After starting over my novel from scratch and jumping back into some serious plotting, it has recently occurred to me that an unreliable narrator would best fit my story (a historical thriller set in the late Victorian era).
The story is a first-person narrative told by an orphaned young woman in her mid to late teens. My goal is to present her to the reader as a sympathetic character utterly innocent of any foul play (accidents, theft, fire, etc.) until the climax when she is revealed to have played a hand in most or if not all of the sinister events of the story. Her motivations are money (in this case, her inheritance) and the contempt she has for her well-to-do cousin.
Excepting certain tropes of the Gothic genre, I am trying to work out the best way to avoid clichés and maintain suspense. I would really appreciate some advice on unreliable narrators and what pitfalls to watch out for.
Is your narrator going to be an outright liar, or a liar by omission?
1. Outright liars might invent whole passages that never occurred, such as a description of a night at the theatre when they were really murdering somebody in a dark alley. The truth will only be revealed at the end, usually by the narrator him/herself - I think this can result in quite a conversational feel between the narrator and the reader.
2. Liars by omission might say something like 'I arrived at the house at 5 o'clock. At seven o'clock, I washed my hands before going down for dinner'. There is no description of what they were getting up to in between, and the fact that they 'washed their hands' could be an indication of something rather sinister, veiled for the sake of the reader as an innocent pre-eating interest in hygiene.
If I'm remembering correctly, then the narrator in 'Roger Ackroyd' is the latter; you may want to read 'Lolita', if you haven't already, for an example of the former.It's never fully confirmed whether he makes up little details as he goes along, but there is a strong sense that he presents Lolita (I'm guessing you know the premise) as less resistant to his advances than she may really have been.
Your question also reminded me of 'Atonement'. I'm not sure whether Bryony counts as an unreliable narrator or not, but it's still an amazing example of hiding something from the reader until the end.
Hope I've helped a bit, and good luck!
Kate, thank you for the book suggestion. I've just added it to my wist list online. :)
Adrian, thank you for your comment. I understand how to use first-person narrators, but I'm seeking advice on what makes a good "unreliable narrator" and the kind of pitfalls I should avoid.
I use an omniscient narrator in my novel. The omniscient narrator has a full knowledge of the story's events and of the motives and unspoken thoughts of the various characters. He or she will also be capable of describing events happening simultaneously in different places—a capacity not normally available to the limited point of view of first‐person narratives.
The first‐person narrative, is a mode of storytelling in which the narrator appears as the ‘I’ recollecting his or her own part in the events related, either as a witness of the action or as an important participant in it. The term does not mean that the narrator speaks only in the first person. In discussions with other characters the third person will be used.
Some novels may switch from one narrator to another, allowing the reader to experience the thoughts and feelings of more than one character.
I hope that helps.
Good luck.