Very unreliable narrators

[WillowRoseTile]

Does anyone else get really annoyed by unreliable narrators in books? I mean the ones where you the author shows you the inner thoughts of a character and their feelings but it turns out they were false?

I know it's just a silly thriller but I just read Never Lie by Freida Mcfadden and the plot twist which relied on unreliable narration made me feel like the author had just cheated.

I've not long started on The Watchmaker of Filigree Street and am questioning the reliability of the narrator.
No spoilers please, if anyone's read it.

I love unreliable narrators where the reader is given the clues to work out what's really happening, but what you've described does just sound like authorial cheating!

I like it when it's done well. Ishiguro for eg - with his books the narrator is unreliable in the way we all are unreliable narrators of our own stories - because we can't see the bigger picture and we can't see ourselves.

Woman in White, Wilkie Collins, took me over 30 years to work out that the narrator was a nasty piece of work. I'm not convinced Franklin Blake in the Moonstone wasn't a baddie either.

For some reason, haven't read it for years I am reminded of Stephen King's novel misery. The crazy lady that kidnaps him wants him to bring her favourite character back to life but when he cheats she gets ever madder. So he has to think of a plausible way for her to come back to life.

I once read a book by a German writer (sorry can't remember the name) where the unreliable narrator turned out to be having hallucinations. That made me cross as it felt like cheating.

But the Mcfadden book didn't even come up with a fig leaf of an excuse. Don't think I will read one again.

Yes, that's sounds annoying. It's jarring and puts up a barrier between you and the text - I find it difficult to engage once I don't trust the author to write with integrity.

But what you’re talking about is bad writing. When an unreliable narrator is well done, it enables all kinds of wonders. Agree with a pp about Ishiguro, and one of my all-time favourite black comedies, Good Behaviour by Molly Keane, where you get to enjoy the heroine’s delusions while reading the real story through them.

@HauntedBungalow The worst thing is that it happens right at the end. So you lose all belief in the story you've spent hours reading. I must be a minority though judging from the good reader reviews.

@PlasticOno Agreed its bad writing. I don't know what to call it other than an unreliable narrator. I enjoy a good thriller (and many other genres as well) but it seems that there's a trend to have a big twist at the end that no one could ever guess and that's done by effectively lieing to the reader.

Agatha Cristie also does the big twist but whilst she misdirects the reader she never writes in the first person and she doesn't lie so it's always possible to guess the twist.

OK actual unreliable narrators I haven't minded

Lolita, We need to talk about Kevin - I didn't enjoy either book but it was because of the gruelling subject matter.

Intriguingly I also read a non fiction book by a lady whose husband tried to murder her by tampering with a parachute. There were definitely a few inconsistencies between her account and the documentary I watched about the case. In particular I think she did on some level set about trying to help him in his first trial with her evidence and she really downplayed this in the book by omitting some of the things she had said on the witness stand. It was not a literary masterpiece but I found it very compelling reading. She had got about 90% of the way to understanding how abusive he had been but there were still elements of delusion in her account.

Never Lie is one of the worst books I've ever read, so much telling not showing. Not sure why the author is so popular.
I love an unreliable narrator when the writing is good.

@GalileoHumpkins yup. Couldn't get over the good reviews which is why I started my own thread on here to have a moan.

Didn't really object to the style, wasn't expecting anything fancy. It was the big reveal at the end.

I have to confess I bought two of them to read on holiday having once enjoyed the housemaid on an airflight. The other one was the The Teacher.

Not quite so bad but again a first person account of thoughts and feelings was given that was then utterly contradicted by the final twist at the end. Maybe I am too logical but this is so annoying.

Anyone got recommendations for thrillers that make sense?

I might read Misery again as I am emphathising with the crazy fan....

Dame Agatha Christie most certainly used the device and more than once; in fact arguably her 'masterpiece', The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, is an example. She was scrupulously fair [and very clever] with what the narrator stated.

Yes and that was in the first person. It was my first introduction to an unreliable narrator and my jaw dropped when I realised what was going on. I remember re-reading the whole book with that new information in mind to see how she'd done it.

My point was that Agatha did use narrators [first person] which had been denied in the post I quoted. And particularly in the book I quoted the narrator in question was definitely not 'unreliable'. What the narrator said was all true. 😀

@TellingBone I haven't read The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, (well I might have done as a child). It sounds good.

But a good unreliable narrator does tell the truth throughout. Just not all of the truth all of the time.

Agatha Christie was a fan of the unreliable narrator as others have mentioned in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and in Endless Night. Another author who uses it to great effect is John Fowles in The Collector. It's a very creepy book.

So what would people call a narrator who shares thoughts and feelings with the reader that they aren't having? Is there a phrase for this other than just being a book that isn't very good.

SPOILER ALERT
In Never Lie some chapters are told from the perspective of a young woman Tricia. She is very frightened to be stuck in a creepy house and at a certain point is looking for something to read to pass the time until they can get away. She then accidentally discovers a secret room full of tape recordings. However at the end of the book it turns out she's a psychopathic killer who planned to come to the house all along to search for a dead body and knows she won't be able to leave for several days (she has prebooked a snow plough) etc etc

I believe Agatha Christie, broadly speaking, did try to follow the fair play approach typical of the golden age. By this I mean the reader should have acces to enough information to be able to reach the same conclusion as the detective, so even an unreliable narrator needs to give enough information to be caught out. It's why her unreliable narrator books are so rewarding, as you then re-read and see all the clues were there.
In 1929 Ronald Knox even set out ten rules of detective fiction, that influenced a lot of the writers from that period and were intended to make sure the author played fair with the reader.

Do read Roger Ackroyd and Endless Night, although I fear by mentioning them on this thread we've all spoilt the twist.

Interestingly one of his rules is:

The criminal must be mentioned in the early part of the story, but must not be anyone whose thoughts the reader has been allowed to know.

I'd like a guarantee at the beginning of any further twisty thrillers I read

1. This book has not made use of AI
2. Any narrators sharing their thoughts and feelings will be truthful (omissions and self delusion and a touch of paranoia are permissible)
3. No narrators will turn out to be dreaming or hallucinating without being clearly signposted as doing so
4. No plot resolutions involving magic, time travel or the supernatural unless in genre.

I think it's an overused device. Especially if a writer does it more than once. Maybe twice is ok at a pinch.

Whenever I'm reading golden age crime I have to remind myself that these tropes are just being invented, rather than being overused.

It was used in M.J. Arlidge's Eye for An Eye and was annoying and unbelievable - and unnecessary.

I think it was cleverly used in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd from what I remember.

I just read Never Lie and worked out the unreliable narrator. Partly because the name Tricia seemed incongruous and I thought there must be a reason for it - and then put 2 and 2 together with the initials - but there are other clues. I agree though that some of the detail didn't make sense. I have been reading quite a few of the FM books and they are so formulaic but quite moreish, like junk food I suppose.

Interesting thread! Nellie in Wuthering Heights is an unreliable narrator, also the narrator in Rebecca. I think it’s quite clever but I am sure I have also read books where it is done badly.