Argument
When approaching fictional texts one of the first and most important tasks placed upon readers is the identification of the text’s narrator. Once the narrator(s) is discovered, the reader must then determine, based on various characteristics, if the narrator is reliable or unreliable. Such knowledge allows readers to analyze the text in a specific way and to carefully consider the validity of the narrator’s depiction of narrative events. The problem with such judgments, however, is that any labeling of the narrator’s state-of-mind or perceptive abilities is an individually determined, subjective practice.
Narrator reliability is a myth. Reliability is weighed by the personal morals, cultural values, and limited perceptions of readers. In other words, a narrator who is labeled as reliable by one set of individuals may also be considered unreliable by others; each judgment is biased. Bruno Zarweck (2001) supports this claim in his article “Historicizing unreliable narration: Unreliability and cultural discourse in narrative fiction” when he states “Because unreliability is the effect of interpretive strategies, it is culturally and historically variable” (p. 151). The variability of standards and cultural values leads to the reinterpretation of texts year after year. Each narrator is subject to readers’ analyses, but it should be argued that those analyses are unreliable, not the narrative characters themselves.
Consider the four types of unreliable narrators: the picaro, the clown, the madman, and the naïf (Zarweck, 2001, p. 152). These subgroups are highly based on stereotypical behaviors and cultural perceptions of normality. If a narrator appears to not fit the cultural norm of a society, he or she is then labeled as unreliable. In this sense, readers are placing their own values, preconceptions, and codes of conduct on narrative characters. The narrator is soon thought of as a realistic being whom the reader can either identify with or revolt against. The argument for the latter would be that the narrator does not appear to be realistic and therefore should not be taken seriously. Zarweck refers to this desire to mold narrative characters into an already well-established framework as “naturalization,” a term coined by Dr. Monika Fludernik of the University of Freiberg, Germany (2001, p. 154). He emphasizes Fludernik’s radical idea of naturalization when he quotes, “Readers actively construct meanings and impose frames on their interpretations of texts just as people have to interpret real-life experiences in terms of available schemata” (2001, p. 153). If a narrative character cannot be placed in any specific schema, readers are then forced to find alternate ways to naturalize the text and re-establish a sense of normalcy. Zarweck points out five main strategies for reconciling such points of contradiction in texts, all of which lead inevitably to the determined status of the unreliable mediator/narrator. These five principles of reconciliation are: (1) the genetic; (2) the generic; (3) the existential; (4) the functional; and (5) the perspectival (2001, p. 154). Such attempts to force narrative characters into a stable and understood role emphasize the cultural and personal biases that accompany character judgments.
There are two main types of narrator identities: the supernatural and the more human-like (Yacobi, 2001). Supernatural narrative characters have more lee-way with reliability in the eyes of readers because they are immediately identified as unnatural, and perhaps even omnipresent and omniscient. On the other hand, a human-like narrator evokes a desire for readers to connect and identify with him or her. The further removed from cultural norms and values a narrator is, the more defensive readers will become. Claiming that the reason for all of the text’s incongruities and inconsistencies is based on the narrator’s unreliability is an easy solution for troubled readers. It is this congruency of text that sets readers at ease. If a narrator seems unstable, untrustworthy, uncertain of the events occurring in the text, he or she is immediately considered unreliable and therefore allows readers to feel more comfortable about not following the logic of such a sporadic narrator. Readers want to make sense of a text, but if it is apparent that the narrator is hindering this process of clarification, readers feel less personal inadequacies and more supremacy over the narrative character.
Human-like narrative identities are judged much more harshly than supernatural narrative identities. More so than the omniscient appearance of the supernatural narrators, but also due to the innate unreliability of humans; humans are inherently fallible (Yacobi, 2001). With this in mind, it is no wonder so many narrative characters are deemed unreliable. Readers want narrators to whom they can relate, but in order for this similarity to occur—this life-like portrayal of fictional characters—narrators must demonstrate the very real characteristic of human fallibility.
One of the most commonly labeled unreliable narrative identities are those of children (Spencer, 1992). Children are deemed unreliable sources of information because they are inhabitants of an adult world that is beyond their comprehension and therefore beyond their narrative abilities to understand and relate such a world to readers. This is a prime example of bias beliefs and cultural judgments. In a different time period or different culture, children would be seen as more reliable than their elders, simply because their purity and untainted views of the world. More so, the child is often used to represent the unseen or unspoken truth. These interpretive stereotypes all lend a hand in determining narrator (Un)reliability.
There is no separation of self and cultural norms. Each reader brings a variety of experiences and values to every text which he or she reads. These experiences skew the ultimately received meanings of such texts and cause one to pass judgments on characters based on how well those characters fit into the reader’s existing schemata. With each reader expecting different qualities and actions from a fictional narrator, narrator reliability is subjective and therefore a nonexistent notion. Zarweck claims that “Within a culture that doubts even the existence of an unambiguously perceptible reality, unreliable narration could be argued as the norm rather than the exception” (2001, p. 163). Unreliability is not an exception, it is reality. Readers can rely on the unreliability of narrators (Spencer, 1992). Fictional texts stand in a realm of their own, so attempting to “naturalize” these texts by placing judgments and labels on the narrators based on each readers’ schemas is a flawed and irrelevant task. No narrator is truly reliable, therefore all narrators are unreliable.
References
Spencer, W. B. (1992). Creating Unrelieable Narrators. Writer's Digest, 72(12), 22-22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/209436919?accountid=11072
Yacobi, T. (2001). Package Deals in Fictional Narrative: The Case of the Narrator’s (Un)Reliability. Narrative, 9(2), 223. Retrieved from http://proxy.geneseo.edu:2201/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA75833116&v=2.1&u=geneseo&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Zerweck, B. (2001). Historicizing unreliable narration: Unreliability and cultural discourse in narrative fiction. Style, 35(1), 151-178. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231166818?accountid=11072
Narrator reliability is a myth. Reliability is weighed by the personal morals, cultural values, and limited perceptions of readers. In other words, a narrator who is labeled as reliable by one set of individuals may also be considered unreliable by others; each judgment is biased. Bruno Zarweck (2001) supports this claim in his article “Historicizing unreliable narration: Unreliability and cultural discourse in narrative fiction” when he states “Because unreliability is the effect of interpretive strategies, it is culturally and historically variable” (p. 151). The variability of standards and cultural values leads to the reinterpretation of texts year after year. Each narrator is subject to readers’ analyses, but it should be argued that those analyses are unreliable, not the narrative characters themselves.
Consider the four types of unreliable narrators: the picaro, the clown, the madman, and the naïf (Zarweck, 2001, p. 152). These subgroups are highly based on stereotypical behaviors and cultural perceptions of normality. If a narrator appears to not fit the cultural norm of a society, he or she is then labeled as unreliable. In this sense, readers are placing their own values, preconceptions, and codes of conduct on narrative characters. The narrator is soon thought of as a realistic being whom the reader can either identify with or revolt against. The argument for the latter would be that the narrator does not appear to be realistic and therefore should not be taken seriously. Zarweck refers to this desire to mold narrative characters into an already well-established framework as “naturalization,” a term coined by Dr. Monika Fludernik of the University of Freiberg, Germany (2001, p. 154). He emphasizes Fludernik’s radical idea of naturalization when he quotes, “Readers actively construct meanings and impose frames on their interpretations of texts just as people have to interpret real-life experiences in terms of available schemata” (2001, p. 153). If a narrative character cannot be placed in any specific schema, readers are then forced to find alternate ways to naturalize the text and re-establish a sense of normalcy. Zarweck points out five main strategies for reconciling such points of contradiction in texts, all of which lead inevitably to the determined status of the unreliable mediator/narrator. These five principles of reconciliation are: (1) the genetic; (2) the generic; (3) the existential; (4) the functional; and (5) the perspectival (2001, p. 154). Such attempts to force narrative characters into a stable and understood role emphasize the cultural and personal biases that accompany character judgments.
There are two main types of narrator identities: the supernatural and the more human-like (Yacobi, 2001). Supernatural narrative characters have more lee-way with reliability in the eyes of readers because they are immediately identified as unnatural, and perhaps even omnipresent and omniscient. On the other hand, a human-like narrator evokes a desire for readers to connect and identify with him or her. The further removed from cultural norms and values a narrator is, the more defensive readers will become. Claiming that the reason for all of the text’s incongruities and inconsistencies is based on the narrator’s unreliability is an easy solution for troubled readers. It is this congruency of text that sets readers at ease. If a narrator seems unstable, untrustworthy, uncertain of the events occurring in the text, he or she is immediately considered unreliable and therefore allows readers to feel more comfortable about not following the logic of such a sporadic narrator. Readers want to make sense of a text, but if it is apparent that the narrator is hindering this process of clarification, readers feel less personal inadequacies and more supremacy over the narrative character.
Human-like narrative identities are judged much more harshly than supernatural narrative identities. More so than the omniscient appearance of the supernatural narrators, but also due to the innate unreliability of humans; humans are inherently fallible (Yacobi, 2001). With this in mind, it is no wonder so many narrative characters are deemed unreliable. Readers want narrators to whom they can relate, but in order for this similarity to occur—this life-like portrayal of fictional characters—narrators must demonstrate the very real characteristic of human fallibility.
One of the most commonly labeled unreliable narrative identities are those of children (Spencer, 1992). Children are deemed unreliable sources of information because they are inhabitants of an adult world that is beyond their comprehension and therefore beyond their narrative abilities to understand and relate such a world to readers. This is a prime example of bias beliefs and cultural judgments. In a different time period or different culture, children would be seen as more reliable than their elders, simply because their purity and untainted views of the world. More so, the child is often used to represent the unseen or unspoken truth. These interpretive stereotypes all lend a hand in determining narrator (Un)reliability.
There is no separation of self and cultural norms. Each reader brings a variety of experiences and values to every text which he or she reads. These experiences skew the ultimately received meanings of such texts and cause one to pass judgments on characters based on how well those characters fit into the reader’s existing schemata. With each reader expecting different qualities and actions from a fictional narrator, narrator reliability is subjective and therefore a nonexistent notion. Zarweck claims that “Within a culture that doubts even the existence of an unambiguously perceptible reality, unreliable narration could be argued as the norm rather than the exception” (2001, p. 163). Unreliability is not an exception, it is reality. Readers can rely on the unreliability of narrators (Spencer, 1992). Fictional texts stand in a realm of their own, so attempting to “naturalize” these texts by placing judgments and labels on the narrators based on each readers’ schemas is a flawed and irrelevant task. No narrator is truly reliable, therefore all narrators are unreliable.
References
Spencer, W. B. (1992). Creating Unrelieable Narrators. Writer's Digest, 72(12), 22-22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/209436919?accountid=11072
Yacobi, T. (2001). Package Deals in Fictional Narrative: The Case of the Narrator’s (Un)Reliability. Narrative, 9(2), 223. Retrieved from http://proxy.geneseo.edu:2201/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA75833116&v=2.1&u=geneseo&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Zerweck, B. (2001). Historicizing unreliable narration: Unreliability and cultural discourse in narrative fiction. Style, 35(1), 151-178. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/231166818?accountid=11072