Re: RARA-AVIS: The undependable narrator

From: Dave Zeltserman (
Date: 17 Aug 2006

To me it's simple, it it makes sense for the character to be unreliable (especially if it makes sense only within the irrational thought process of the character), then the unreliable character usually works. If it's just a ploy by the author, then the book usually ends up being pretty damn disappointing. I don't think anyone's ever done the delusional unreliable character better than Jim Thompson's Carl Bigelow from Savage Nights.


--- In, "Charlie Williams" <cs_will@...> wrote:
> --- In, Michael Robison
> <miker_zspider@> wrote:
> >
> > Charlie Williams wrote:
> >
> > Now, the question is: does he have a good excuse for
> > being unreliable? If he's mad or bad or delusional in
> > any way, that's OK.
> >
> > **************
> > Huh? What if he's just a liar, or egotistical and
> > trying to hide behavior he's not proud of?
> He's bad. It's OK.
> > If there's
> > any kind of rule-setting for when it's OK (which I
> > doubt) I'd say that them being mad or delusional
> > making it OK is way too arbitrary to carry much
> > credence.
> It works for me. But I take your point and maybe I won't try to
> my "rules" past the Noir Fiction Legislature Panel. Maybe.
> Charlie

RARA-AVIS home page:
  Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 17 Aug 2006 EDT