To me it's simple, it it makes sense for the character to be
unreliable (especially if it makes sense only within the
irrational thought process of the character), then the
unreliable character usually works. If it's just a ploy by
the author, then the book usually ends up being pretty damn
disappointing. I don't think anyone's ever done the
delusional unreliable character better than Jim Thompson's
Carl Bigelow from Savage Nights.
--Dave
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Williams"
<cs_will@...> wrote:
>
> --- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Michael Robison
> <miker_zspider@> wrote:
> >
> > Charlie Williams wrote:
> >
> > Now, the question is: does he have a good
excuse for
> > being unreliable? If he's mad or bad or
delusional in
> > any way, that's OK.
> >
> > **************
> > Huh? What if he's just a liar, or egotistical
and
> > trying to hide behavior he's not proud
of?
>
> He's bad. It's OK.
>
> > If there's
> > any kind of rule-setting for when it's OK
(which I
> > doubt) I'd say that them being mad or
delusional
> > making it OK is way too arbitrary to carry
much
> > credence.
>
> It works for me. But I take your point and maybe I
won't try to
get
> my "rules" past the Noir Fiction Legislature Panel.
Maybe.
>
> Charlie
>
> charliewilliams.net
>
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 17 Aug 2006 EDT