Literature & Fiction
The Narrator Who Lies to Your Face — and Why You Trust Them Anyway
The most powerful trick a novelist can pull is making you realize, halfway through, that you've been loyally following someone who has been deceiving you all along.
The Idea
An unreliable narrator isn't simply a liar. That's the common misreading — that unreliability is a gimmick, a twist, a trapdoor. The more precise and interesting truth is that every narrator is unreliable in some way, because narration is perception, and perception is always partial, motivated, and warped by self-interest. What makes certain narrators memorably unreliable is that the gap between what they tell you and what is actually happening becomes the real story. There are broadly two kinds. The first is the self-deceiver — the narrator who genuinely believes their own version of events but is clearly wrong. Stevens in Kazuo Ishiguro's 'The Remains of the Day' is the canonical example: a butler so committed to his own dignity that he cannot admit, even to himself, that he wasted his life serving a fascist sympathiser and walked away from the only person who ever loved him. He never lies to you directly. He simply cannot see what you can see. The second kind is more predatory — the narrator who knows they are shaping your perception and does so deliberately. Humbert Humbert in Nabokov's 'Lolita' is the extreme case: a prose stylist of devastating elegance who is also a monster, using beautiful sentences to seduce the reader into complicity before Nabokov quietly pulls the rug out. What both types expose is something true about all human communication: we narrate ourselves constantly, and we are never the most objective witnesses to our own lives.
In the World
In 1962, when 'The Remains of the Day' was still decades away, an American writer named Ford Madox Ford was being reassessed for a novel he'd published forty years earlier — 'The Good Soldier' — with its now-famous opening line: 'This is the saddest story I have ever heard.' The narrator, John Dowell, is telling you about the collapse of two marriages, including his own. He speaks in the tone of a reasonable, measured man piecing together events he didn't fully understand as they unfolded. The genius is the slow drip of revelation. Ford arranges the telling so that details Dowell mentions casually — things he dismisses, glosses over, or reports without apparent feeling — gradually accumulate into a devastating portrait of his own wilful blindness. His wife had been conducting a nine-year affair under his nose. He either didn't know, or some part of him didn't want to know. The novel never resolves which, because Dowell himself cannot resolve it. Ford called his technique 'the progression d'effet' — a deliberate orchestration of how information lands, so that the reader is always slightly ahead of, or behind, the narrator at carefully chosen moments. What you're left with isn't just sympathy or contempt for Dowell, but a queasy sense that his failure of perception isn't unique to him. It's available to all of us, any time we tell ourselves a story about our own lives in which we are not the problem.
Why It Matters
Reading an unreliable narrator carefully is a form of practice — for something you already do every day but rarely examine. Every time you recount an argument, explain a decision, or describe someone who wronged you, you are narrating. And you are, almost certainly, unreliable in ways you cannot fully see. This isn't a pessimistic idea. It's a liberating one. The unreliable narrator in fiction creates a safe distance from which to observe the mechanics of self-justification, motivated reasoning, and the stories we construct to remain the hero of our own lives. Seeing it in Stevens or Dowell makes it easier — not comfortable, but easier — to ask: where am I doing this? There's also something worth holding about trust. We often talk about unreliable narrators as a literary device, but the deeper point is that trust in narrative is always conditional. The reader who finishes 'The Remains of the Day' feeling devastated does so not because they were tricked, but because they cared. Ishiguro let you trust Stevens enough to grieve for him. That's not a betrayal. That's literature doing its proper work.
A Question to Ponder
If someone you know well were to narrate the last significant conflict you had, what details would they include that you have quietly left out of your own version?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable