by Elizabeth S. Craig, @elizabethscraig
I’ll write this post from a reader perspective since I haven’t used unreliable narrrators in my books, and I’ll keep the post general so there won’t be any spoilers.
I just finished reading a book where the narrator was unreliable throughout the book. Although reading books with unreliable narrators can be a lot of fun, this book was honestly kind of tiring for me. I kept looking for signs that the narrator was believable…or wasn’t. (Narrator was an alcoholic.) It made for an interesting read, but it wasn’t what I’d call relaxing. (Is the narrator drunk now? Is the narrator in denial? Is the narrator sober?)
Usually, I’m fonder of situations when I think the narrator is reliable and find out later that they’re not. Otherwise, I spend a lot of the book trying to figure out who I can believe.
When it may be easier to get away with an unreliable narrator (without frustrating the reader):
When the narrator is unreliable because of age, species, etc.. Readers understand that children are looking at the world from a different perspective. I’ve read books where animals narrated. I’ve read books where persons with mental challenges narrated. Readers understand these narrators view the world through a different lens.
When you use clues. If you’re using an unreliable narrator who readers think is reliable, but actually isn’t, I’d advise sticking in plenty of clues that that’s the case. It’s fun to have the wool pulled over your eyes (a few movies and a couple of mysteries come to mind), but it’s no fun to be completely tricked. It feels like cheating on the writer’s part if there are no small hints that the narrator is unreliable.
When the book is written from a first person POV. Then it seems less of an authorial manipulation and more of the character being sneaky or deceptive. In fact, it may be even easier to drop those clues to the narrator’s unreliability when the story is written in this POV.
When the narrator is consistent. That can mean consistently unreliable, as long as they’re not hopping back and forth through the whole story. They can even be consistent when they grow or change as characters, as long as the impetus for the change is believable.
When you don’t reveal the narrator’s unreliability immediately in the story (although, as mentioned above, you’ll need to sprinkle in clues so it’s fair to the reader.) We can probably all think of books or movies that end up with a major plot twist at the end of the story when it’s revealed the narrator is a ghost-murderer-lunatic-etc.
If the narrator is likeable. As a reader, I’ll put up with even an inconsistent, confusing, mess-of-an-unreliable narrator if he’s likeable…or at least interesting.
In some respects, all narrators are unreliable. We all approach life with our backstories influencing our perceptions. If it’s done well, unreliable narrators can really add an unexpected and fun element to a story.
Have you ever used an unreliable narrator? Do you enjoy reading books that feature them? Any thoughts about pulling it off well?
Image: MorgueFile–Schick
Years ago, one of my favourite books used that technique extremely well. The character is on a Russian nuclear submarine and explains his purpose/mission to the captain. As far as the reader knows he is telling the truth until the character thinks, with great relief, how glad he was to get away with lying to the captain. Of course, I had to keep reading to find out why he was really on that submarine, and also, because he’d shown he was a good liar, I was never sure whether what he was saying was true or not. It was a good strategy for a suspense novel. I could see myself using it in small doses with a first person narrator.
Elizabeth – I think you’ve put your finger on one of the issues you get with an unreliable narrator. It’s fine enough of the narrator is unreliable but the reader should be able to figure out the truth in the story. And your idea of providing clues can be really helpful with that. I haven’t used an unreliable narrator as the main protagonist and I think that’s why. It’s hard to separate that person from the truth of what’s going on in the story. I may at some point though.
From my point of view, there’s one kind of unreliable narrator which only worked once. After Roger Ackroyd, I expect the narrator of a book I’m reading to level with me.
It is fine with me if I know the narrator doesn’t have all the facts or has been deceived in what he/she tells me. And it is OK if the narrator is mentally ill and clearly delusional. But basically, I don’t like narrators who deceive me intentionally. That trick only works once.
I remember the 1st time I read a book with an unreliable narrator (an incredible Agatha Christie novel) it threw me off completely! I was in grade 7 or 8 and it floored me. I read the book again immediately and loved looking for those clues! :)
I’m not usually a fan of reading unreliable narrators unless it’s very clear to the reader that the narrator is misinterpreting things.
An example of what I mean would be, say you have a fantasy novel in which magic is actually highly advanced technology leftover from before an apocalyptic event. If the reader is aware of this, but the characters aren’t, then that’s fine.
But when the reader is presented with something as true, when in fact it is not, that annoys me. Any time I’ve read a book where it’s revealed that the narrator didn’t mention something or suffered from memory loss or was lying, I feel like the author has misled me to artificially create drama or tension.
wrightwriter –Good writers can definitely pull that off. Sounds like it was a great story!
Finding out what motivates the narrator can be interesting…if it’s done well and if the narrator is interesting.
Paul–Withholding info is not really playing fair with the reader. And, with a mystery for instance, a writer can really get in trouble with it. It’s just not considered acceptable these days for writers to withhold clues from readers. So, if the sleuth in a story makes a discovery and then keeps it to himself and solves the case with it…the reader has been cheated.
Margot–Exactly. Readers have to be able to trust *somebody* since we’re outsiders and are depending on others to show us the story world and its realities.
Joe–For a mystery…absolutely. That trick was pulled off once and I think it should be retired. Or mentioned in that list of rules for mystery writers!
I think writers run a real risk of exactly the reaction you’re referring to, Joe. That’s definitely the danger of it.
Jemi–I was about that age when I read that book by Christie. :) I think the fact we were younger helped! A lot of readers were more turned-off by it.
There’s a particular long-running series I’ve loved since the first book, and in the 13th it’s revealed that the big mystery of the cliffhanger in the previous book, and much of the plot that led to the 13th book, was entirely because of one scene that the hero had made himself forget using magic. That really got to me.
I think I’d feel cheated. I can’t think of any books off the top of my head that used unreliable narrators. When I pick up a book, I trust that the storyteller is telling me the truth, or at least the truth as he sees it. And yes, if it’s not the truth, I want another character in there alerting me to the unreliability of the person I’ve been trusting.
Terry
Terry’s Place
Paul–That sounds like a cop-out, doesn’t it? Almost like the “It Was All a Dream” ridiculousness of the Dallas soap opera when they brought Bobby back from the dead…
Absolutely. I don’t like the idea that, as reader, I’ll be misled for a particular emotional reaction.
You’ve nailed the crux of it for me, Elizabeth: when I find out, will I be delighted, or disgusted?
The TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation did it right, plenty of times. Set us up with certain expectations, give us all the clues to the truth, then spring it on us in a simple obvious solution.
The nature of the genre made it fair play, and the fact that it was always well done didn’t hurt any.
I love reading books with an unreliable narrator, but I can see how they’d be difficult to write.
Paul–Definitely. Not a good feeling, being tricked like that.
Joel–Sounds like they did a great job with it–by using the same rules of fair play that all mystery writers are very familiar with!
Julie–I think it would be very tricky to pull off.
I suspect if your climax includes the revelation to the extent of the narrator’s deceit and the falling action includes a consequence of some sort, the reader will be able to manage just fine.
A little displayed deceit with a revelation of a much larger and more exacting deception – perhaps self-deception – might be reasonable.
I am thinking of the spy novel genre here…
Hmmm…I’m loving the tidbits! I’m definitely going to need them
No, I admit I’m pretty straightforward with mine.
Terry–Hmm. So a multiple POV with an unreliable narrator as one of the POVs, but not the only? Could work.
Alex–Me too.
j welling –Ha! Yes, punish that deceptive narrator. :) Arrest him for murder, commit him to an institution, etc. Consequences for his behavior.
It would be fun to play around with *self* deception for a narrator. Might be a good way to avoid the problem of deceiving the reader.
Right. I’ve read at least one unreliable narrator spy-novel with the narrator revealing he’s a double-agent at the end.
Tammy–Thanks for coming by!
My narrators are often unreliable. I have a paranoid narrator in one book, and an insane one in another. But I do that in first person. I don’t think the stories would’ve worked as well in third person.
(…Now I want to try converting them into third, to see what happens.)
I have to admit: I’ve never liked any of the books I’ve read with unreliable narrators. Now, I haven’t read many, but in every single case I have found the protagonist to be icky/unlovable. And for me that’s a total dealbreaker. Worse? When you don’t know the truth at the end.
I know some people LOVE this, however!
Carradee–That would make for an interesting experiment!
Carissa–It’s frequently one of those things where people love it or hate it. And so often, the revelations about the narrator are disturbing (narrator is a traitor/double agent, narrator is a killer, narrator is a psychopath), so the author might be losing reader support for the protag/narrator…which is tricky.
I love an unreliable narrator if it’s in a first person POV, as you say, and there are lots of clues that make the reader feel smarter than the narrator. But I agree the device can be seriously annoying. Anything that “tricks” the reader and attempts to create tension simply by withholding information feels like cheating to me. This helps me see why some unreliable narrators work and others make me want to throw the book across the room. (So much harder to do with ebooks :-) ) Thanks!