Books told in first person, and the narrator holds out on you.

[raccoon]

This really pisses me off. I think it’s cheating.


POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW. CONTINUE AT YOUR OWN RISK.












I’ve read two books like that. One is one of Steven Saylor’s Gordianus the Finder books, don’t recall which one. The other is TELL NO ONE by Harlan Cohen (part of the book is in first person).

In both of these, at the end of the book the narrator reveals something VERY significant.

[Richardo]

1. Another 'unreliable narrator': The title character in Koontz' "Odd Thomas'

That was the first Koontz book I ever read, and the last - partially because of the big surprise (I don't even remember what it was). :eyes:

[raccoon]

2. Never read that one by Koontz, but I've read several of his.

This was a long time ago. Seems like he kept using the same formula over and over again. Of course, a lot of writers do that. :-)

[Democrats_win]

3. Some famous unreliable narrators: Gatsby, David Copperfield.

It came be very frustrating but sometimes the narrator will give you clues that he now sees things differently.

[Orrex]

4. It has to be used carefully, though

If the narrator is withholding a relevant piece of information simply for the sake of a last-page-gotcha! moment, then that's pretty lame.

But if the reader is supposed to draw a long, slow inference about the narrator over the course of the piece, then that's another matter altogether.

The former is hackneyed and a sign of poor writing; the latter requires a good deal of skill to carry it off effectively.

[raccoon]

5. That's what I'm referring to, when the narrator is withholding something

just for a gotcha! moment.

Something VERY, VERY important, such as s/he was the murderer after all.

And all through the whole effing book----sigh!

[Orrex]

8. Yeah--it's an unforgivable gimmick

On par with the "it was all just a dream" sort of ending.

Another classic example is a tale told about lost love or some task that the narrator is desperate to complete, only to find out that the narrator is a ghost.

And the only thing worse than that is to find out that the narrator is a fetus.

Terrible. Any first-year student of writing should know better than to employ such a trite device, yet seasoned, professional writers still toy with it. Yuck!

[raccoon]

6. In what ways do you think David Copperfield was unreliable? nt

[Democrats_win]

9. Copperfield's view of Steerforth. DC worshiped him.

Spoiler:

Steerforth was a terrible person for running off with Little Emily. He was completely wrong about his classmate, the handsome Steerforth.

[raccoon]

11. Yes, Steerforth was a jerk.

I think young David had a case of hero worship regarding Steerforth.

[Democrats_win]

14. Steerforth isn't the "hero" of David Copperfield's life.

;)

[raccoon]

15. No, that isn't what I said. As a boy, David looked up to Steerforth.

Which Steerforth didn't deserve, of course.

[Berry Cool]

7. Gatsby wasn't a narrator.

The story was told through Nick Carraway's point of view. Nick made it clear that Gatsby's view of things was not always reliable, and it was obvious that his eyes were clearer...even though, as is true of all people, it was harder to stand outside himself and see his own flaws and shortcomings or realize things he should have realized while he was going through them.

[Democrats_win]

10. Yes, Nick was the narrator and his view of Gatsby was wrong.

For one thing, Nick overlooks the fact that Gatsby always lies to him about his past. He should have never been a part of Gatsby's affair with Daisy. Surely he should have seen how destructive this whole adventure might turn out. Yet all the while he floats along as if he's in a pleasant dream admiring Gatsby all the way.

[Goblinmonger]

18. He doesn't admire Gatsby

he thinks Gatsby is better than all the rest of the rich pricks that feed off of Gatsby but never let him into their society and Gatsby is better than them. But Nick very clearly shows us how Gatsby was wrong in his pursuit of the American dream a la Daisy and how Gatsby did many things that he should not have done.

[Goblinmonger]

17. I would disagree about Nick

Fitzgerald sets him up very deliberately to be a reliabe narrator. He is one of the few honest people, if you remember his declaration of his "fault." He is one of the few that was able to call bullshit on the rich that surrounded him. He may be naive about Gatsby's dealings, but that isn't important to the story.

[mitchum]

27. Also, Huck Finn, but Huck warns you that he is unreliable

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. I think The Murder of Roger Ackroyd by Agatha Christie is one of the most famous examples nt

[raccoon]

13. Thanks for the heads up. I'll make a point of not reading it. nt

[hiaasenrocks]

16. Indeed. (MAJOR spoiler inside)

The book actually caused some controversy in the publishing world because it so horribly cheats the reader. It has to be one of the worst things a writer has ever done to a reader.

Again, spoiler...don't scroll down if you don't want to know...















The narrator turns out to be the killer.

[Goblinmonger]

19. ROFL A spoiler warning

for an Agatha Christie novel.

Here's some more spoilers for you:

Romeo and Juliet both kill themselves.
Pip's benefactor is NOT Mrs. Havisham but "his convict."
Moby Dick kills Ahab not vice versa.
George kills Lenny.
Conrad tries to kill himself because his brother died in a boat accident instead of Conrad.

[hiaasenrocks]

20. The easily amused weigh in.

;)

[Goblinmonger]

21. Yeah, I'm easily amused

you got a problem with that: :P

You don't think it is the least bit funny that an Agatha Christie novel gets a spoiler alert?

[hiaasenrocks]

23. Funniest thing I've ever seen.

I'm just here to talk books, not to get into a pissing match about them.

I don't know what your point is, or much less care, and from your other posts in this thread it doesn't look like I'd miss much by not reading any more of them. See ya.

[Goblinmonger]

25. I'm sorry

I didn't know I was having a discussion with a fourth-grader. You go ahead and take your ball and go home. That's fine with me.

As to my other points, I would love to hear your thoughts on the trustworthiness of Nick as a narrator and your explanation as to why I am wrong. Though I am afraid your arguments will be somewhere along the lines of calling me "easily amused."

I was making a joke about spoiling a novel that is nearing half a century in age. That seems as silly to me as spoiling the end of Romeo and Juliet. Sorry that joke was too pedestrian for you.

[hiaasenrocks]

26. LOL

If I have to explain this, I guess I will.

That the book is almost 81 years old (not "nearing a half a century in age") is no reason to believe that everyone who wishes to read it has done so, as evidenced right here in this thread. That's the reason for the spoiler alert. Well, that, and it's an act of politeness, a social convention which seems to have escaped you in your upbringing.

As stated before, I'm not here to compete in contests about books. Everyone has their opinion. You're welcome to yours, of course, but I'll leave others to suffer through them.

Thank goodness for the 'ignore' feature.

[raccoon]

22. I hate that! I think the author is cheating to the max. nt

[hiaasenrocks]

24. That's one of three books of hers that I've read.

I didn't care too much for her work before I got to that one, and never picked up another. Bland writing and cheap devices are the quickest way to lose a reader.