I’m a great fan of the “unreliable narrator”. That’s the sort of story that’s told by someone who might have an impaired judgement, or who isn’t the most reliable of witnesses, or who might simply be a complete liar. Baron Munchausen would be the very definition of an unreliable narrator.
There’s also a kind of fiction where someone will ask five different people to describe what they’ve seen and all five people will give wildly differing stories, despite having been witnesses to the same event – not because they’re liars, but because they’ve had different impressions. Each one will tell the truth, but it’s the truth as they see it. The truth isn’t a fact. The truth can change.
It’s very possible that most people will consider me to be an unreliable narrator. This narrative is going to include a lot of anecdotal evidence and segues and footnotes, but they’re all going to be filtered through my perception of them. The accuracy may well turn out to be questionable. The other players in those events might dispute certain details. Some of the experiences I’m planning to describe are going to be high on emotional intensity and that’s also going to colour them. Some details are going to be excluded for the sake of brevity or simplicity, or just because I’ve forgotten them.
So… probably best to treat this book as a work of fiction that might occasionally include a few facts and become reliable.
No comments:
Post a Comment