist. Any narrator of non-fiction is limited not only to the facts s/he has access to, but also by the point of view, limitations, and pre-concieved ideas of their social/cultural background.

In fiction, theoretically, it's possible for the narrator to never get the facts wrong, and never be unreliable, since the author creates the world and the 'truth' of whatever is being related. So, an unreliable narrator must the result of either intent of the author, or sloppiness by the author and his/her editor. Ignoring sloppy writing/editing, that leaves us, in fiction, with only one possibility - the intentionally misleading narrator. This narrator may appear to be lying or just mistaken, but the reality is that whichever it is, it's the choice of the author.

If I'm right so far, then my question is - Does it really matter which type of unreliable narrator the author chooses to use? If so, how/why? I can see that it may be important to the development of the character of the narrator, but beyond that, I'm not sure the result from the reader's standpoint is significantly different whether the narrator is a liar or just mistaken.

Os.

>24 Sutpen: - I really like the Underground Man, but I haven't gotten The Stranger yet. House of Leaves has now reached my List of Books to Look Into.

>25 SilverTome: - I second that. The female characters were rather wispy, as well.

>32 kswolff: - It sets my heart aflutter when I see the word "schizoid"...

The narrator (spoiler link - not that it's a huge secret) of The Book Thief is somewhat unreliable, in that he or she only releases information sporadically. This, of course, is the essence of good writing/narration.

Iain Banks' new novel, Transition, opens with the line, "Apparently I am what is known as an Unreliable Narrator..."

And then there is Unreliable Memoirs, which I had the misfortune to have to study at Uni, I wouldn't trust Clive James to tell me the truth if I asked him which way was down.

45: Haven't read The Book Thief, but holding back information for dramatic effect doesn't an unreliable narrator make. An unreliable narrator does one of two things: either presents a perspective that's clearly based on an imperfect understanding of what happened (because he's drug addled, mentally challenged, etc.) or deliberately presents a distorted, dishonest version by lying about things or by leaving important information entirely out of the narrative.

47: Is that because Clive James made his career as a TV presenter? Or because he is Australian? Or that he's of the same generation as dipsomaniac/unbeliever/Bush's cheerleader Christopher "100 proof" Hitchens?

43> I don't think there is a 'narrator' in non-fiction like there is in fiction. "Literary non-fiction" blurs this a bit, but I still feel that unreliable narrator is a matter of genre, literary device, and internal consistency in the text, not 'getting the facts right'.

How would you explain Shebly Foote's The Civil War? Or Rise and Fall of the Third Reich? In both cases, there is a narrator and he is highly opinionated. Whether it's true or not depends on the reliability of the time machine I'm building in my closet.

The reliability of a non-fiction narrator depends on how he or she can keep their emotions and opinions in check. Probably why A Civil Action is more reliable than whatever Glenn Beck is having ghost-written at the moment.

***

Here's the Unreliable Narrator page on TVTropes:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnreliableNarrator

How would you explain ... The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich?...there is a narrator and he is highly opinionated.

I dont see the utility of using the term "narrator" in non-fiction when the term "author" is perfectly fine. By using narrator your way it leads to confusions like the instant case.

I think in the way inaudible and I are using it, narrator is distinct from the author, and a narrator is a literary device used in fiction. Shirer isnt fictional, he is a real person who is the author of the Rise and Fall

And I think Karl's point is that even in a non-fiction work, the narrator (or author, if you wish) is taking a highly subjective view of his topic and, therefore, could be judged (depending on if you agree with them) an "unreliable narrator".

Lemme know if I'm taking liberties, Karl...

Shirer was there as a newspaper reporter, and documents his sources with notes and extensive bibliography. He either follows the accepted customs of historical scholarship or he doesnt. But just like all other humans there is still the possibility that some of his beliefs (but not the majority of them) are false.

Cliff, pretty much on point as to what I said. Shirer, for the most part, is pretty objective and keeps his opinions on the down low. It's definitely a subjective viewpoint and "unreliable" insofar as he lacked access to the USSR's archives. That and the field of "Nazi studies" was still pretty new by 1959, when he wrote it.

I think the whole debate of author vs. narrator is splitting hairs and playing semantic games of utterly no consequence on the work itself. Might as well debate what the exact hue of blue the sky has at any given moment. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

That said, I don't want to get the conversation sidetracked into historical scholarship. Except to say that the sensational drivel being excreted out of the "History Channel" is unreliable to the extreme, especially if the topic in question involves UFOs, the Freemasons, the Founding Fathers, and the occult-lovin' Nazis. Basically, the History Channel has turned into a 24-hour version of the Illuminatus! Trilogy minus the academic rigor and the jokes.

I think the whole debate of author vs. narrator is splitting hairs and playing semantic games of utterly no consequence on the work itself.

You must be joking.

"I think the whole debate of author vs. narrator is splitting hairs and playing semantic games of utterly no consequence on the work itself."

...Wait, seriously? I hope you're talking about some very specific subset of books, because otherwise that's completely insane.

Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator

Ah, Wikipedia, that bastion and bulwark of reliability ...

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Literature

Read this out loud in a "The Simpsons/Nelson" voice: Ha ha!

The concepts of History (written by the winners) and Historiography (written about the winners, by the winners) are being blurred by such things as The Uncyclopedia... and possibly by Wikipedia, and even by having the Encyclopedia Britannica, etc, on-line.

edited 'cos I just remembered Nelson's name!

Hey, Karl, in case you missed it, at least four people are waiting for you to explain yourself.

That said, I don't want to get the conversation sidetracked into historical scholarship. Except to say...

I love how you say something and then immediately take it back. It's a special talent! Dont ever change!

Tsk.

I'm sure Karl will answer in his own good time. Like the rest of us he has a life.

As for this:

"I love how you say something and then immediately take it back. It's a special talent! Dont ever change!"

...I think it's a cheap shot. Tacky as hell.

I hope we can do better than that here. I hope we're aiming higher and aspiring to be bigger people.

#1 I'm part way through, and thoroughly enjoying The Behaviour of Moths by Poppy Adams (aka 'The Sister' in the US). It has a great unreliable narrator and I'd certainly recommend it so far. And I suppose the 'classic' as far as the concept is concerned, may well be We Have Always Lived in the Castle by Shirley Jackson, which just goes to prove it's not only we Brits who can do it!

59> Did you read the linked article? The article, like Wikipedia, is far from perfect, but it does give a basic definition of the literary device 'unreliable narration'.

Here's another: http://www.poewar.com/john-hewitt%E2%80%99s-writing-tips-explaining-the-unreliab...

It is very clear that unreliable narration refers to fiction and that you are defining/using the concept incorrectly.

Good call on that one! WE HAVE ALWAYS LIVED... is a creepy, fun book.

Ah, Wikipedia, that bastion and bulwark of reliability ...

Sorry: you can't point us to tvtropes.org, and then complain that Wikipedia is unreliable.

Well, you can, but not without looking silly.

re: Unreliable narrators only being confined to fiction.

I call your attention to a genre called "creative non-fiction", the kinds of works popularized by authors like Norman Mailer, Truman Capote and Tom Wolfe (among others). It's a weird hybrid of reportorial techniques and literary bells and whistles.

Some of the proponents of creative non-fiction have been assailed for veering too far into fictional realms and the jury (critically) still seems to be out as to how far you can marry the accurate relating of information through a format or style that closely resembles fiction. IN COLD BLOOD is often called a "true crime" book, for instance, and is a meticulously accurate re-construction of the killing of the Clutter family. But Truman Capote's journalism was influenced by his feelings for one of the murderers, Perry Smith, to the extent that Dick Hickock's family and a number of the law enforcement officers who dealt with the murderous pair feel the portrayal was biased and inaccurate.

I said from the beginning that ALL narrators are unreliable and I expand that to say all authors are unreliable, even those writing history (which is fluid and ever-changing). Every one of us is informed and coloured by our biases and there are any number of historical figures who have been subjected to hagiography and character assassination, depending on who was wielding the pen.

And recall our discussion re: Harold Bloom, whom a number of us feel is limited in his aesthetic and just plain wrong in his approach. Elitist or Eurocentric or biased in one way or another--is Harold Bloom not a non-fiction writer?

Karl has indicated this discussion was veering away from the stated aim of the thread, which is unreliable narrators in fiction (at least, the original post-er cited examples from fiction) and bogging down in semantics. He also said he didn't want this conversation to get "sidetracked into historical scholarship"

This from a guy who's been accused of going off tangent and "hijacking" threads by some of the very folks who are taking him to task for trying to return to the basic topic.

I wish you'd make up your minds.

More to the point, I wish you'd get off his back and confine yourself to discussing ideas, rather than trying to score points and subject members of this group to personal digs and smarmy remarks.

Cliff, that's a good point, but you run into a problem.

Creative nonfiction works by, as you say, adopting literary devices when writing nonfiction. So it is conceivable that you could adopt the literary device of the unreliable narrator in a creative nonfiction piece -- but this would not change the fact that the unreliable narrator is a fictional device. And it doesn't then follow that the same device becomes present elsewhere.

At issue here now is the definition of the narrator. It's not a matter of splitting hairs and playing semantic games; it's fundamental to the study of narrative.

Karl denies, apparently, that the narrator is distinct from the author and that as such, the narrator is necessarily a fictional device. My question is, can anyone actually support that contention?

two other unreliable narrators can be found in Pale Fire byNabokov and in Petersburg by Andrei Bely. Is it Kinbote or Botkin and where exactly does Senator Ableukov live?

Re: #68

"So it is conceivable that you could adopt the literary device of the unreliable narrator in a creative nonfiction piece -- but this would not change the fact that the unreliable narrator is a fictional device."

Not sure I get that. If you're using an unreliable narrator in a non-fiction milieu, that personal perspective automatically defeats the kind of omniscient objectivity that non-fiction (usually) requires, essentially blurring the lines. So, clearly, you can have an unreliable narrator in non-fiction. I'm sure I can recall some of Tom Wolfe's journalism where he uses a first-person point of view. Same with Mailer. Does that not make them narrators? What about Jon Krakauer's INTO THIN AIR? He's one of the participants on that tragic mission, supposedly giving an accurate account, yet there are others who were there who claim his criticisms of his fellow climbers was distorted and unfair.

So are we now arguing the difference between narrators and authors? Objectivity vs. subjectivity? Truth vs. fiction? Again, I don't think the lines are as clearly drawn as you seem to think...

So are we now arguing the difference between narrators and authors?

This is exactly what we're arguing.

In the broadest sense, Tom Wolfe is a narrator in that he himself narrates a story. But in the specific technical sense applicable to the unreliable narrator, he is not a narrator at all; he's the author.

The question of whether the author got it right is entirely separate from whether the narrator got it right.

In fact, the unreliable narrator, as a device, doesn't work unless the narrator gets it wrong, while the author gets it right -- that is, you have to present a perspective but at the same time allow the reader to understand that the truth is otherwise.

67> "I said from the beginning that ALL narrators are unreliable and I expand that to say all authors are unreliable, even those writing history (which is fluid and ever-changing)."

This is not true. Every single work of fiction does not employ the device of unreliable narration (in fact, most do not employ it). There are innumerable reliable narrators. Their reliability has to be judged relative to the fictional work in which they appear.

A non-fiction author (see: AUTHOR, not narrator) is reliable when they argue in good faith, accurately present sources, do good research, and so on. Thus, Hans Mommsen is a reliable author, while David Irving is not. The unreliability (dishonesty, lack of good faith argument, bad research, twisting of sources, etc) of the latter actually places him outside of the genre of history altogether. In the case of Irving, he is an unreliable AUTHOR but does not use the device of an unreliable narrator. Being able to differentiate between these two things is basic reading comprehension.

If one were to employ the device of unreliable narration, that would make the writing a work of fiction, even if it was inspired by real events.

64: I'll deign to answer when you grow up. A Glenn Beck thread is missing a troll. I'm sure you'd be more at home there nitpicking and starting fights.

Amateurs.

Why is everyone so touchy lately? Is it a full moon?

If you think that Lit Snobs has become touchy only lately, you have not been paying attention!

I'll bow out of this one. Sounds like Karl is tipping his hat and ambling away too. And wipe that smirk off your face, cowboy...

Prithee, let us get back to our favorite unreliable narrators in fiction...

73> I am not nitpicking or starting fights. I am disagreeing with you, along with almost everyone on this thread except for Cliff.

Authors can be unreliable, too. When I read The Stand I thought King was going to wrap it up twice before we got to the end. I was relying on him to not drag it out into three novels, but he just had to. What an unreliable author!

78:

Or take Lev Grossman's recent, bafflingly lauded The Magicians. It starts well enough--sort of a more adult take on a Harry Potter story. I particularly liked the touch about wizards having everything come so easily that they mostly end up wasting the rest of the their lives doing nothing in particular. The end, though, is so drastically bungled, and contradicts so many of the themes in the book that it actually upset me. Given Grossman's recent disparagement of conceptual/stylistically-oriented fiction, you'd think he'd spend a little more time on his narrative.

I think the most unreliable narrator I've run into lately was the narrator of Pale Fire. I still don't know who was responsible for the poem, or the story inside the poem, or the story outside the poem. Or anything about that book. I suspect if you like Pynchon, you'll think Nabokov is the bees knees.

80:
I did a lot of work with Pale Fire in college. There are a lot of convincing, and mutually-exclusive, interpretations. I remember one critic even built a frustratingly coherent argument that the whole thing--every word in the book--is being narrated by

*Minor spoiler alert*

the ghost of Shade's daughter. That particular argument struck me as mostly just a curiosity, but no less impressive for that.

The Hazel Shade as ghost theory has its merits. It allows one to make literal sense of lines like this "...I found myself enriched with an indescribable amazement as if informed that fireflies were making decodable signals on behalf of stranded spirits..."

Although in this case Hazel is a butterfly. An Atalanta.

Since Nabokov fervently believed in life after death it is probably more than a curiosity.

And is the issue an unreliable narrator, or identifying the puppets that are purporting to be the narrator (or scholar or poet)?

I'd suggest that line makes literal sense even if we assume it's Kinbote speaking. It may serve to insinuate the possibility of Hazel communicating from beyond the grave, but Kinbote is entitled to claim he felt "as if" anything at all were happening without our doubting his existence entirely.

At any rate, you're right that the issue of who's narrating doesn't really have much to do with unreliable narrators, but it's also true that whoever is narrating the notes is an unreliable narrator. Unless you buy Kinbote's story, but almost nobody does.

I have not gone back to the beginning to check if this was mentioned, but a very interesting book that makes use of unreliable narration was The Egyptologist which was written entirely through letters as well. Little by little you started to suspect that the narrator / letter writer was becoming increasingly unreliable.

It was very troubling for me to read and I emphatically did not enjoy it at the time. I got done with it feeling irritated. Then it stayed with me, and though I have not re-read it (the problem with these kind of books is that you can really only read them once - like a very good mystery novel) I can safely say it was a very good book at least in that it troubled me but in a thought-provoking way.

Getting back on track here--no one has mentioned An Instance of the Fingerpost, also by Iain Pears, in which the same events are recorded by four different individuals. At least one of them is intentionally dissembling, one is mad, one is biased, and one is presumed to be truthful.

I've got Rashomon on my BookMooch wishlist. Has anyone read it?

What about narrators whose motives are not explained? Are they "unreliable narrators"? I'm think of Valmont in Les Liaisons Dangereuses. Was he or wasn't he in love with Madame de Tourvel? And did he purposely allow the Chevalier to kill him? (I can't remember the Chevalier's name--it might have been Danceny).

>85 IreneF: on Liaisons Dangereuses

I never considered that one. Valmont never fully discloses his intentions to anyone. I, personally, think that he began having more honorable feelings toward the Presidente and becamed torn between his heart and his reputation. This would seem to support your theory of his allowing Danceny to kill him. I guess this is just one of those books that you have to decide for yourself.

Seen "Rashomon", haven't read it. Good example of unreliable narrator(s)...

Haven't read "Rashomon", nor seen the movie, but there is a term in anthropology called "The Rashomon Effect" defined as the observer having a noticeable effect on the party being observed. Akin to when a film crew goes to a location (Amazon rain forest or Amish Iowa, etc.).

***

A couple science fiction examples: Fitzpatrick's War by Theodore Judson A historian editorializes about the adventures of an Alexander the Great-type figure via footnotes and introduction.

"Caiaphas Cain, Hero of the Imperium" by Sandy Mitchell Warhammer 40K doing the Flashman thing. One of the rare comedic titles from the dour fellows at Games Workshop.

Would the Four Gospels be comparable to Rashomon? Considering each gospel includes or leaves out different things.

An interesting chart illustrating the narrative inconsistencies:
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Four_Gospel_Chart.htm

>90 kswolff:
As I mentioned in post 43, in non-fiction, a totally reliable narrator (i.e., a narrator that never gets the facts wrong) doesn't exist. So, in that regard, if it's non-fiction, it's an unreliable narrator - except that we rarely, if ever, actually have a narrator in non-fiction, unless you're okay with the idea of 'narrator' and 'author' having identical meaning.

But this was debated earlier, and I see no reason to start it up again. Suffice it to say that, if you think the author of a non-fiction work is the narrator, then every non-fiction work has an unreliable narrator, if only because human knowledge is imperfect and humans make mistakes. If you think a narrator can only exist in fiction, then the question is moot.

Os.

91: Just wanted to show the correlation between "Rashomon" and the Four Gospels. Fiction or not, both boil down to compelling stories with multiple conflicting narrators.

Yes. I think you are right about this book.

Yes for Wuthering Heights. At least for Mr. Lockwood. The author is Emily Bronte. (With a diaeresis over the "e"). "Ellis" was a pen-name.

Bull's eye.