unreliable?

[Malignd]

<<Manipulation of the reader's experience of time by
means of disruption of narrative chronology, and the
possibility of representing the nature of
consciousness by describing events through the
awareness of one or more characters is a fundamental
characteristic of  Modern works of literature. ... 
So many Modern authors efface themselves and  renounce
the privilege of directintervention. They retreat to
the wings and let the characters work out
or not work out their fates on the stage. Sometimes
the the guy/gal standing  under the spot light is mad.
Or sick. Or he/she is a liar. Or brutally honest and
brutal to boot...a murderer ... a nihilist ...
confused. >>

I agree with most of what you posted, but this seems
to muddy the water somewhat.  

To renounce direct intervention ("Let us stop here,
Dear Reader, and note the events thusfar.") and to
allow the inner workings of characters, even mad
confused characters, to play out, isn't necessarily to
employ an unreliable narrator.  

The unreliable narrator simply works a vein of
separation between what the author knows, what he
allows his reader to know, and what he allows his
narrator to know.  The narrator's unreliability may
owe no psychological reason, only the author's
withholding of a vista afforded the reader.
 

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com