(un)reliable narrator
What if, throughout the whole story, the person you were placing your trust in to tell you the truth was lying about everything you knew about the story? Unreliable narrators can twist the truth, and mix up fiction and fact all while dimming the actual story. Which, of course, may beg the question: how much of what you know is true?
Unreliable narrators
An unreliable narrator is someone who tells a story, and for various reasons can not be fully trusted. He or she may alter the truth, eliminate important details, or misinterpret the events due to their bias or impaired mentality. It is like they are that one friend who always tells a story in a way to makes them appear like a hero when in reality things might be very different.
Why do narrators do this? Most of the reasons are psychological. Sometimes, there is trauma, and deep emotional scars developed from observing the world through different lenses. They could remember events in a way that serves as a cover-up against the cruelties of what occurred. Other times, it’s just a defense mechanism, not realizing that they’re unreliable, or it may even be so that they come off as the good guy in an equation when it is not simple. Take Tom in 500 Days of Summer for example. He convinced himself that Summer was the reason his life wasn't working out while ignoring his flaws and his very complex relationship with her.
Reliable vs Unreliable narrator
Where the main difference comes in is questions of a reliable versus an unreliable narrator: the concept of trust. An example of such duality is the novel Flipped ( Wendelin Van Draanen). In Flipped, we get two narrators, Juli and Bryce, and their views on the same events are completely different. While Juli sees everything from the emotional, more idealistic point of view, Bryce is more cynical and self-protective, at least at the very beginning of this story. Both narrators use their bias and interpretation of events to bear down on us and make us, as readers, review what we have otherwise presumed to understand.
So, in a way, neither Juli nor Bryce is fully reliable or unreliable—each tells a version of the story that is shaped by their own experiences, feelings, and growth. This is where it gets interesting: rather than having one “truth,” we are left to piece together the full picture from both sides. This back-and-forth gives the story more depth and nuance, showing how different perceptions can completely alter our understanding of a situation.
It is a great example of how the reliability of narrators can affect how we interact with a story. Rather than relying on one person's version, we are forced to evaluate the different points of view and think critically about what is going on.
Narrator → Reader (relationship)
The narrator is a critical aspect in any story; often, they are the only perspective on which the reader has to base their view. When reading a book, we usually trust that the narrator is giving us a version of the truth, whether full or partial. This is especially implied when we have only one narrator.
In Hamlet (Shakespeare) Prince Hamlet can be said to be an unreliable narrator since the trauma that occurred regarding his father's death and his mother's quick remarriage to his uncle makes him unstable. This emotional instability leads him to perceive everything in a view of betrayal and resentment, hence making his portrayal biased. This would mean that a reader would disconnect from the real events since he has to go through Hamlet's distorted perception of what is real and what is clouded by personal turmoil.
The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald) has a similar example of an unreliable narrator – Nick Carraway. Nick tells Gatsby's story, but he is not always objective, particularly about his own bias toward Gatsby's dream and his idealization of the character. Nevertheless, Nick is the only point of view available to us; thus, we must trust him or not despite his perception of events being flawed. This makes the narration more or so intriguing, we are invested in Nick's point of view, but we can't help but wonder how much or if at all it is true.
In Candide (Voltaire), Candide’s overly optimistic and naive perspective makes the readers doubt what is real and what is just an erroneous worldview. Candide, with his blind belief in Pangloss's philosophy that "best of all possible worlds," goes through absurd events, which, if analyzed deeply, prove to be much more serious. The more absurd the events become, the more we, as readers, question Candide's ability to understand the truth. His unreliability as a narrator never fails to concern his audience.
In Death of a Salesman, Miller also explores the concept of an unreliable narrator through Willy Loman. Willy's unreliable narration emanates from his distorted view of his success and relationships. Willy often reminisces about moments of greatness and success, which are, in reality, considerably less impressive. His false sense of entitlement and mistaken belief in the American Dream have him creating a world where he is the hero, while his career is failing and his family life a mess. This blurring of fact and fiction leaves the audience unsure of which version of Willy's life is real. As we follow Willy's journey, we must constantly question how much of his narrative is the product of his desperate need to seem successful.
The relationship between a narrator and a reader relies on this implied trust, which is the foundation of their connection. And then when that breaks down, the whole framework of the
story changes its tone completely. It also allows us as readers to work deeper and put together what is just not quite aligning right with the version being offered. It keeps us on our toes.
Effects
But with that, too, an unreliable narrator often will give one disorientation- whenever one reads or sees the outcome and may be further pondering if it did. By not immediately making this reality occur with lies, omission, and distortions-ones job now becomes a relentless revision of already perceived realities into confused conglomeration: separating what is true and what has been contrived. It’s like being on a rollercoaster, never knowing when the twists and turns are coming, or even if they're coming at all.
For example, the TV show How I Met Your Mother has Ted Mosby who narrates the story of how he met his kids' mother for nine long seasons. Well, for one thing, that story has several distractions, misdirections, and an unreliable narrator in Ted, who often glosses over or misremembers key details. The biggest shocker is when we find out that the “mother” that Ted’s been talking about isn't even the reason why he started the story. He just wanted to start dating again after the kids’ mom passed away. You cannot help but think, why did we sit through those 9 seasons listening to Ted's life story just for the ending to be that he’s into their aunt? This makes the audience (me) very frustrated.
As a viewer, I invested so much time in Ted’s journey, and by the end, I was forced to question the point of watching 24-minute episodes that hardly even correlated to Ted meeting his wife. Was the journey more important than the destination? Or did the unreliable narrator just lead us on for no real reason? It is the perfect example of how an unreliable narrator can have you questioning not only the plot but also the emotional payoff and the very point of the story itself.
Comments