Debate last week in my book club got heated over whether unreliable narrators are just lazy writing

Someone in my group claimed authors use unreliable narrators as a crutch to hide plot holes. I pushed back saying The Murder of Roger Ackroyd from 1926 proves it can be genius when done right. Has anyone else had this argument split their group down the middle?

3 comments

3 Comments

finley7771mo ago

Oh man, that debate hit my book club too. Some folks just can't stand not knowing what's real and what's not, they want the author to hold their hand. But look at The Girl on the Train or even Lolita, those books wouldn't work at all if the narrator was straight with you. I had to remind my group that real people lie to themselves all the time, so why shouldn't a narrator do the same? That shut down the "lazy writing" argument pretty fast because making a believable unreliable narrator takes real skill.

simonmoore1mo ago

Sixty percent of people in my life edit their own stories to make them look better... it's basically the same thing.

michael6931mo ago

yeah but this whole "unreliable narrator" thing gets treated like some deep philosophical insight and it's really not that complicated lol. people exaggerate their own stories all the time that's just how memory works. i wouldn't call it some masterful technique it's just how people talk. like you said 60% of people do it so why is it a big deal in books? seems like a lot of hand wringing over something pretty basic.