flerica answered: I’d like to read more about writing an unreliable or oblivious narrator!
There’s a number of categories for this one. I think of an unreliable narrator as one who misses stuff that’s going on externally (other people’s motives/actions) and an oblivious narrator as one who misses stuff that’s going on internally (their own motives/actions).
For unreliable narrator (external):
- they will ignore things that don’t fit into their view
- alternatively, they will have some way to fit the fact into their established theory
- The more attentive your character is, the more your character is going to need to have an established theory. Otherwise, they would become confused and figure out the real deal.
To make sure the audience still gets what’s going on, the things the character is glossing over or rationalizing away should appear in the narrative. They exist outside—or even independently—of the character’s POV.For oblivious narrator (internal):
- simple explanations for own motives (“It was on my way.”)
- lack of analysis over own reactions or emotions (“I’m pissed off!” with no figuring out why, or an entire scene of close physical contact without them wondering if this should be weird or unusual)
This one is tricky because the character’s lack of self-knowledge will transfer over to the audience. Specific areas of obliviousness are required. Making it too general of a thing would get annoying and confusing very quickly.
This is one of my favorite things in writing. The thing is, these days a tight limited 3rd person POV is fashionable, which is about a half-step away from 1st person. In either case, it’s effectively the POV character who is telling the story, and that means the narrator is just about BOUND to be unreliable. Because just like in real life, no character is flawless. They won’t know everything, understand everything they see, CARE about everything they see (even if they should), and never be mistaken.
(Sherlock comes close, though, sometimes, with observational skills and his refusal to theorize ahead of facts. The fun thing about writing him is that he’s often a reliable narrator—unless he’s deliberately lying—but he makes batshit decisions anyway.)
The oblivious narrator in particular is often tricky for me to write, because of how my brain ‘learns’ things about the story (interestingly, based on things he’s said, it sounds like Ben sometimes has the same problem—comforting to think I’m not alone!). I answer questions about my stories as I encounter them. I see a problem or conflict or something approaching in the plot or character, or sometimes somebody else asks me questions about the story, and I answer them. But the thing about an oblivious narrator is that if they’re good at it, as the writer I don’t see the conflict because the character is hiding it from themselves. So, I often encounter a point of crisis where the story turns on the character’s unseen motivations, and I’m left sitting there going, “Wait, WTF is happening?” Or worse, I haven’t even realized what I don’t realize, and I THINK I know what’s happening, and at some point the story just…stops and won’t go any further because I got it wrong.
This is one of the biggest things betas come in handy for, for me. Because one of the best ways to shake loose from this is to kick it around with a friend. Often, somewhere in that conversation I stumble onto the right thread.