First Person always untrustworthy?

First person is, understandably, restricted when compared to third person omniscient for example. However, it is designed to give the reader greater insight with the main character--their opinions, their prejudices, their beliefs, their first impressions. It doesn't make first person unreliable or deceitful; on the contrary, it permits a reader to occupy the same space in a story as the main character and breaks down the fourth wall between the character and his/her audience.

I certainly hope that first person isn't considered to be always untrustworthy. My WIP is written from that perspective. That said, I always accept that point of view as being biased and limited. I just try to use that to my advantage, is all.

I see where you're coming from. How do you feel about dialogue accuracy in first person present? That's one of my problems with first/past, too--remembering all those details, telling them in such pretty terms. Or unpretty.

I've been waging my own inner battle over stream of consciousness versus soup of consciousness for about two years now. I'm making a little headway, I think, though I can't exactly tell you which direction I'm going. My problem is that first person tends to be the most natural way for me to tell a story.

When I flesh out a narrator, I don't specifically set out to create a reliable or unreliable narrator. But I do try my best to manipulate their perspective and their biases. By its nature, this leads to a certain degree of unreliability. Maybe that's why I like to write "second takes" on existing myths and fairy tales, and why I like to write from two POVs.

I do agree that first person can be best used to explore a character, as well as the reader's (and writer's) ability to empathize with and understand someone who may be incredibly different from him.

Cranky said:

I certainly hope that first person isn't considered to be always untrustworthy.

Click to expand...

But that's the fun part. I'm currently working on a 1st person novel WIP in which the narrator is a 19th Century con-man. He has some openly admitted problems with veracity. Makes for interesting narrative, at least for me.

I have no illusions about it working that way for anybody else, of course.

caw

I have actually never heard this until today. I thought an unreliable narrator was unreliable, and that it had nothing to do with the "person." Maybe you can site your source, I'd like to read the reasons the author said that.

Well the point is, it is the character's story, not a court case. Most stories are seen through filters. True that first person is less of a "shared event" and certain things you can't and shouldn't write in first person. I would not even dare to be the writer who attempts to do a first person Einstein thinking up the Special Theory of Relativity. I like it (but don't use it often) because it limits the narrator to experiences only he/she can know. Third though can be manipulated more to hide the fact that the writer doesn't know things. First person, strangely is often used by beginning authors, but it is actually the hardest person to write in unless the character is "you."

I don't know about how unreliable the actual person is. Narrators can be unreliable. If lies are placed, then the author should be aware of it. All writers of fiction are feeding you some kind of a lie, so the whole lie problem is resolved. Building trust is up to the skill of the writer, but when you open or start to read a fiction book, you should know that it might be nothing but lies.

They then supposedly tell you true things using the lies. Sort of like Gonzo journalism is about showing reality through the use of fiction.

I personally like third person limited, because I want to be able to hide things from the reader. If I show thoughts I would give things away. Especially in the 3 books I am writing now & over the next few years, I am dealing with people (in the MC at least) who have secrets, are hard to get to know, and are somewhat anti-social, as well as evasive. They may not tell lies-- In fact I think they are very truthful, but they certainly "omit" parts.

Also-- come to think of it, if you are writing 1st person, would you do it "limited" like the reader couldn't go into the character's head? Otherwise, if the character is also telling lies to him/herself, then that might be a truly "unreliable" character.

Or maybe narcissism: One half of the character is lying to the other half (in the case of traumatic events some people lie to themselves, so I can't totally say it is not true).

Interesting post idea

blacbird said:

But that's the fun part. I'm currently working on a 1st person novel WIP in which the narrator is a 19th Century con-man. He has some openly admitted problems with veracity. Makes for interesting narrative, at least for me.

I have no illusions about it working that way for anybody else, of course.

caw

Click to expand...

Heh. That's sort of what I meant when I said I try to use that to my advantage.

My character isn't a con-man, but he is verrrrry different from most people, and has a different way of looking at the world. I want readers to get into his head, to see the world as he does, and empathize with him. Hence the first person, I suppose. Plus, such a different, and limited POV, means the readers will know only what I want them to know. Which is okay. I'm not trying to mislead the reader, necessarily, because they hopefully understand that he's both biased and limited in his P.O.V. He's the one who will be questioning things, and so will the readers, through him.

The fact that he is "unreliable" works to my advantage for the plot, too. So, it's very fun for me. I want them to believe what he believes, though. It's sorta necessary.

An unreliable narrator is a specific literary device. Said narrator may, or may not be first person.

Not all first person narratives are unreliable.

I trust them entirely! It's just a book, after all. If facts aren't lining up, or if the same character has two different names at two different points in the narrative, then I might start to say, "hey what's really going on here." Otherwise, I go for the ride.

However, we should always be aware that no novel can contain All Things, and all novels are contained in a POV, a perspective of one point or another, whether or not it's the first person... All this is to say that I don't believe everything a novel tells me anyway, just about what's going on, and when the narrator lies, shame on him or her.

And shame on the author, too.

AMC

Medievalist said:

An unreliable narrator is a specific literary device.

Click to expand...

And becoming incredibly cliche... /sigh

AMCrenshaw said:

However, we should always be aware that no novel can contain All Things

Click to expand...

Is this a challenge?? I say it is! And I should know... I've started a few!

Current WIP: ALL THINGS!

Later that evening...

Dear [Agent],

I have recently finished my latest novel: ALL THINGS.

In the beginning, before there was all things, there was no-thing. But, nothing was boring, so things were created--big things, small things, short things, tall things, round things, square things, hairy things and ALL THINGS.

You may ask, 'Why do you feel you are qualified to discuss ALL THINGS?'--a fair question, to be sure, and one that warrants an answer!

As far back as I can remember, I have always been an owner of things. Over the years I have observed things, heard things, smelled things, touched things, played with things, ate things, been fond of things and even hated things at times. At this point in my life I feel I have really connected with things. Even when things seem bleak, I see past these things to the things to come.

I look forward to discussing these and other things with you further.

Sincerely,

Me

*AMC dies laughing. happy ending.

Humans, by our very nature, are untrustworthy to come extent. We all see things from our own perspectives, and no two people will tell something in exactly the same way. It's just our nature as humans that our interpretation of what we see and hear will be skewed by through the lens of our perspective.

Since first-person narrators are often humans, all first-person narrators are--to some extent--unreliable.

Of course, an unreliable narrator by the definition of the literary technique is less reliable than the one who witnesses most of the events in a straightforward way, interprets them more or less correctly, and doesn't intentionally skew anything. I'm just saying humans, by their very nature, are always unreliable to some extent.

mscelina said:

First person is, understandably, restricted when compared to third person omniscient for example. However, it is designed to give the reader greater insight with the main character--their opinions, their prejudices, their beliefs, their first impressions. It doesn't make first person unreliable or deceitful; on the contrary, it permits a reader to occupy the same space in a story as the main character and breaks down the fourth wall between the character and his/her audience.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the fourth wall is only broken when the narrator "looks at the camera" and addresses the actual human reader holding the book, thereby calling attention to the artificiality of the narrative. Other narrators address a stand-in listener, the generic "you" to whom they're telling the story in the context of the narrative's fictionality.

Regarding Ruv's original question, I have a natural tendency to trust that all narrators are telling me the truth to the best of their ability--I've found that lying narrators are very rare. However, this says nothing about whether what they're actually telling me is reliable or not. The narrator's own perception of events isn't necessarily correct.

[I've been waging my own inner battle over stream of consciousness versus soup of consciousness for about two years now. I'm making a little headway, I think, though I can't exactly tell you which direction I'm going. My problem is that first person tends to be the most natural way for me to tell a story.]

1st person is a strong voice - always subjective - and I trust it. Case in point: Hunter S. Thompson - Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas -

Do you think they'll be reading Hunter S. Thompson 100 years from now?
I do. Unless somebody comes along that can write in first person better that HST.

Of course the real question might be, why do we trust a 3rd person narrator any more than a first person? Do we have more reason to trust an omnipotent narrator than we do a first person?
Personally, I think first person can be reliable or unreliable, depending on how you build the narrator. For instance, if the narrator is frequently mistaken about people and situations, then we wont belive them. Conversely, if, through the action, the narrator seems "spot on" with their analysis, then we will probably trust them.
There are many 'tricks' to creating a trustworthy narrator. I dont think one is by nature more reliable than another, its just the convention that we have come to accept.

Just my 2 or 3 cents worth

I'm afraid I'm far too trusting in real life, and that spills over when I read books: I'm the gullible reader in most situations (unless it's plainly obvious through bad authoring that something else is going on). I like the surprise value. It makes it more entertaining if you accept blindly :O)

A great example of the unreliable narrator is Ford Madox Ford's The Good Soldier. The protagonist's recollection of events is so self-contradictory that the reader is forced to make a judgement about what is likely to have happened.

(I'd finished off with a "I heart Ford Madox Ford" right here if I had a heart gif.)

In my latest work, I used 1st person narrator who is not so much unreliable as just plain opinionated, and had great fun with it. She is a young girl talking about the drama going on with her mother and grandmother, and is extremely critical of both. At the same time, I have a third person story set n the past, telling the story of said mother and grandmother, which tells the reader the truth. So the reader knows that the 1st person girl is quite off the track, just seeing everything through her own biased, immature eyes, not knowing the past. I actually want the reader to dislike her at first; but through the course of the story she learns how she was completely wrong in her opinions, quite arrogant, becomes humble and grows.

I've done first person before, but always reliable.

Using an unreliable voice, I found, gave the story an added dimension, and allowed me to play with the reader somewhat. AT first, most readers would agree with the narrator, then slowly come around to what I want them to think. It is pure manipulation.

blacbird said:

But that's the fun part. I'm currently working on a 1st person novel WIP in which the narrator is a 19th Century con-man. He has some openly admitted problems with veracity. Makes for interesting narrative, at least for me.

I have no illusions about it working that way for anybody else, of course.

caw

Click to expand...

I love unreliable narrators.

In first person, you pretty much always know that this is how one character viewed and experienced the events. Unless you have a reason not to trust them, you go along with their version.