Blog Post: Unreliable Narrators (Spoiler Alert!)

[From Our Blog]

Just posted on SuperStack by Claire G – discussions in this thread, please
---

An Issue of Trust

I’ll admit, novels with an unreliable narrator are not everyone’s cup of tea, but I love them. You start off thinking the character is taking us on a believable journey and that we can trust their telling of the events, then unease creeps in. We start asking questions. We wonder where the character is leading us. Finally, there’s a revelation, hopefully a good one, which acts as a pay-off for the breaking of our trust. The trick is to execute this well. Easy, right?



Some Examples

The Girl on the Train – an issue of unreliable memory stemming from the confusion of alcoholism

Atonement – the narrator tells us the ending she wishes had happened

Life of Pi – the true nature of the animals is horrifyingly revealed



Experience

I’ve written two books with unreliable narrators. When I started the first one, I had no idea that my character wasn’t completely trustworthy in her retelling of events, right up until I got to the revelation. I was worried the reader wouldn’t go along with the narrator, that they’d think ‘yeah, right’ and immediately stop reading, but I’ve had good reviews for this book and I think that it’s because the story happened organically.

The second book was much more deliberately plotted – and much more complex, with three points of view and several revelations throughout. I’m waiting for feedback as to whether I’ve achieved this successfully as we speak.

I heard an interview where an author mentioned that the reader should say, “Oh! Of course that’s what was happening!” after the big reveal, rather than, “Where the hell did that come from?” The key, apparently, is to plant subtle breadcrumbs through the story, so that they think back and see the hints, double-meanings and small snippets which all point to the outcome.



Final Thoughts

Do you enjoy books with unreliable narrators? Why/why not?

Which books do this well?

How do the authors achieve this successfully, without the revelation of the truth seeming to come ‘out of nowhere’? Feel free to give spoilers as I’ve already warned of this at the start of the blog!
---

By @Claire G
Get the discussion going – post your thoughts & comments in the thread below…

 

[Hannah F]

Gone Girl is another example of an unreliable narrator.
A very early and very clever use of the unreliable narrator (unreliable memory) is Willkie Collins The Moonstone.

Actually, unless there are a few POVs for me to root for so I can maybe switch allegiance, I'm not keen on the unreliable narrator unless they turn from bad to good. I find it upsetting if the character in the book breaks my trust in them. It's one of the few things that will get me to DNF. Unreliable memory is different though because the narrator isn't breaking my trust. They just remember it wrong.

 

[Trey]

Just posted on SuperStack by Claire G – discussions in this thread, please
---

An Issue of Trust

I’ll admit, novels with an unreliable narrator are not everyone’s cup of tea, but I love them. You start off thinking the character is taking us on a believable journey and that we can trust their telling of the events, then unease creeps in. We start asking questions. We wonder where the character is leading us. Finally, there’s a revelation, hopefully a good one, which acts as a pay-off for the breaking of our trust. The trick is to execute this well. Easy, right?



Some Examples

The Girl on the Train – an issue of unreliable memory stemming from the confusion of alcoholism

Atonement – the narrator tells us the ending she wishes had happened

Life of Pi – the true nature of the animals is horrifyingly revealed



Experience

I’ve written two books with unreliable narrators. When I started the first one, I had no idea that my character wasn’t completely trustworthy in her retelling of events, right up until I got to the revelation. I was worried the reader wouldn’t go along with the narrator, that they’d think ‘yeah, right’ and immediately stop reading, but I’ve had good reviews for this book and I think that it’s because the story happened organically.

The second book was much more deliberately plotted – and much more complex, with three points of view and several revelations throughout. I’m waiting for feedback as to whether I’ve achieved this successfully as we speak.

I heard an interview where an author mentioned that the reader should say, “Oh! Of course that’s what was happening!” after the big reveal, rather than, “Where the hell did that come from?” The key, apparently, is to plant subtle breadcrumbs through the story, so that they think back and see the hints, double-meanings and small snippets which all point to the outcome.



Final Thoughts

Do you enjoy books with unreliable narrators? Why/why not?

Which books do this well?

How do the authors achieve this successfully, without the revelation of the truth seeming to come ‘out of nowhere’? Feel free to give spoilers as I’ve already warned of this at the start of the blog!
---

By @Claire G
Get the discussion going – post your thoughts & comments in the thread below…

I'm currently reading Behind Her Eyes by Sarah Pinborough. The supernatural elements were a surprise and admittedly i struggled with this new feel to the psychological thriller, but there are great twists in terms of events and narrator reliability. I'm all for unreliable narrators. People are unreliable narrators, so why not fictional characters?

 

[Peyton Stafford]

I love this thread. Am I a reliable narrator of my life story? Is anyone?

The problem is that narrators have their own issues...

Thoughts?

 

[Claire G]

@Trey @Peyton Stafford

So true. We all see things through our own lens, encompassing so many elements of our backstory, the influence of previous interactions, personality differences etc. Yes, we are all unreliable narrators, each with our own perspective on events, ourselves and others.

I know a couple who went to visit family. They stayed for a cup of tea, had a chat, then left. When they were in the car, the woman asked, "Gosh, did you feel the tension in the room? They must have been arguing before we arrived." The man had no idea what she was talking about, hadn't picked up on the atmosphere at all! The same scene reported back to another would contrast hugely. Who was right?

Also, there have been lots of studies into memory (e.g. eyewitness statements). Two people can remember an event very differently. Which is the correct version? One? Neither? Both?

I've thought a lot about perception. For example, if someone has a fear of being judged, their perception is more likely to be that they are being judged when in conversation with another, but the other person or an observer may have a completely different view of the exchange. Whose perception of intention, motivation and outcome should we trust?

We often lie to ourselves, or have a lack of insight, without realising it!

I think the solution is to get an outsider's perspective, to talk and be open to the fact that we may not be reliable, rather than assuming that everything we think must be correct (whether that's regarding an event, others or ourselves). We can't assume that we have the ability to always perceive things objectively. We should educate ourselves and ask questions such as:
"Did you get the impression she was judging me? That comment about... Was it what I thought?"
"What made you think that there had been an argument? What signs did you pick up on?"

 

[TimRees]

@Trey @Peyton Stafford

So true. We all see things through our own lens, encompassing so many elements of our backstory, the influence of previous interactions, personality differences etc. Yes, we are all unreliable narrators, each with our own perspective on events, ourselves and others.

I know a couple who went to visit family. They stayed for a cup of tea, had a chat, then left. When they were in the car, the woman asked, "Gosh, did you feel the tension in the room? They must have been arguing before we arrived." The man had no idea what she was talking about, hadn't picked up on the atmosphere at all! The same scene reported back to another would contrast hugely. Who was right?

Also, there have been lots of studies into memory (e.g. eyewitness statements). Two people can remember an event very differently. Which is the correct version? One? Neither? Both?

I've thought a lot about perception. For example, if someone has a fear of being judged, their perception is more likely to be that they are being judged when in conversation with another, but the other person or an observer may have a completely different view of the exchange. Whose perception of intention, motivation and outcome should we trust?

We often lie to ourselves, or have a lack of insight, without realising it!

I think the solution is to get an outsider's perspective, to talk and be open to the fact that we may not be reliable, rather than assuming that everything we think must be correct (whether that's regarding an event, others or ourselves). We can't assume that we have the ability to always perceive things objectively. We should educate ourselves and ask questions such as:
"Did you get the impression she was judging me? That comment about... Was it what I thought?"
"What made you think that there had been an argument? What signs did you pick up on?"

When I wrote my memoir, I was really concerned about what the guys with whom I shared the experience felt about the book, because the story wasn't just about me. The biggest worry was whether my memory was accurate. I was genuinely overwhelmed with joy when so many of my colleagues gave five star reviews and stated I had nailed it.

There was one incident I wrote about that was very relevant, but I wasn't personally involved, so I just had to give my impression according to the facts I had. One guy who had been involved in the incident did message me to say, "Tim, there wasn't an explosion. The bomb didn't go off." I replied by pointing out one of our mates had had every bone in his body broken in the blast and that many more of our pals had had limbs scythed off by shrapnel. He apologised and simply said, 'Oh, yeah.' It turned out his memory was a blank and his brain must have filled in the incident with an untrue perspective. Pretty weird.

The moral to the story is trust in yourself and write the story as you see it and keep your fingers crossed....

 

[Trey]

When I wrote my memoir, I was really concerned about what the guys with whom I shared the experience felt about the book, because the story wasn't just about me. The biggest worry was whether my memory was accurate. I was genuinely overwhelmed with joy when so many of my colleagues gave five star reviews and stated I had nailed it.

There was one incident I wrote about that was very relevant, but I wasn't personally involved, so I just had to give my impression according to the facts I had. One guy who had been involved in the incident did message me to say, "Tim, there wasn't an explosion. The bomb didn't go off." I replied by pointing out one of our mates had had every bone in his body broken in the blast and that many more of our pals had had limbs scythed off by shrapnel. He apologised and simply said, 'Oh, yeah.' It turned out his memory was a blank and his brain must have filled in the incident with an untrue perspective. Pretty weird.

The moral to the story is trust in yourself and write the story as you see it and keep your fingers crossed....

Fascinating.

 

[Trey]

When I wrote my memoir, I was really concerned about what the guys with whom I shared the experience felt about the book, because the story wasn't just about me. The biggest worry was whether my memory was accurate. I was genuinely overwhelmed with joy when so many of my colleagues gave five star reviews and stated I had nailed it.

There was one incident I wrote about that was very relevant, but I wasn't personally involved, so I just had to give my impression according to the facts I had. One guy who had been involved in the incident did message me to say, "Tim, there wasn't an explosion. The bomb didn't go off." I replied by pointing out one of our mates had had every bone in his body broken in the blast and that many more of our pals had had limbs scythed off by shrapnel. He apologised and simply said, 'Oh, yeah.' It turned out his memory was a blank and his brain must have filled in the incident with an untrue perspective. Pretty weird.

The moral to the story is trust in yourself and write the story as you see it and keep your fingers crossed....

@Trey @Peyton Stafford

So true. We all see things through our own lens, encompassing so many elements of our backstory, the influence of previous interactions, personality differences etc. Yes, we are all unreliable narrators, each with our own perspective on events, ourselves and others.

I know a couple who went to visit family. They stayed for a cup of tea, had a chat, then left. When they were in the car, the woman asked, "Gosh, did you feel the tension in the room? They must have been arguing before we arrived." The man had no idea what she was talking about, hadn't picked up on the atmosphere at all! The same scene reported back to another would contrast hugely. Who was right?

Also, there have been lots of studies into memory (e.g. eyewitness statements). Two people can remember an event very differently. Which is the correct version? One? Neither? Both?

I've thought a lot about perception. For example, if someone has a fear of being judged, their perception is more likely to be that they are being judged when in conversation with another, but the other person or an observer may have a completely different view of the exchange. Whose perception of intention, motivation and outcome should we trust?

We often lie to ourselves, or have a lack of insight, without realising it!

I think the solution is to get an outsider's perspective, to talk and be open to the fact that we may not be reliable, rather than assuming that everything we think must be correct (whether that's regarding an event, others or ourselves). We can't assume that we have the ability to always perceive things objectively. We should educate ourselves and ask questions such as:
"Did you get the impression she was judging me? That comment about... Was it what I thought?"
"What made you think that there had been an argument? What signs did you pick up on?"

Unfortunately, i have a tendency to over question my perceptions. Can be quite psychologically debilitating at times. That's why i love dogs. You can't misunderstand what a dog means and they are far less judgmental (judge-mental) than humans.

 

[Hannah F]

Unfortunately, i have a tendency to over question my perceptions. Can be quite psychologically debilitating at times. That's why i love dogs. You can't misunderstand what a dog means and they are far less judgmental (judge-mental) than humans.

You wouldn't believe the number of people who misjudge/misunderstand what a dog means.