Literature, Language, and Life

Home » Uncategorized » Unreliable Narrator in relation to part 2

Unreliable Narrator in relation to part 2

After reading both parts, I have come to the realization that the narrator in part 1 was more unreliable than the narrator in  part 2. This is solely because the narrator in part 2 more sure of himself and who he is apart from Misra. Although he is more aware of himself as an individual, he does  show signs of unreliable narration.

“Unreliable narrators are invariably invented characters who are part of the stories they tell.

On page 247, Askar asked his uncle Hilaal about Misra and about her well being. When asked, Hilaal doesn’t seem to remember who he is. As Askar is reflecting on this, the narrator says “Askar wondered if, together with his intellectual sobriety, Hilaal had misplaced or been deprived of his memory too”. His use of the word “too” indicates that Askar had misplaced his memory of Misra as well.

“The point using an reliable narrator is indeed to reveal in an interesting way the gap between appearance and reality, and to show how human beings distort or conceal the latter.

Later, the narrator says that Hilaal had began to think about Misra’s “depressive seasonals”, but then he seems to be confused and says that it was in fact Askar that wasn’t sure about what was real or what was misplaced.

“If he had been reliable, the effect would, of course, have been incredibly boring.” 

If we had known what was real and what was unreliable, we wouldn’t have thought twice about the events that occurred.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: