[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 23 October 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

Maark, on 23 October 2015 - 04:31 PM, said:

End of Disc One, on 23 October 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

If we're going to talk about Malazan, I always roll my eyes whenever someone says something profound, leaving the other characters shaken to the core.

Witness.

Potsherds.

LOL, I think that potsherds is the official Malazan drinking game isn't it? You'd be hammered by Page 20.

[polishgenius]

Potsherds and hooded eyes.

[Macros]

Bald pates

[Fiddler Farstrider]

Detritus

[Maark Abbott]

You could make an epic Malaz quotes drinking game.

Every time Karsa says 'witness' you do a shot.
Every time Kallor is a dickhead you do a shot.
Every time a Malazan curses creatively you do a shot.
Every time Kruppe talks bollocks you do a shot.

[Keysi]

What I've been wondering, is there ever any easy way to tell the difference between a plot hole and/or a retcon and something that was deliberately put in by the author in the way of an unreliable narrator?


Particularly now that I'm making decent headway into malazan, i'm not well trained in literature enough to know when it's been deliiberte or not.

[Illuyankas]

For Malazan examples, a retcon would be changing Orfantal from female to male, a plot hole would be the otataral sword, and an unreliable narrator would be the saga of Torvald Nom being woefully told in a very inaccurate way.

[polishgenius]

I think it's very difficult to have an unreliable narrator when the narrative isn't in first person, except when the author has specifically framed it as something being told; a history or recounting or such.

GRRM pulls off the trick, mind- when you read Cercei's PoV in Feast for Crows its perspective on events and motivations is strikingly different from that which we've seen from everyone else, for example. But that only works because each chapter is strictly delineated as a PoV.

In SE there is some vague notion, I think, that the series is meant to be a historical narrative that won't be strictly accurate because histories never are, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't believe that was mostly just a handwave by the author to excuse some of the actual plotholes.


If it's a deliberate unreliable narrator, the narrative will usually clue you in in some way. It'd be pointless doing one of it didn't.

[Grief]

I think with unreliable narrators there needs to be some framework that suggest something is unreliable in a meaningful fashion. This can be other narrators that slightly contradict the account, or subtle inconsistencies or what have you. As Polish says, the narrative will usually clue you in somehow. If something is portrayed inconsistently but just seems meaningless I'll usually just assume the author made a mistake. Inconsistent but intruiging, I tend to err towards deliberate. Though sometimes it'll still be obvious that the author's just made a mistake, if the inconsistency doesn't make sense for that narrator or whatever. I think you just need to deal with it on a case by case basis.

The unreliable narrator is something I constantly see authors screw up, and it's a real gripe of mine. Some authors shoehorn in an unreliable narrator and draw attention to it, because they've just heard of frame narratives or whatever, but without any actual useful narrative purpose except for saying "this might not all be true, isn't that clever?". Just as bad -- in fact, probably worse -- are the authors that put in an unreliable narrators who hamfistedly draw attention to their unreliability and make their narrative purpose excruciatingly clear by saying "I'm an unreliable narrator, these things might not be true, in fact here's a alternative for you and the clever point I'm making is *this* in case you hadn't noticed like the idiot you are" (looking at you, Yann Martel. Nabokov too).

There's a fine line to walk with unreliable narrators. If they draw too much attention to their precise purpose of their unreliability, it seems heavy handed. If they make a point of being unreliable but it adds nothing to the narrative, it just seems pointless and conceited. Of course, I don't mind unreliable narrators who don't add anything by their unreliabiity, in cases where they don't emphasize that unreliability. I've nothing against novels written in a frame that technically makes the narrator unreliable, that aren't interested in using this unreliability... badly done unreliable narrators break my immersion in a novel like nothing else though.

[Grief]

polishgenius, on 16 November 2015 - 09:09 PM, said:

I think it's very difficult to have an unreliable narrator when the narrative isn't in first person, except when the author has specifically framed it as something being told; a history or recounting or such.

I think it's quite possible to manage it in limited third person narratives, just these don't seem hugely common compared to omniscient third person narratives. A lot of modernist work is technically in third person but still gives a sense of unreliable narration.

[Morgoth]

Nabokov is the absolute master of unreliable narrators. I will fight you, vengyboy.

[Macros]

Pale failed Viking strike!

[Abyss]

Keysi, on 16 November 2015 - 06:30 PM, said:

What I've been wondering, is there ever any easy way to tell the difference between a plot hole and/or a retcon and something that was deliberately put in by the author in the way of an unreliable narrator?
...

Not if the author is good at what they do.

AN unreliable narrator is just another narrative device in the writer's toolbox. Some use it well... Gene Wolfe and Ian Banks come to mind, ... some use it as a perspective tool... SE.... and some cant quite pull it off and it amounts to 'heehee i was lying to the reader the whole time i so clever'.... tho no examples of that jump to mind.

SE's use of it gets thrown back and forth here as either an excuse to handwave errors or a reflection of the reality of 3p narration being an inherently subjective thing that an anthorpologist of all people knows well... i suppose it comes down to how it affects your enjoyment of the books. Never bothered me with one glaring but ultimately minor exception in TOLL THE HOUNDS which i shant mention here (HE'S HOW OLD???????).

[worry]

They're not earth years.

[Macros]

Was bored at work last week and reread the harry potter books.
Not entirely sure why.

2 things that continued to bug me.

When there's a man hunt on for someone, why not just send them and owl, and track the owl, they seem to be able to find people anywhere.
Why is tye weasleys stuff all crap?? We're shown many times how easy it is to make stuff as good as new, molly and arthur as good magicians, their stuff falling apart is nonsensical

[Morgoth]

It's a fashion statement by the Weasleys. It is trendy in the wizarding world these days to be seen to live in squalor.

[stone monkey]

Morgoth, on 17 November 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

Nabokov is the absolute master of unreliable narrators. I will fight you, vengyboy.

This. Nabakov's unreliable narrators don't so much outright tell you they're lying, rather it's so obvious that they're such horrible, monstrous people that they must be lying: either completely self serving (Humbert in Lolita), or totally delusional (Kinbote in Pale Fire). I once met someone who felt sorry for Humbert, to which my reply was: "Don't.That's what he wants! He knew exactly what he was doing."

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 08 February 2016 - 09:13 PM

[Nevyn]

Macros, on 07 February 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Was bored at work last week and reread the harry potter books.
Not entirely sure why.

2 things that continued to bug me.

When there's a man hunt on for someone, why not just send them and owl, and track the owl, they seem to be able to find people anywhere.
Why is tye weasleys stuff all crap?? We're shown many times how easy it is to make stuff as good as new, molly and arthur as good magicians, their stuff falling apart is nonsensical

The entire harry potter series is just one long continuity error. Its rather remarkable that you could read it, be bugged by these two things, and not hundreds of other little things.

[Nevyn]

Abyss, on 17 November 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

SE's use of it gets thrown back and forth here as either an excuse to handwave errors or a reflection of the reality of 3p narration being an inherently subjective thing that an anthorpologist of all people knows well...

Or both ...

That could be the style he was generally going for that also made for a convenience that let him keep moving the story forward without sweating every last detail.

I mean, a lot of this is by design, but if he sweated continuity the way some other authors do, he'd still be writing book 4 or so ...

[Macros]

Nevyn, on 08 February 2016 - 09:17 PM, said:

Macros, on 07 February 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Was bored at work last week and reread the harry potter books.
Not entirely sure why.

2 things that continued to bug me.

When there's a man hunt on for someone, why not just send them and owl, and track the owl, they seem to be able to find people anywhere.
Why is tye weasleys stuff all crap?? We're shown many times how easy it is to make stuff as good as new, molly and arthur as good magicians, their stuff falling apart is nonsensical

The entire harry potter series is just one long continuity error. Its rather remarkable that you could read it, be bugged by these two things, and not hundreds of other little things.

Oh there's lots of idiocy to bug me, but those two were my constant wait a minute moments.
Like why they didn't just round up every eagle in middle earth and dive bomb mt doom with the ring.
Also, if I was voldemort or a death eater. ABRA KEDABRA would be the ONLY spell I would use in combat. Its basically unlockable.