This.
>>25016102John is a professional. Frogposters hang your heads in shame.
>>25016102TRVKE
>>25016102But why? An unreliable narrator might serve a narrative function in the metatext of the story. Foolish linear thinkers, upgrade to relational understanding.
>>25016102Um, could we get people who are flawless in their understanding of reality with perfect moralities like decent fucking people?
>>25016102>The author forces me to think about the story; I don't like that; I want bing bing wahoo loli cunny in the sewer coom coomThat opinion, and the author espousing it, are so...
>>25016114Would you go to an unreliable mechanic? An unreliable doctor? Didn’t think so.
>>25016145Art isn’t a utility you fucking bug.
>>25016145Because the story is about the narrator's unreliability. In the context of their story the distortions add changes that reflect on the nature of the narrator's experience, which add an additional commentary to the events that wouldn't otherwise exist. But that requires critical thinking to understand.
>>25016102Damn TDS has really fucked a lot of people in the head>Ermmmmm this isn't TDSYes it is. This guy is harping on this because he's obsessed with Trump calling everything Fake News, Republicans lying, the government lying, and Snopes fact-checking. Only some kind of uber-direction-brained retard would think like this. He can't even conceive that in real life people are not reliable narrators. Almost everyone lies or exaggerates when they tell a story, or they minimize shady and problematic things, sometimes even completely leaving them out. But even furthermore, they are people who are sociopaths and will just straight up lie to you. I don't understand this thinking at all. How can it not occur to you that someone telling a story might be lying? You quite literally encounter that any time you interact with someone who speaks with you.
>>25016160>mechanics aren't artistsBeing pretentious isn't intellectual you paeud
>>25016160Greeksisters...our response? Form isn't function....
>>25016114I think he's talking about when narrators don't serve the story by being unreliable. It's not tricking the audience or testing wits- it's just lying for cheap turns or to cover up mistakes. Especially if it's third person, everyone pretty well forgives first person narrators for not having things in order.
>>25016216>I think he's talking about when narrators don't serve the story by being unreliableName some examples. Your statement also literally makes no sense. People lie and exaggerate and hide facts when they tell stories. There doesn't need to be a justification. Sometimes people just do it.
>>25016203Machines aren't literature. Mechanics may employ some artistic technique (they are human), but engineering is much more a science than a art. To compare a mechanic to an author makes you a disingenuous faggot at best, but more likely, a retarded nigger.
itt: autists encountering a joke
>>25016350Very wrong
>>25016350>This nigger doesnt study math and art. Ngmi
>>25016114>>25016160>>25016176>>25016186>>25016261Tourist here. How do you identify an unreliable narrator? How does one convey what is reality in fiction? Does the narrator go “alright I was lying the whole last chapter” or it was all a dream bullshit? Does a second narrator come in and tell you the first guy was lying? When the narrator isn’t a character aren’t they supposed to just be facts? When the narrator is telling the first person beyond changing perspectives thus adding another narrator how else could you tell the first person account is a lie without them telling you? Like once the first person narrative is unreliable and I’m questioning reality or truth why wouldn’t the reader assume the actual truth is just another lie? What purpose would any of that serve? I can understand fiction being not real and a character being a liar or some kinda unreliable as a character trait for plot but what do you accomplish by lying directly to the reader? Also what are books or media where this is an example? Like Mr Robot? I’ve heard Lolita is an example of that but fuck if I’m gonna read that. House of leaves? How do you creatively tell your audience you have an unreliable narrator without some kinda coma dream, split personality, it’s a book in a book, kinda gimmicky feel?
>>25017520The same way you can tell someone is lying irlLying to the reader can serve a variety of purposes. It can add humor to the story when the narrator is obviously trying to gloss his idiocy or ugliness. It can function as a form of expressivism, i.e. saying how something feels rather than the objective truth. It can help is to learn more about the character himself and his he thinks. It can make the story more ambiguous in order to force the reader to participate more in interpretation
I want to write a western where the framing is the narrator spinning tall tales in a saloon, occasionally getting called on his bullshit, and ending in a shootout where everyone dies.
>>25016261>Sometimes people just do it.A narrator should not be held to the standards of a liar. I was raised in a house where lying is a great sin, so your perspective that it's just something that people do sounds, well insane isn't a strong enough word, we could use evil. If someone lies about something small, they will lie about anything. With that aside, a narrative should be held to a professional standard. They should guide you into themes or carry an interesting tone, develop characters and carve plots. Deceptions, all things aside, are just a waste of time.
>>25017524>The same way you can tell someone is lying irlI’m not playing poker and can tell the narrators voice is cracking or they’re sweating. How do you tell people are lying? How does a narrators convey feeling and objective truth separately? Would that just be stating feelings versus reality and not lying to the reader? How do you lie to the reader then tell the truth and have it be the truth?
>>25017533Start by trying to identify when you are lying.
>>25017533Spergy…
>>25017555Are you even trying? If the narrator goes>the sky was blue no actually redWhat point do I have even continue reading if every aspect of the story could be false? I’m reading fiction I know everything is fake but if I saw Star Wars and George Lucas occasionally showed up on screen to say “remember this is fiction but also from Vader’s point of view after being blinded by the dark side” or Luke looked into the camera and said “at least that’s how I remembered it” while winking I’d be pissed and wonder why I even bothered. Where do and how do I differentiate the narrator being unreliable from the author lying to my face?
>>25017564I have a story for you. I fucked your mother. She said it was better than your father. Just kidding but she still said it was good. Also my penis is exactly average at six inches and uncircumcised.Now the story is over. Do you believe my penis is six inches? Did you ever believe my penis was six inches after claiming I was joking the first time?
>>25017569You live in a fantasy world if you don't think you lie to yourself and if you can't identify to what degree you're lying you can't evaluate it in others either.This kind of clear distinction is only relevant in your fantasies. The sky can be blue and red at the same time. Vader can tell you a story about how he saved the galaxy from the tyrannical Jedi.
>>25016102>central weakness of the medium is that it weights “personality” 10x over reality and requires characters to be either logically consistent or crazy, when in reality men and women are a bundle of completely dissonant unreasoned opinions/motives and mostly driven by herd instinct and/or situational circumstance.>MAKE IT MORE LOGICAL!Trolling but if not retard moment.
>>25017520An unreliable narrator always clearly states he is one with zero ambiguity
>>25017533It's pretty easy to find inconsistency that is indicative of a liar if they talk long enough. Generally with an unreliable narrator you can get a good idea of what actually happened based on factors within the text or autism by the narrator
are you guys just pretending not to know it's a joke or are you actually autistic?
>>25017570I don't really think about it one way or the other. The important question here is, do you wash it?
>>25016102I hate ameritards so fucking much.
>>25016102>LITERALLYthis guy is a small cocked beta
>>25017569Precisely this. Entering a story is an agreement between author and reader that a truth is being told. Leave your Reddit antics at the door. Patrick Bateman killed all those people.
another pointless thread of people pretending to engage a topic that no one actually thought about for more than 2 minutes.
>>25017520>"I went to the clothing store at 4 PM and stayed there for two hours. Then I went to the gym at 4:15 PM."
