Unreliable Narrator

[CryptOfCthulhu]

This topic tends to come up quite a bit with regards to Rothfuss' protagonist Kvothe. I haven't read any of his books because they don't interest me but I have read plenty of discussions talking about this series and this particular character. Apparently a lot of people believe he's a Gary Stu, Marty Sue, or whatever label you want to use, and in response to this many claim that he really isn't flawless, he may very well be an unreliable narrator and thus exaggerating his claims.

I loathe the prototypical wish fulfillment characters that have no discernible flaws, so if the first instance is correct where people's criticism of Kvothe is concerned, then I would find the character unlikable. On the other hand, if he is indeed an unreliable narrator, then he's essentially a liar that is trying to fool people into believing he's the most interesting person alive, which is not exactly an endearing character trait to have. He's basically a boastful douche in that situation.

However, if he's telling tall tales to protect someone else and focus the attention of the antagonists on himself, then I could see that as a potentially noble character trait.

I just always found it odd that people would find the idea of someone being full of crap and boasting about things that are not remotely true as being something that would make the audience more likely to think positively about the character.

I've met my fair share of people that brag about themselves and lie to impress people and in each case I can't wait to get away from said person.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I don’t think that’s the point of an unreliable narrator. I think an unreliable narrator is not aware of their shortcomings and we as the reader discover them.

pH

 

[HareBrain]

As I understand it, the label "unreliable narrator" is usually reserved for first-person narrators who skimp on the truth for their own benefit (e.g. because there are things they would rather not admit to themselves, or wish to forget) not those who tell tall tales to fool people.

(ETA: uh, should have read PB's post first before just repeating him!)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think you probably need to read Rothfuss to get the nuances of the arguments around Kvothe/Kote. Kote is the narrator of the story, not Kvothe, and he is fundamentally different from Kvothe - and we don't know why that has come to be.

In this case, then, the unreliable narrator could be:

Reliable as in Kvothe was a right pain and is showing an honest picture - as he sees it - of his younger self
Unreliable as in seeing the past through his own eyes - I argue we are all unreliable narrators as our version of the truth is only that and the story of our lives have many layers
Lying - in which case, why?


His motivations for all of these can be nuanced. To cover for Kvothe or himself? To keep his friend's safe? For a bigger purpose? To lure the Chandrian in?

So basically in this case the distinction between Kote and Kvothe is central to the story and to simplify it to 'why would people want to read something like that' is probably answered by reading it (or other books that play well on unreliable narrators) and seeing

 

[CryptOfCthulhu]

I think you probably need to read Rothfuss to get the nuances of the arguments around Kvothe/Kote. Kote is the narrator of the story, not Kvothe, and he is fundamentally different from Kvothe - and we don't know why that has come to be.

In this case, then, the unreliable narrator could be:

Reliable as in Kvothe was a right pain and is showing an honest picture - as he sees it - of his younger self
Unreliable as in seeing the past through his own eyes - I argue we are all unreliable narrators as our version of the truth is only that and the story of our lives have many layers
Lying - in which case, why?


His motivations for all of these can be nuanced. To cover for Kvothe or himself? To keep his friend's safe? For a bigger purpose? To lure the Chandrian in?

So basically in this case the distinction between Kote and Kvothe is central to the story and to simplify it to 'why would people want to read something like that' is probably answered by reading it (or other books that play well on unreliable narrators) and seeing

Not interested enough to read Rothfuss, just was curious about how people interpret the concept of an unreliable narrator.

 

[The Big Peat]

I just always found it odd that people would find the idea of someone being full of crap and boasting about things that are not remotely true as being something that would make the audience more likely to think positively about the character.

I've met my fair share of people that brag about themselves and lie to impress people and in each case I can't wait to get away from said person.

Its far from uncommon for people to find certain things fascinating in fiction and repugnant in real life.


I would argue that most unreliable narrators are unreliable simply because it is not certain they have full knowledge of the facts they relate. But with deliberate liars, I think the uncertainty of why they lie is pretty key to keeping the reader guessing.

 

[Cathbad]

I'm not sure this qualifies as a "Unreliable Narrator", but Christie once famously broke one of the Golden Rules of Mystery writing, by having the Narrator be the murderer! The character (narrator) was a substitute for Poirot's usual assistant, Hastings, who was off in South America while the detective had a case.

What was interesting (and I thought amazing), was that the narrator told not a single lie, and reported everything Poirot told him! When Poirot announced the murderer, the narrator expressed only a little surprise at getting caught. So, he suppressed the fact he was the killer, but never lied during the narration.

 

[CryptOfCthulhu]

Its far from uncommon for people to find certain things fascinating in fiction and repugnant in real life.


I would argue that most unreliable narrators are unreliable simply because it is not certain they have full knowledge of the facts they relate. But with deliberate liars, I think the uncertainty of why they lie is pretty key to keeping the reader guessing.

For the sake of the fans of that series let's hope Rothfuss decides to finish it, or there will be no definitive answer.

 

[CryptOfCthulhu]

I'm not sure this qualifies as a "Unreliable Narrator", but Christie once famously broke one of the Golden Rules of Mystery writing, by having the Narrator be the murderer! The character (narrator) was a substitute for Poirot's usual assistant, Hastings, who was off in South America while the detective had a case.

What was interesting (and I thought amazing), was that the narrator told not a single lie, and reported everything Poirot told him! When Poirot announced the murderer, the narrator expressed only a little surprise at getting caught. So, he suppressed the fact he was the killer, but never lied during the narration.

It makes sense for that type of character to be in a mystery story, and if the narrator is deliberately deceiving the readers because they are the guilty party then I'd consider them unreliable. Otherwise you'd have a story where we know who the guilty party is and it would be them trying to keep from getting caught.

 

[MemoryTale]

I think the best done unreliable narrator for covering up for their failings is Adrian Mole. If you've never read one of his books, he has great illusions of being one of the great intellects of his generation, but he really isn't. I think it all adds tremendously to his character.

 

[Ihe]

Kvothe is quite the complex character, and as others said, his story is full of nuances and layers. He is, above all, an entertainer at heart, and very clever overall, so dishonesty is probably part of his character, but it's not so much a lie as it is an act, IMO. Why and for whom is part of the mystery, if there is any.

 

[Juliana]

It makes sense for that type of character to be in a mystery story

Gillian Flynn's 'Gone Girl' is a good recentish example...

but it's not so much a lie as it is an act

In the case of Kvothe, I absolutely agree.

 

[DelActivisto]

Unreliable narrators can be interesting. They could also come across as pompous and boastful, but mostly they're just not very self analytical. Most people are relatively bad at self analysis unless they've deliberately trained themselves in critical self awareness. These people certainly exist, so the inverse of this scenario (really reliable narrators?) are not unreasonable despite what some people say. People who say characters shouldn't be self-analyzing probably just either aren't good at self analysis or aren't familiar with it.

So sometimes an unreliable narrator might be someone constantly telling themselves that it's "perfectly normal for their husband to have so many young female friends who wander in and out of his office looking unusually happy" or something, even to the point where the story ends and, infuriatingly, the MC still hasn't got a clue.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

All narrators are unreliable to a certain extent, especially when telling their own story, because that's human nature.

But readers tend to identify with the first characters they meet, and trust them to tell the truth. It can take a lot to make them doubt they are being told the real story, especially if the narrator's unreliability is not established in some way quite early in the tale.

I only read the first book in that series, and I did feel that Kvothe was too . . . everything . . . to be true, which is one reason why I didn't keep on reading, but I put that down to the author rather than the narrator. Perhaps that wasn't quite fair of me, and maybe when the whole series is written and published it will be clear that Rothfuss was being a lot more subtle in his characterization than it appeared on the surface. Or not. I suppose it is something that readers may be arguing about for decades.

 

[Dan Jones]

All narrators are unreliable to a certain extent, especially when telling their own story, because that's human nature.

Indeed. This comes into play most pertinently when one is dealing with multiple POVs as each character is, naturally, more concerned with their own experience than is what is going on with other people.

I’ve never read Kvothe, but it sounds to me as though he’s an SF analog for the unreliable narrator par excellence, Don Quixote. And for all Quixote’s blind, naive beliefs about the world’s (and his own) nobility, it’s being used as a wider point about nobility and the warped perspectives individuals have of the world. And you can’t say that Quixote was a Mary Sue, because he was perpetually undermined by the world in which he so rigidly believed.

If we take Quixote as the blueprint, I’d say we can go further than @DelActivisto’s point that unreliable narrators can be interesting; they should be interesting, because their unreliability reflects intent within the text. Another example is Balram Halwai in The White Tiger, or more maddening, Frank in The Wasp Factory. To expand upon Teresa’s point, all of these characters are curiously self obsessed, almost to the point of psychopathy (certainly in the case of Frank), and yet as Del says, they miss some vital aspect of self-recognition that allows them to see themselves for what they truly are, even while we, the reader, can.

 

[sozme]

I think it's difficult to pull off, and I wouldn't even try it myself.