Unreliable Narrator Twist

[MatterSack]

I know that springs made a similar thread in March, but I figured this question warranted its own.

My protagonist is 'unreliable'. However, this isn't due to selective omission of information on the part of the narrator; the protagonist is a psychopath, and actively deceives the reader just as they do every other character around them.

The third person narration means that readers only see the protagonist's external persona, which is characteristically cheery and extroverted. Events occur throughout the narrative to hint at some deeper, destructive malevolence, but only indirectly, and nothing is given away until the end.

The end is what I'm worried about. Not putting together a cohesive story arc, but revealing to the reader(s) that they've been tricked. That the likeable 'character' they've been following all along is artificial, a facade intended to mask the psychopathy beneath. This revelation — combined with another twist — will hopefully give the ending one hell of a kick. I'm worried though that it'll leave readers with a bitter aftertaste.

What do you think? Would you consider such a twist anticlimactic? Would it come across as a cheap shot? Or would it retrospectively give the narrative context and make the ending more memorable?

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I think that might be a good description of a short story I wrote recently. It's pretty obvious that my narrator (first-person) is a psychopath, but it's not until the end that one finds out exactly what kind.

I like stories with twists, but you definitely want to have hints along the way so that the reader realizes they should have known all along. As long as it's something the reader feels they could have worked out (even if they didn't), they don't leave feeling shortchanged.

 

[Overread]

I agree with Dusty - as a reader I want subtle hints about what is going on through the story so that when the end comes, whilst it is a surprise I can go "OH that's what all those little things meant!" That way you've not suddenly thrown the reader by changing a huge part of the story very suddenly for the ending.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Bret Easton Ellis does this in American Psycho (although the narrator never comes across as likeable at all.) I don't know how much of a psychopath your character is - Ellis' character has a wide range of psychopathic traits, and it is a couple of them that you haven't mentioned your character having that are crucial to the story.

I'm loathe to explain how the writer does it, for spoiler reasons. If you haven't read it, it might be a good book for you to compare to your own WiP and perhaps spark fresh ideas on how to handle the twist and switcheroo.

All I'll say is that Ellis does it in such a way that we the readers eventually get a understanding of what's really happening, whilst the narrator probably doesn't.

p.s. oh btw if the 'trick' is clever, well thought out and executed then I'll definitely be applauding the author! As Overread said though there needs to be an intention from the start that I can notice in some manner.

 

[Laeraneth]

Some people love to be tricked, other people hate it. (My wife hates watching shows that continuously pull the trick of showing events A, B and C, then at the end revealing that they weren't actually what happened)

It wouldn't make me think it was a bad book for sure, probably quite the opposite if done well (I hope so anyway, I have a plot in mind for way down the line of my own series that is planning a big reveal/twist at the end)

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Some people love to be tricked, other people hate it. (My wife hates watching shows that continuously pull the trick of showing events A, B and C, then at the end revealing that they weren't actually what happened)

Come to think of it, the movie Wild Things does exactly that, and there really isn't much in the way of clues. It just kind of unravels at the end with a bang, and you get to see what was really going on. And it is definitely a "sudden psychopath" revelation of the sort the OP asks about. It's one of my favorites, so I couldn't say I felt shortchanged by the switch.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Just to echo what has been said above, and agree that if it is foreshadowed or dealt with intelligently you should be fine.

I'm slightly partisan at the moment regarding this matter specifically, because the 3 characters in my WIP are all suspected of being something they're not. This is revealed in different stages throughout, but the biggest is not revealed till the end. If handled carelessly, I could put a few readers' noses out of joint, or at least confuse them.

So I say go for it. With care.

pH

 

[paranoid marvin]

Read Frankenstein; this is done similarly with devastating effect.

 

[MatterSack]

Thanks for the words of advice guys.

The protagonist is female. I do plan to foreshadow a lot; in fact, in order to deceive I'm relying on the readers' assumption that the character is macho in a feminine, tryhard, 'Vasquez' kind of way. That the various 'gun on the wall' instances throughout the story (violent overreactions, selfishness, manipulation, lack of empathy/remorse/guilt, narcissism, skewed morality, insensitive comments, etc) will be construed as a stereotypical action movie persona (this is also intended to mock such stereotypes by the way).

Maybe they'll think I'm a bad FMC writer, but I'm hoping to avoid that by making her questionable at times. By making the other characters moral by comparison, and having them question her personality and conduct whenever her true personality pokes through. By lampshading these instances in a way that the reader finds odd, but hopefully not too revealing. Until a damning revelation at the end that shatters her fake persona and sheds new light on her previous actions.

Is that a stupid way to do it?

 

[tinkerdan]

It seems a bit difficult to tell what seems to work well and what might not without knowing the twist because it might be that the twist contains the element that defines what the motive of the main character.

Lets say for instance it is much that same as the revenge motive of Edmond Dantes of the Count of Monte cristio. That would mean that you are telling the story backwards in the sense that the reader doesn't get to see all of the things that occur to make the main character the person they are. But that doesn't mean it won't work it just means that the author needs to work more at making the character interesting and sympathetic enough without creating a person that is so far from the real character that the reader is taken too far back from the sympathy.

In opposition to this if the character's motives are sinister then it could go two ways with the reveal; either containing a story that keeps the readers sympathy or one that puts the reader in a place that might be a bit uncomfortable for having been taken in by this character. The latter would work if the goal is to take people from their comfort zone. So all in all I'd say there is not quite enough here to tell us enough to definitively say you are all wet.

Personally I think if you have honed your skills well enough then it all boils down to what your final objective is with this character. Then the next is to decide which of many paths you want to lead the reader down to get to the truth. What would be interesting though would alter the story would be to have someone who knows some of the truth and detests this character as a POV to leave the reader with a question of why this person hates the character who they feel is a hero. Then the twist might be that now as some characters are no longer certain of their hero this naysayer might learn enough more of the story that they have a more understanding view of the character.

Yet again it devolves on what you decide is the truth.

No matter how you write it there will be the naysayers and the fans so good luck with this and if you just give the best display of your writing talent it will work out well.