unreliable narrators

[Joseph Tracy]

On Dec 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, alice wellintown wrote:


>>
>> 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.
>
This just doesn't hold up.  I n this chapter for example the narrator  
follows Denis then Shasta and sees and observes things that Doc  
doesn't: "For Shasta this was often the best part of the day, busy  
with early deliveries, ...-still cool, smelling like the desert after  
rain, garden exotics, shadows everywhere to shelter in for  a bit  
before the day's empty sky asserted itself." p. 310

> 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.
>>