unreliable?

[David Morris]

--- "Burns, Erik" <Erik.Burns at dowjones.com> wrote:
> 
> jbor wrote:
> >A more valid question might be whether there are any truly "reliable
narrators" in Pynchon's work.
>
> sure, you can have unreliable storytellers within your narration --
Cherrycoke's a good example. But that's not narration per se -- and not
unreliable narration in the Kinbotian sense, since PF is in the first person
and *everything* has to be questioned because the initial filter is wholly
unreliable (which is the fun of it).

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=narrating
Main Entry: nar·rate  
Etymology: L narratus, past participle of narrare, from Latin gnarus knowing;
akin to Latin gnoscere, noscere to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1656
: to tell (as a story) in detail; also : to provide spoken commentary for (as a
movie or television show)

Just as Stencil presents his recreation of events, his histories essentially,
of events in his father's past for Stencil's own purposes (to continue to exist
himself), so Cherrycoke presents histories which he couldn't possible fully
know about, again for his own purposes (to continue on in the house being warm
and fed).  The stories are told in numerous voices, but since they "originate"
from Stencil and Cherrycoke, they are narratives by narrators.
 
> this catches my eye though:
> 
> 
> I guess I would start by saying as long as the narrative voice is not first
person, the assumption is of reliability (any examples where this not true?)

See above.  All points of veiw are unreliable.  Only an omnicient and anonymous
3rd party narrator might be said to be assumed reliable.  In some regards your
point has validity:  The more the narrator emerges as a "personality" the more
unreliable he *might* be.

David Morris

David Morris

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