: Is this an example of an unreliable narrator? I've been writing a mystery story recently, but I've run into a problem concerning the major plot twist, and was hoping for some guidance from more

Vote Up Vote Down

From this Wikipedia article

The Pícaro: a narrator who is characterized by exaggeration and bragging, the first example probably being the soldier in Plautus's comedy Miles Gloriosus. Examples in modern literature are Moll Flanders, Simplicius Simplicissimus or Felix Krull.
The Madman: a narrator who is either only experiencing mental defense mechanisms, such as (post-traumatic) dissociation and self-alienation, or severe mental illness, such as schizophrenia or paranoia. Examples include Franz Kafka's self-alienating narrators, Noir fiction and Hardboiled fiction's "tough" (cynical) narrator who unreliably describes his own emotions, Barbara Covett in Notes on a Scandal, and Patrick Bateman in American Psycho.
The Clown: a narrator who does not take narrations seriously and consciously plays with conventions, truth, and the reader's expectations. Examples of the type include Tristram Shandy and Bras Cubas.
The Naïf: a narrator whose perception is immature or limited through their point of view. Examples of naïves include Huckleberry Finn, Holden Caulfield and Forrest Gump.
The Liar: a mature narrator of sound cognition who deliberately misrepresents themselves, often to obscure their unseemly or discreditable past conduct. John Dowell in Ford Madox Ford's The Good Soldier exemplifies this kind of narrator.

I believe your narrator is The Naïf.
As for a plot twist being cheap or not: if everyone knows everything it is not a mystery novel. All of the stories in that genre are build on the fact that only the criminal knows exactly what happened (while still could be wrong about a great many other things).

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

An unreliable narrator is one who knows the truth but doesn't reveal it to the reader. It sounds like your story has a narrator who does not, in fact, know the truth.

Dr. Watson is sometimes seen as an unreliable narrator of the Sherlock Holmes stories, because he deliberately hides or shades details from his readers. He alludes to the case of "the lighthouse, the politician, and the trained cormorant," and "the Giant Rat of Sumatra," saying the world is not yet prepared for such stories, and doesn't go into detail about why he and Holmes have to leave London for a few weeks in the summer of 1895. He also flat-out says that he's changing names and details to protect the identities of some clients.

In your story, Person A can't lie to the reader if A doesn't actually know that B is the murderer. It's possible that A knows things which s/he is withholding from the reader, which C/D/E etc. would then bring up, but the reader would then have to see/hear that happening. If A is narrating, A has the "ability" to refuse to "tell" the reader what the other characters say. (If the story is just from A's POV but in third person, it's easier to determine if A is telling the truth or not.)

(0)