unreliable narrators

[alice wellintown]

>
> In short, the extradiegetical narrator provides a reliable narrative of the
> unreliability of the main characters' perceptions and projections. If the
> narrator were unreliable, we would also have to question his depiction of
> those main characters and their unreliability. We might even ask ourselves
> whether Oedipa was a reliable witness, after all. But we don't ask that
> question, because we implicitly believe in the narrator's depiction of her
> unreliability. And we believe that because the narrator is reliable.

Right. The place where we disagree, as noted in a prior post, is that
I call Oedipa and Larry/Doc narrators. They are not merely characters
that a traditional reliable narrator has "privledge" to (Booth). When
a narrative, like Larry/Doc's so "tinges" the narrative proper, we can
not continue to discuss this as a tinge or even as privledge.

>
> Case closed? Not necessarily, but I find it crucial to uphold the distinction
> between what is told and who is telling it. A story of unreliability
> can easily be told by a reliable narrator, who remains distinct from the
> unreliable characters, even though his narrative is occasionally tinged by
> their perspective.