To my mind, an unreliable narrator is where the narration is being told from a particular perspective (whether first person or third person), and the subjective interpretations and biases of the narrator colour the objective facts being observed. In this case, the observations made in the mind of the narrator serve the dual purpose of showing us the events of the plot while revealing the character of the narrator.
I think of Robert Browning as providing an excellent example of how this can be used. When the Duke in My Last Duchess is describing events, you can fully accept his interpretation of events or you can correct for his biases and develop your own idea of the objective nature of the events and/or you can learn about his character through his subjective description.
Subjective narration is where the narrator is not omniscient, but instead sees only that which the character sees. This narrator only knows their own thoughts, not the thoughts of others. A plain example would be first person narration. In a first person narrative, if the narrator says "that girl felt sad", the narrator must mean that the expression on the girl's face indicated she was sad, as a subjective narrator would have no way of telling whether the girl is actually sad or not. I find this a bit of a common error, made more frequent when subjective third person narration is being used, and it always bounces me a bit out of the story, to have to think "but how would the narrator know that?"... or to have to go back and see if in fact the narrator is omniscient and providing clues or insights to other characters that I had previously thought were purely subjective.
Where the lines blur a bit (particularly in third person subjective narration) is where the author wants to do foreshadowing. "Little did he know that he would never be back that way again." That can be effective, and potentially fair... but only if the perspective of the narrator is that of a person relating past events, not contemporaneous events. One way this can be used while maintaining the immediacy of the narrative is to have a "present day" event, usually an action sequence or an injury, followed by a flashback of where the day or the case started. Richard S. Prather uses this frequently in his Shell Scott novels, as does Zoe Sharp in her Charlie Fox novels.
But it can lead to some temporal confusion if you have to ask "but how does the narrator know he will never be back again?", which can lead to clues about which characters survive and have a future beyond that point. Again, it can be used effectively, but can also frequently be a way in which my enjoyment of the story is interrupted if I can't satisfactorily explain to myself how the narrator knows that.
Finally, selective narration is used all the time, almost by definition. I recall Douglas Adams addressing that in So Long and Thanks for All the Fish. Not every story follows the protagonist as they use the washroom, forget to wash their hands, return to wash their hands, etc. It's the way in which an instant can be covered in a hundred pages or a hundred years can be covered in a sentence. All narratives, whether objective or subjective, are inherently selective. No narrative can say everything about everything.
But when it comes to subjective narration, selective narration can be justified or can be merely an excuse to draw out suspense and advance the text. Some of those techniques are accepted practice. Even in a first person narration, when the detective finds clues and pieces them together, the reader never gets to know whodunit until the detective reveals it to a third party. Of necessity, the detective must have recognized significance of clues, and had a chain of thought that lead to the conclusion but until it's time for the conclusion, the reader accepts that such portion of the narrator's thoughts will be undisclosed. To prevent readers from feeling this is too unfair, the technique is usually that the reader is given access to the detective's observations, but none of the detective's analytical processes throughout the novel. So the detective may observe that it is raining out, and then grab her umbrella, but the narrative will not usually have the thought "I saw it was raining, so figured I should grab my umbrella".
In any event, I can accept that selective omission of thought processes when it seems to be treated fairly and consistently. I don't like it when selective thoughts by a subjective narrator create suspense of an arbitrary nature where there shouldn't be any. If a chapter ends with "I recognized him as soon as he came through the door. I'd have known him anywhere" (a James Patterson style chapter ending), I think it's reasonable to expect that the next chapter featuring that narrator should address who the person was. To carry on with "I knew I had to run now that I was found" without at any point addressing who found the narrator strikes me as arbitrary suspense. The narrator is not in suspense. The character is not in suspense. The only suspense being generated is for the reader, by a narrator who has made a choice not to alleviate the suspense. I view that as artificial rather than organic suspense.
I see that type of artificial suspense more in stories that play with time and memory. Sometimes I guess it's fair... the amnesia victim who can't remember the face of his assailant, but sometimes it's pretty convenient amnesia that remembers just enough at just the right times as to seem artificial. As a result, I'm temporarily a bit tired of stories where I feel I haven't been given fair disclosure. I suppose I'm giving this commentary as a way of apology if I'm not sufficiently enthusiastic about amnesia based stories of late. After Crash & Burn
Read While Walking: Crash & Burn by Lisa Gardner
I have decided I will take a bit of a break from stories where suspense is generated from an incomplete memory.
No comments:
Post a Comment