Trusting the narrator you do not believe > Likes and Comments

I am about a third into The Housemaid for a group read and I have been rereading Addicted at the same time, which was probably a mistake, because the two of them are doing opposite things to me. Zoe tells me something terrible about herself and I believe every word of it and I like her more afterwards. Millie tells me something and I am straight away checking it against the last thing she told me. Neither one of them has actually lied to me yet, so it is not that. I cannot work out whether it is the writing doing it or whether it is just that one woman is confessing and the other one is performing, and I can feel the difference without being able to put my finger on the sentence that causes it. Has anybody ever caught the sentence? I would really like to know what a narrator actually does in the first few pages that decides whether you are going to take her word for anything after that.

I think the best unreliable narrators don’t make you distrust them immediately. They make you trust them first. The doubt comes later—when one small detail doesn’t fit, and suddenly you start rereading everything you thought you understood. That moment of “wait… did I miss something?” is what makes the device so addictive.

And i want to say I love this comparison. The interesting thing is that an unreliable narrator doesn’t always have to lie—you just have to slowly realise that their version of the truth might not be the whole truth. That moment when you start questioning everything they’ve told you is addictive.

Mikiyas wrote: "And i want to say I love this comparison. The interesting thing is that an unreliable narrator doesn’t always have to lie—you just have to slowly realise that their version of the truth might not b..."

Mikiyas, that is closer to it than anything I had. They make you trust them first, and the doubt is the reader's own work later, which is why it sticks. And you are right that nobody has to lie, Millie has not told me one false thing and I still do not trust her, which means the problem is that she has not told me enough true ones. What is the one that did it to you, the narrator you trusted longest before the small detail gave them away?

Mikiyas wrote: "I think the best unreliable narrators don’t make you distrust them immediately. They make you trust them first. The doubt comes later—when one small detail doesn’t fit, and suddenly you start rerea..."

Mikiyas, the delayed doubt is what makes the device work for me too. If a story asks us to distrust the narrator from the first page, every detail becomes evidence too early; trust gives the later contradiction something real to break.

Vera wrote: "If a story asks us to distrust the narrator from the first page, every detail becomes evidence too early; trust gives the later contradiction something real to break."

Vera, “something real to break” is the phrase I was circling and never found. It also explains why the cheap version fails, if the narrator winks on page one the reader never puts any weight on the floor. Which narrator did it cleanest for you, where the trust was fully earned before the contradiction landed?

I’m unsure I’ve found an unreliable narrator yet.

Any good examples of these in thrillers?

Chris wrote: "I’m unsure I’ve found an unreliable narrator yet. Any good examples of these in thrillers?"
Sometimes I Lie by Alice Feeney is where I would start, the title tells you up front that she lies and she still gets you. The Silent Patient is the same trick done with silence instead of lying. Before I Go to Sleep gets there a third way, she has no memory so she is being lied to by herself as much as by anybody else. Feeney is the meanest of the three.