The Problem with Unreliable Narrators

Liar, liar pants on fire

L

Happy Birthday, Brian Clegg.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul Whybrow

Full Member
Jun 20, 2015
Cornwall, UK
There are trends in story-telling, which spawn imitations. J.K. Rowling’s success with wizards led to a rash of similar books. Fifty Shades of Grey lubricated the thrust of mummy porn. More recently, there have been a host of novels with unreliable narrators, the best-known being The Girl on the Train and Gone Girl.

Unreliable narrators have been around for ages, in such classics as Lolita, Wuthering Heights, The Great Gatsby and The Catcher In The Rye. What goes around comes around, but I’ve found the recent novels told through the POV of a severely compromised narrator to be poorly written. This hasn’t stopped them selling in their millions, with film adaptations.

I had to force myself through The Girl On A Train, just to see what happened in the end. It’s not just me being grumpy, as others have criticised Paula Hawkins’ abilities:

#The Girl on the Train - What are your thoughts about the book ? (showing 1-41 of 41)

She’s got a new novel out, Into The Water, which I haven’t seen a good review of yet. Critics’ unfavourable opinions won’t stop it becoming a bestseller, that also gets adapted into a Hollywood film. It’s galling to realise that novels which become popular only do so because readers are intrigued by the concept, don’t care about the skill of the writing and that they buy a book because all of their friends have—it’s a social phenomenon—never mind the quality, feel the width.

For me, the main problem with Paula Hawkins’ and Gillian Flynn’s unreliable narrators was that I didn’t care what happened to them, or to the characters they interacted with, as most of them were weak, irritating and nasty too. Overall, I finished these bestsellers feeling depressed for the human condition.

I’ve written using an unreliable narrator in just one of my novels, so far. The Perfect Murderer was told from a multiple POV, including the detective protagonist, his team, a pathologist and the suspects they were hunting. One was a serial killer, whose bizarre slayings aroused the bloodlust of an unsuspected career murderer, a retired chief of detectives who’d murdered a harden criminal every year for forty years. He was a member of the establishment, and the hardline views he expressed about crime didn't suggest that he'd been taking things into his own hands. I differentiated between his thoughts and those of the serial killer by calling the latter ‘the killer’ and the old copper ‘the murderer’.

I thought this device was obvious and guessable, so was pleased when my three readers were shocked at the twist in the tale. The copper’s ramblings and his homicidal campaign of retribution were caused by a brain tumour, which he escaped by committing suicide before he was arrested. Although he was a difficult man to like, and severely flawed, I managed to make him sympathetic.

How do you handle unreliable narrators?
 
What a tragic story. I used to have a teacher who died of a brain tumour. He taught history, was very gentle, a bachelor who always wore a salmon pink jumper. Many years later I was shocked to read on Friends United, about this teacher and his violence. He used to shout and even hit boys and throw blackboard dusters. That was not the man I knew, and I was very sorry for the pupils who experienced that version of him, but how terribly cruel, that the tumour which later killed him, first damaged him so that there are now stink weeds on the grave of his memory, where there should be only flowers.

My unreliable narrator in TFR is reliable or unreliable depending on your reaction to his stranger experiences. I have made sure to demonstrate his essential reliability, so as to leave the gates open to admitting the extraordinary or unreliable elements of the story.
 
I've circled around unreliable narrators and am dabbling with a short story using one. That's not much of a reply to the topic, but what I found most interesting in your post was the conclusion that an intriguing concept overrode writing quality, followed closely by your disinterest in books with characters you didn't care about. As a reader, I want a story that engages me. Liking the characters isn't necessary but I have to feel a connection them as fellow human beings, albeit deeply flawed ones. I think that's why The Great Gatsby endures and Girl on the Train is already fading away.

Now that I write as well as read, writing quality has become more important to my reading enjoyment - or lack thereof.
 
I agree with what you say, Patricia, for I found Paula Hawkins' writing too much like hard work. Villains are fun to write about, and there's often a danger that they'll take over a novel, making the protagonist hero look dull.

I'm empathic by nature but navigating my way through a tale where all of the characters are flawed, selfish, weak and confused felt like tackling an annoying and pointless obstacle course. Speaking from 27 years of experience of alcoholism, (22 years sober this summer :)), Hawkins' treatment of her protagonist's addiction to booze was shallow and came across simply as a useful plot device for her ramblings.

As you say, great writing endures. What annoys me about the success of the 'Girl' novels is that it was the marketability of the concept that got them published, not the quality of the writing which is barely passable. I know that this happens all of the time these days, with various forms of art, the 'elevator pitch' more crucial than how hard the artist has worked on learning their skills—but, it still feels like the tail wagging the dog to me....

No fair! :(
 
Her readership is just not your potential readership.

Elder daughter adored Harry Potter. Reading it to her at bed time was a tremendous yawn; like a pale knock off of the stories of earlier children's writers such as Ursula le Guin, Alan Garner or TH White. But all reading is good for something. I have a little English GCSE pupil, 11, who also loves Harry Potter...I think it is about the friendship in the books, and the sense of freedom. Still don't like HP but I can relate to that.
 
Here's an interesting interview with Paula Hawkins, in which she makes some wise observations about the writing process and trends in what gets published:

The Story of Memory: An Interview with Paula Hawkins


What do you make of the new wave of psychological thrillers with unreliable female narrators that came in the wake of your debut?

'What happens is when you have something that takes off like The Girl on the Train, or Gone Girl — or in other genres, something like 50 Shades of Grey — agents and publishers are looking for things written in a vaguely similar vein, so they can say, “Oh, well this is the next whatever it is.” So I think that kind of thing is very publisher driven or media driven, rather than driven by the authors. I don’t think authors sit down and think, “Oh well, that book was successful, so I’ll try and do something similar.” I just think those books are being pushed to the fore. This just happened to be a golden time for that sort of book. People will also probably tire of that sort of book. The next big thing will come along, and then there will be another trend.'
 
I agree with what you say, Patricia, for I found Paula Hawkins' writing too much like hard work. Villains are fun to write about, and there's often a danger that they'll take over a novel, making the protagonist hero look dull.

I'm empathic by nature but navigating my way through a tale where all of the characters are flawed, selfish, weak and confused felt like tackling an annoying and pointless obstacle course. Speaking from 27 years of experience of alcoholism, (22 years sober this summer :)), Hawkins' treatment of her protagonist's addiction to booze was shallow and came across simply as a useful plot device for her ramblings.

As you say, great writing endures. What annoys me about the success of the 'Girl' novels is that it was the marketability of the concept that got them published, not the quality of the writing which is barely passable. I know that this happens all of the time these days, with various forms of art, the 'elevator pitch' more crucial than how hard the artist has worked on learning their skills—but, it still feels like the tail wagging the dog to me....

No fair! :(

Congratulations on those 22 years sober.
As for writing quality vs marketable concept - the holy grail is to have both. I think good writing lets the story shine through the words; bad writing distracts and interrupts. The very best writing disappears and the reader experiences the story - as someone said in another post, feeling wet rather than reading about rain
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Liar, liar pants on fire

L

Happy Birthday, Brian Clegg.

Back
Top