Unreliable Omniscient Narrator
- Thread starter Raphee
- Start date
- Status
Read The Castle in the Forest by Norman Mailer.
He has a demon for a narrator - by his nature he is somewhat unreliable - not telling the whole truth of who he is through the beginning of the book.
I'm not really sure what kind of unreliable you are aiming for, if it is just in no complete disclosure and omission, or if the narrator is telling the story wrong for a particular reason. Or, as a character, just generally unreliable. Those things could make a difference in how it would go over. Just remember that your readers put trust in you to tell the story - trusting that the plot will come through a satisfactory chain of events, a complete story will be told, it will feel honest, and breaking that trust means they may put the book down and not pick it back up.
He has a demon for a narrator - by his nature he is somewhat unreliable - not telling the whole truth of who he is through the beginning of the book.
I'm not really sure what kind of unreliable you are aiming for, if it is just in no complete disclosure and omission, or if the narrator is telling the story wrong for a particular reason. Or, as a character, just generally unreliable. Those things could make a difference in how it would go over. Just remember that your readers put trust in you to tell the story - trusting that the plot will come through a satisfactory chain of events, a complete story will be told, it will feel honest, and breaking that trust means they may put the book down and not pick it back up.
If the omni narrator is used as another character--then they can lie, misdirect, omit telling stuff, just like any other character--but you need to make it clear that the narrator is flawed and unreliable.
Atonement had an element of that -- it's what makes the "twist" so amazing. You know the narrator is a lair, but you still fall for it.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
If the narrator is KNOWN (or implied somewhere in the story) then it's possible. If it's an unknown omniscient narrator then you risk alienating your readers if you don't tell the truth.
RE: Atonement -- I disagree somewhat. It's not really an "unreliable" narrator per se. It's a book within a book (metafiction) and we only know that fact (and the identity of the author) at the end. I wouldn't call it "unreliable" either -- perhaps "questionable" reliability. Anyway, again, the narrator is revealed so within the context of the book within book it's still considered "reliable."
A true unreliable narrator is one that a) withholds the truth from or b) deliberately lies to the readers. Generally speaking, an omniscient narrator shouldn't do either because it has a contract with the readers; otherwise, the readers will question everything she reads. Again, it works for Atonement because it is a book within a book, and the ending was written in 1st person from the narrator's POV, and you believe the 1st person IS telling the truth finally -- otherwise, there really is no story if you don't trust the ending.
RE: Atonement -- I disagree somewhat. It's not really an "unreliable" narrator per se. It's a book within a book (metafiction) and we only know that fact (and the identity of the author) at the end. I wouldn't call it "unreliable" either -- perhaps "questionable" reliability. Anyway, again, the narrator is revealed so within the context of the book within book it's still considered "reliable."
A true unreliable narrator is one that a) withholds the truth from or b) deliberately lies to the readers. Generally speaking, an omniscient narrator shouldn't do either because it has a contract with the readers; otherwise, the readers will question everything she reads. Again, it works for Atonement because it is a book within a book, and the ending was written in 1st person from the narrator's POV, and you believe the 1st person IS telling the truth finally -- otherwise, there really is no story if you don't trust the ending.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 6,449
- Reaction score
- 1,321
The narrator of The Good Soldier isn't omniscient, though, and that's made very explicit in the book. There are moments where he says "I don't know why" a character does something (especially the wife), as I recall.
An unreliable omniscient narrator is very hard to create--either they have to be a supernatural figure (as in the Mailer book cited above), or an author who breaks the fourth wall and says "I made these characters up, so I know what they're thinking."
Maybe Peter Pan?
He's not unreliable, per se, but he's certainly letting his own opinions cloud the facts.
He's not unreliable, per se, but he's certainly letting his own opinions cloud the facts.
Also:
1) What Was She Thinking? [Notes on a Scandal] by Zoe Heller
2) Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro
These are two good examples where the character telling the story supposedly knows everything that happened, or is happening, and passes it on to the reader. But the whole story is colored by their own perceptions, misinterpretations, arrogance. They make for interesting reads. And, of course, both found their way to film or TV. (That has nothing to do with the stories, but just increases the chance that you've heard of either one.)
1) What Was She Thinking? [Notes on a Scandal] by Zoe Heller
2) Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro
These are two good examples where the character telling the story supposedly knows everything that happened, or is happening, and passes it on to the reader. But the whole story is colored by their own perceptions, misinterpretations, arrogance. They make for interesting reads. And, of course, both found their way to film or TV. (That has nothing to do with the stories, but just increases the chance that you've heard of either one.)
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
Um, Remains of the Day was written in first person. So was Notes on a Scandal.
In first person, the "know everything" is an illusion. The fact is that it's assumed the "all-knowing" aspect of a 1st person narrative is based on heresay, other people's accounts, research, interpretations, etc. filtered through the first person's POV -- and by nature, first person narrative is always semi-reliable/unreliable and not omniscient. You can't have true omniscient unless your first person narrator is God.
In first person, the "know everything" is an illusion. The fact is that it's assumed the "all-knowing" aspect of a 1st person narrative is based on heresay, other people's accounts, research, interpretations, etc. filtered through the first person's POV -- and by nature, first person narrative is always semi-reliable/unreliable and not omniscient. You can't have true omniscient unless your first person narrator is God.
Last edited:
Which is exactly what makes good first-person POV . . . well, good:
Tom Jones -- Henry Fielding
Tristram Shandy -- Laurence Sterne
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd -- Agatha Christie
Pincher Martin -- William Golding
A Clockwork Orange -- Anthony Burgess
Little Big Man -- Thomas Berger
every Flashman novel by George Macdonald Fraser
. . . and a ton of other famous novels.
I have huge difficulty even imagining a truly "omniscient" narrator who can be "unreliable". "Unreliable narrator" is almost welded to first-person POV.
caw
Well, I suppose it would depend on how you're defining unreliable. If going by the "omitting the truth" aspect, aren't most novels more about what you leave out than what you put in. And by those standards, aren't all narrators, regardless of which perspective, unreliable?
Harry Potter and most Agatha Christie books are limited omniscient (I think, it's been a while since I read either or had a conversation about narration styles. Limited omniscient is usually third person, and you can see into one person's head without restrictions, yes?) and intentionally leave out information so they can have their dramatic climaxes.
Not exactly, in my view. An unreliable narrator projects a viewpoint that is not trustworthy; that's different from simply not providing some information. But it's a tricky business.
caw
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
I agree, blacbird. Obviously with omniscient the narrator can't report EVERYTHING all the time either. But I think the distinction is in intent. The omniscient narrator should always tell the truth when he's telling the story, not deliberately withhold information (I know something but I won't tell you) or lie (He's drunk -- but in reality he isn't, fooled ya!)
"The murder of Roger Ackroyd" is first person. Most of the Poirot novels are narrated by Captain Hastings, who is a Watson-like figure and - very much like Watson - clouds the facts through his lack of intelligent grasp.
Unreliable omniscient sounds fab but really hard to do - the narrator would have to have some involvement / interest in the preceedings (otherwise no need to be unreliable) but also acces to all the facts. They could be dead, I suppose, and from that perspective know everything.
Oooh. You're making me want to write one like that now!
I don't know if this is exactly what you were looking for, but in the novel for which I'm currently trying to get representation, my narrator is very unreliable. She is working through the death of her brother, for one thing, and sometime into the story it's revealed that she's been under the influence of drugs for several chapters before it's pointed out. Therefore, a lot of what she describes was the product of her imagination, or a flat-out lie.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
My memory (admittedly fallable) is that that novel is not Omni though. I don't think I've seen an Omni with an unreliable narrator. Obviously 1st can be unreliable although generally there is still a rule that the narrator still shouldn't directly lie to the reader. The narrator never actually lied I think in Roger Ackroyd, just left a lot out.
Since omni is basically the author's PoV, you would have the author lying to the reader and I can't really see that working.
Last edited:
How is the narrator not omni in The Castle in the Forest? He was present for the conception of Adolf Hitler and knew he was witnessing it. He provided (I particularly recall with reference to bee keeping) details of several characters thoughts, witnessed events and witnessed thoughts in scenes. Gave insights into all characters involved, and foreshadowed major events and provided character thought processes to events in Hitler's life (setting up the "how he became" in several places which could not have been done without omnicient POV) Intimate thoughts of every other major character were revealed - even providing insight into his own demonic activities that caused some of them. He provided detailed thoughts of nearly every character.
If I you can show me how I got this wrong, I'd love to see it, I just don't know how it wasn't omnicient.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,714
- Reaction score
- 2,190
- Location
- In the resistance
- Website
- www.claireodell.com
Incorrect. The narrator in omni *isn't* the author's POV, they're a separate character who is outside the plot.
Check out Steven Brust's The Phoenix Guards for an example of an obvious narrator. Check out anything by Jane Austen for a quieter, almost invisible one.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,654
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
I agree with Beth. Also, if the author's going to "lie" to the readers, I'd say don't buy his books in the future. He's broken the sacred read-writer contract.
- Status