Features

Shostie · #1

I've been doing a lot of reading lately, and somehow the concept of the unreliable narrarator has pulled itself to the forefront of my thought.

The best example I can think of of an unreliable narrarator is Patrick Bateman in Ellis' American Psycho. While offering up many moral and ethical questions (evil as thought vs. evil as action, soullessness vs. fiendishness), the book, in my opinion, is a great example of a narrarator skewing events either to make his own actions seem more favorable or out of pure psychosis. The latter seems to be the case here, as we are never quite entirely sure as to the authenticity of Bateman's actions. While horrific, the fact that none of his friends believe him, that there is little evidence to support his claims of homocide, that Paul Owen, a rival he killed out of jealousy, may not have actually have been Paul Owen, as evidenced by Owen's consistent reference to Bateman as Marcus Halberstam, lends little credibility to his actions.

I recently finished reading Shelley's Frankenstein. I found the book quite enjoyable. One of the critical notes at the end of the book pointed out the tri-layered nature of the book. At the top, we have Walton, the sea-farer searching for a passage to the Americas via the North Pole who discovers Vickor Frankenstein. Then below that, Frankenstein's tale of his creating a monster, and Frankenstein's subsequent spurning of said monster. And below that, the monster itself's tale. So at the top, the true narrarator is Walton, relating the other two tales. In the letters prior to the narrative proper, Walton describes his need of a friend of suitable intellect to share in his adventure. What are the odds that he should just HAPPEN accross such a creature, the poor wretch Frankenstein, the victim as much as he is the cause of his own misery. Then, can't Walton's entire tale be called into question?

Is it truly possible for a narrarator to completely separate themselves from the prose? Every event described in every book comes through the filter of the author's mind's eye.

GADZOOKS · #2

SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP

Shostie · #3

Interesting. And I'll take another question. Frooooooom, you, the dude with the grey sportcoat.

kellychaos · #4

Every construction in every form of media is filtered through the perception of the creator. You, more or less, accept that fact going in, don't you? Further, the act of perception itself in an individual is an activity that is physiologically filtered by that individual's sensory organs. In fact, the very act of choosing an author is bound up in your feelings about how closely you empathize with that author's thoughts, feelings, perceptions, ect. Although, in some cases, one may want to explore an author who repulses them simply to get a better understanding of why that person thinks or feels as they do and, depending on the creative abilities of the author, you may actually get those feelings conveyed to you in a way you can understand. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't get the point of your question. Would you want to read someone who thinks and feels exactly as you? How boring. Even if a person give a 100% objective account of reality, it's still going to be filtered by you to some degree.

Shostie · #5

Thanks, kellychaos, for an intelligent response. I hadn't gone to the point of dissemination by the reader. My thoughts were revolving primarily around the author him/herself. As far as I can determine, the only completely objective prose arises in 2nd person; instructions. Where the writing is skewed not for the benefit of the author, but for the benefit of the reader. But even then, the writing is skewed. Case in point; instructions on assembling a computer desk. They are created for your enjoyment, but at the same time with the tacet assumption that by your enjoyment of the product, you will purchase and assemble more products by the same company.

This all leads me to wonder if any true attempts have been made to create 100% objective prose.

I'm guessing that it would be quite boring.

Cap'n Crunch · #6

SHUT UP RETARD.

kellychaos · #7

Though I've never read "American Psycho", I'll approach this from another angle. Firstly, this is a work of fiction which is meant to provoke thought. Literature can do this in many ways. In this case, it pits the thoughts and/or statements of the main character against those who observe him. It's just a tool by the author to get the reader thinking about what he wants him to think about and, to some degree, the WAY he wants you to think about it. There are many such literary devices. As it's not like scientific, journalistic, ect reporting, I'm not worried about the way the author skews things. I let them take me into their train of thought while, at the same time, critically analyze what is being said as well as the author's motives behind saying them. Sometimes the prose may merely be self-serving and sometimes there might actually be something meaningful trying to be conveyed. Either way, you're not MADE to feel anything. You are an active participant with your own point of view ... I hope.