Novel Does this sound stupid?

As Steerpike says, a first person narrator is telling the story from his or her point of view, and it is the story as that character wants the reader to see it. Untrustworhy is not necessarily a bad thing. But a reader understands (or should understand) that a first person narrative is inherently biased, in the same way a witness (and potential suspect) at a crime scene will tell the story in a light favorable to that person.

A third person narrative can also be biased if it too is closely tied to one character's perspective, but it doesn't have to be. It is more likely to be perceived as a true recording rather than a subjective account.

 

I understand the logic, if we were dealing with the real world in real time, where events and reactions are in a constant state of flux, or if the work is one of nonfiction, such as an autobiography, where the writer might easily sanitize unfavorable incidents. But it strikes me that in the telling of a fictional story, the reader is going to accept the story as it's presented, unless given a specific reason to do otherwise.

A first-person narrative can be damning of the character as easily as it can glorify him - "Double Indemnity" immediately jumps to mind (a film, yes, but for this purpose I think the point is just as valid). And as I said in my prior post, I think that when it comes to describing a character's emotional state, motives, objectives, etc, I would argue that first person is MORE reliable. Holden Caufield tells his own story, and it would likely be less reliable and certainly less impactful if told in the third person. If I recall correctly, all of C.P. Snow's "Strangers and Brothers" series is in the first person, and although part of the time he is narrating the story of others, he also is presenting his emotional reactions to events.

I would say that first person allows the writer to withhold a piece of information until later in the story (e.g. near the end) without it seeming like a cheesy device. Now, you might argue that such is an example of first person being less trustworthy, but I still think the reader will not regard it as so unless given a reason. Just my view.

 

Am I imagining things or is that the great example of an unreliable narrator that everyone usually throws around when talking about this sort of thing?

People lie all the time about themselves, right down to the question "how are you today?" that gets thrown about a dozen times a day. Maybe it's plot relevant to show they're lying, maybe it's irrelevant, maybe it's extremely important not to reveal a thing. First person CAN be deep and probing of an emotional state, but only from a certain angle. Some first person is deep inside the thoughts of a character and it's hard to escape being honest. Other times, it's reported back. Catcher in the Rye is told as if Holden is actually writing to us. Not thinking to us. Writing. And he makes a crapload of omissions and skims over his own feelings sometimes and hides behind others when he doesn't want to admit feeling one way or the other. The whole end of the book, as far as I remember, went by in a blur of things he didn't want to talk about so he found something else to write about instead.

Maybe it's just about how trusting you are. I mean, when I write third person and a lying character it's easy because no trust is put in them to tell you the truth. When it's a first person character it all comes down to how much you believed the original premise. If it's one that makes you instantly doubt the character's integrity, like claiming to die falling off a roof before going off to narrate the rest of the novel, then maybe you should be mistrustful.

 

The biased first person story that Will test the mettle of a writer is one in which the narrator is clearly pleading his or her case, but the reader is compelled to decide against the character, without making the character seem a buffoon. If you can pull that off, so the reader both respects the narrator and yet sides against him/her, you have a special mastery of first person that few can manage.

 

Melzaar, if you are judging the actual circumstances of his life, then, yes, I can see Caufield being considered unreliable. But the point of the book was not how good or bad his life actually was, but rather what his emotional reaction to it was.