This book got me thinking a lot about something I personally haven't seen often: unreliable narrators. When we're viewing the world of a book through a close third person or a first person point of view, we automatically rely on our narrator/point of view to be telling us things...well, accurately. Sights, smells, events. We assume what we're told is truth.BROTHER/SISTER switches back and forth between two first person POVs: Will and his sister, Asheley. (Yes, spelled just like that.) As the story progresses and events are recounted as though the siblings are each telling their story to someone, you gradually began to notice things. Little things. Little inconsistencies between Will's story and Asheley's. There are points where these inconsistencies make you pause and wonder, Okay, wait, what did happen? This is part of why I found this book so glorious, and it's only because of the bouncing back-and-forth POV that we're able to locate these inconsistencies and try to figure them out.
This is a tactic that should be employed very carefully. If I were reading, say, a story told from the point of view of a pathelogical liar, it would be harder to take in. What is truth? What is a fabrication of her brain? While this would be a fascinating story, I would find it hard to relate to the narrator because how do I know these events for which I'm sympathetic for her are real and not a figment of her imagination?
For the most part, unreliable narrators would take me out of a story. I have to trust that whoever's eyes I'm witnessing the story through are telling me the truth. Or else...what is the point?
But in the case of BROTHER/SISTER, it truly does make the entire book what it is. Every little unreliable thing out of their mouths is intentional.
What say you, YAtopians? Ever read a book where the narrator wasn't always truthful? Had a skewed way of seeing things? Anyone else read this uh-may-zing book and want to squeel about it with me?
I haven't read a book like that, but I watched a horror movie with Emily Browning in it. It's called The Uninvited. Without spoiling anything, by the end was I so gobsmacked by the ending and what turned out to be true, I wasn't exactly sure what had actually happened.
ReplyDeleteI love unreliable narrators. For instance, Montressor in Poe's 'The Cask of Amontillado' tells everything in such a twisted way that you can never be sure exactly what Fortunato did, and if Montressor had a real reason for killing him.
ReplyDeleteIn my story my narrator becomes somewhat unreliable because some people tamper with her memory. So she starts telling the readers that she doesn't know stuff that she did know before. For instance, when she goes into the room when they tamper with her memory she's underground somewhere, but during the process they moved her to a completely different building. So when she leaves the building she thinks she's always been there and she doesn't remember that the underground place even exists, much less that she was just there.
Ellen, YES. I loved that movie!
ReplyDeleteElanor, that sounds awesome! Those kinds of twists are great when they're well done.
I read a book called "Then" and the narrator has amnesia. Everyone around her knows what's happened, but she cannot, and later will not, remember. It made the story so engaging because I *had* to know.
ReplyDeleteThis book sounds interesting! I'll have to check it out.
ReplyDeleteAll narrators are unreliable to a certain degree. They all see the word in different ways--that is part of their voice. No well developed narrator is ever completely honest and clear with the reader. Those things left unsaid or said in a slighted way are what makes novels intriguing!
I like that element. It's like balancing on uneven ground, but more fun and less dangerous... :)
ReplyDeleteI loved "Odd Thomas" (by Dean Koontz). He tells you right up front that he's going to lie to in this book. He then does it so well, that when the truth was revealed, well... I can't say what happened. But it was so powerful that I've only been able to read that book once. (I've read the others in the series multiple times.)
ReplyDeleteOh, very interesting. I can't think of an example right now, but I also enjoyed reading other people's comments. An unreliable narrator is fun when well done. Otherwise, one may feel cheated at the end.
ReplyDeleteI've never read that book, but now I want to. It sounds amazing.
ReplyDeleteHOUSE OF LEAVES by Mark Danielewski has an unreliable narrator who is actually piecing together a book by another man, about a film, which would be okay except that the man is blind. Unreliability is a pretty big part of the book
Just read blurb on this. Why have I not heard of this before? Holy crud. Holy holy crud.
ReplyDeleteI got an ARC of this recently - glad to hear your review of this!
ReplyDeleteI LOVED this book. I had to read the last line of it at least 3 times!! I need someone to discuss it with!!!
ReplyDelete