Unreliable Narrators:
A piece on honesty, politics, and Daphne du Maurier.
By Bocha Blue,
The girl stood in the center of the hallway, a stream of black hair falling in and around her eyes, down her back, an ebony silken coat obscuring her from the chaos of the world around her.
The clock ticked unendingly behind her. The winding staircase that led up to her bedroom seemed to whisper to her, and what it said was terrifying.
She gazed with fearful almond-shaped eyes out the window, to the roaring surf of the ocean below.
So many things fall into the sea. If one were to plunge downward to the bottom of its universe, one might discover another world entirely, filled with the leftovers of all that had fallen into its murky depths and made the very bottom their new home.
Would she soon be one of those things?
___________________________________________________________________________
Hello friends and readers. The paragraph below is part of a non-existent book. But I bet you can tell from the overwrought language what SORT of book it might be,
Gothic
Gothic novels are a mystery unto themselves. They usually have the same format. Scared (and beautiful) heroine. Creepy things that go bump in the night. Clocks, winding spiral staircases, wind-swept cottages, and artificially inflated fear.
Some books do it better than others.
For example, I just finished my umpteenth reading of Daphne De Maurier’s “My Cousin Rachel.” It ranks among my favorite books.
For those who have had the pleasure of reading this book, you may get what makes it so addictive. Those who have not read it should read it. But I must want of spoilers:
What do YOU think? Was Rachel Guilty? Did she set out to poison Young Philip and her own husband?
Or is it a terrible mistake?! Was Rachel a good and honorable woman, who was a bird at the mercy of some VERY misogynistic hungry primates?
We will never know. Supposedly, Du Maurier herself did not even know. In an interview, she said she wrote the novel from Phillip’s perspective and that she herself was not sure of Rachel’s guilt or innocence. This subject is debated to this day.
My own opinion? I think Rachel was innocent. I think Phillip was an unreliable narrator.
You may have met an unreliable narrator or two in your own life as they are not confined to novels. These folks can appear warm and sympathetic. But alas! Their perspective can be — let’s say it — a bit warped, a bit misleading, and fuzzy on the details. This is because they are unreliable narrators.
Never trust an unreliable narrator, my friends.
Unreliable narrators pop up everywhere. They can be your friends, family members, neighbors. There is no question that finding oneself in the path of an unreliable narrator can blur things a bit, and like a particular frothy alcoholic concoction, situations become fuzzy and blurred, , senses become heightened, because one can never be sure if the unreliable narrator is misleading you.
Unreliable narrators can also be found in politics.
Here, we are lucky. You see, we have one Bigly unreliable narrator, the MOST unreliable of all -- Donald John Trump.
There is no question that if Donald Trump were a fictional character telling his perspective, he’d be an unreliable narrator. Were he to cast himself in a gothic novel, he’d most likely want to be the hero (if there is one) who comes in and -- presto! - Saves the day!
Unfortunately, that just might be how THIS particular unreliable narrator sees himself. We though we see him more clearly. We would cast him as the VILLAIN, the Gothic novel, in, the one who brings disgrace and ultimate harm.
Therefore, I do hope that as the midterms edge closer, we can think a bit about BRANDING.
Donald Trump has lied about so many things, been SUCH an unreliable narrator, that I fear some have become desensitized. Likewise, our news cycles move SO quickly that it often feels like there isn’t time to highlight all of this unreliable narrator’s unreliable statements—and secrets.
But using this term -- “Donald Trump is an unreliable narrator”-- brings it all together into one neat package, bringing all his sins into one matter-of-fact sentence that drives home the point that one cannot trust a word he says.
Some say Donald isn’t on the ballot in November -- that is wrong.
The whole damn midterms will be about this cruel and unusual stranger. His very unreliable BEING will be on the ballot -- for on ballots everywhere will be his enablers, the members of his not-so-secret club. In this club, only unreliable and untrustworthy narrators get the golden ticket.
By virtue of being BRANDED an unreliable narrator, the American public knows and will know, not to take anything he says at face value. He twists the truth. Unreliable narrators always do.
We are fortunate in a way. In literature, in popular culture, unreliable narrators are often VERY VERY good at hiding the fact that they are, in fact, unreliable narrators.
But here in reality, stands Donald Trump. Donnie is NOT good at wearing ANY appearance of honor or trustworthiness. Anybody who is looking can spot the foreshadowing that constantly hangs over him.
The foreshadowing ALWAYS predicts -- doom.
So while the words may pour from him, and while he may attempt some oozy charm, his dimwitted unreliability always shines brightly. There are virtually no plot twists with Donnie that we cannot figure out in advance.
As the American people get ready to vote, Republicans on ballots will be in the unenviable position of having to defend their unreliable narrator -- by convincing voters that he is actually a RELIABLE narrator.
This, of course, will highlight how unreliable these Republicans are.
Being clear-eyed and sharp means pointing out, in painstaking detail, the lies, the clues, and the central theme of Donald’s insincerity and unreliability.
That will be easy to do because, for THIS narrator -- this cold, furious champion of criminals, this furious avenger of destruction and of insurrection -- his unreliable narration is his calling card and ultimately his downfall, as well as the downfall of ALL the unreliable narrators who nip at his heels.
Remember in Gothic Novels -- indeed, in MOST literature in general -- there is always the denouement..
There is ALWAYS an aha! moment where the unreliable narrator is revealed -- REVEALED TO be a liar, someone whose very words slip away like water because the words that they utter are empty, so it stands to reason they dissolve almost immediately, long after pouring forth from the unreliable narrator’s lips mouth.
Let us make it our MISSION to boot out ALL the unreliable narrators. In books it’s often fun to have an unreliable narrator or two -- but in reality? Not so much.
www.palmerreport.com
PS: Please remark on this article — I’d like to know your thoughts on a few things — Did you read the book around whom this article is constructed? Did you think Rachel was innocent? Guilty>? Unsure?
And do you agree — do you agree that exposing Donald Trump as the ULTIMATE unreliable narrator is the most important political thing we can do?
That story reminds a bit of "The Turn Of The Shrew". Du Maurier, such vocabulary! I still remember that famous first line, "Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderley again." "Rebecca", "The Birds", well turned out by Hitchcock.
Joan Fontaine the glacial blonde, Laurence Olivier (gasp gasp gasp), Dame Judith Anderson in the first, nothing could beat that black and white, that atmosphere, that ending with Miss Danvers standing, eyes aghast, in the midst of the burning house.
Tippi Hedren another glacial blonde, Rod Taylor (gasp gasp gasp a-new), Suzanne Pleshette in the second, on a lighter note, in the original, it was a man and his family. I still laugh when Tippi drives and, at each turn, her parakeets lean into the curves.
I apologise, I went away from the subject. Just a way to discharge, I fancy. Yesterday, I buried one of my dogs, whom I found in his dog house, sleeping forever, he lost his battle to cancer. Writing helps with the grief.