![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Reliability
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
musesfool recently posted on unreliable narrators and the tendency of readers to assume a narrator was reliable until shown otherwise.I seem to have accidentally created an example of the opposite. I thought I was writing in third person omniscient in the River/Simon story I posted earlier, but apparently, my narrators--both of them--are unreliable.
bonibaru told me that River was not a reliable narrator, which I suppose is true. She pointed out that the ability I gave River to telepathically manipulate others is one not supported by canon. I fully agree; I think that what's been shown is either clairvoyance/precognition or telepathic sensitivity, but there's been no sign that her abilities flow in the other direction, that she can put her thoughts in other people's heads. However, if they are showing us that she's telepathic in one direction, it might be reasonable to assume that she's telepathic in the other direction, so I felt I was extending canon rather than violating it when I came up with this concept. However, the fact that I'm extended past and not backed up by canon means that the reader can say, "No, I don't believe that. She only thinks she's doing that to Simon." And the reader can be as right as I am.I still felt that Simon wasn't covered by the unreliable narrator argument (unless you want to say the whole thing is from River's POV with telepathic sensitivity to Simon's thoughts, which is kind of a bizarrely funny thing. For some reason, I can see her having a hysterical fit of laughter over Simon's confession fantasy and scaring the fuck out of, say, Jayne) but
jcalanthe informed me that Simon was unreliable, too. I said, "You mean, his guilt could be obscuring his desire?" Jc answered more directly, "Come on, you've done something sometime you had been claiming you were gonna stop; we all have." Just this morning, actually; I had about six cookies when I'd recently declared a "one a day" rule. Okay. So I concede that Simon could be distorting too. Especially since what we hear from him isn't even the truth proper in the straightforward interpretation where the story is what it is--Simon's got dark glasses on to begin with.You know, I had a dream a few weeks ago about a pair of characters who shall remain nameless, and they were getting into some kind of questionable territory re: consent, and then finally one of them said no and the other kept going, and my brain rewound the whole scene like a videotape and lo and behold, at the beginning of the scene, they'd agreed on a safeword, which was not uttered at any later point in the scene. It's funny how the mind deals with consent,
jcalanthe said to me. I have to wonder if that's what people are doing, reinterpreting the noncon out of my story by declaring the narrators unreliable--but, I knew that I was extending canon, so their interpretation is, I suppose, as likely as my intended one. So yay for the intentional fallacy and people enjoying the story however they want to--although, personally, I think it's a little scarier that they could have a completely consensual relationship and both think they were taking advantage of each other, but that's just me...
no subject
Now you've got me all *thinking*. Darn your sinister attraction.
Re:
Heh, that's the second time in a week that my powers of persuasion have been referred to in that fashion. The other time was BN's roomie calling me a cruel temptress for beating his pinball score when he had an essay to write and couldn't retaliate.
That jcalanthe is so smart :-)
That he is. I just upgraded him from minion ("Aren't I a muse?" "Feel free to quote Dogma. 'I'm a muse, stupid!'") to my Secretary of Serendipity based on his perceptiveness. *G*
no subject
Also, what's my minion/muse status? HMmm?
Keep in mind I'm keeping a leash on Krycek until Friday.
Re:
Minon. But you can't be a secret agent if your a secretary of state you know.
Hah, count yourself lucky that the incest kids aren't dropping by. Mal: "Holy [string of Chinese]!" *covers eyes with arm and walks right back out of the infirmary*
My Interpretation
She's not manipulating Simon. She's watching him push the switches. She thinks she's doing it, since she's watching him flip the switch, watching him change his mind. He was going to say no, this time. Just like the rest of us, he has no willpower.
Re: My Interpretation
Re: My Interpretation
Maybe she has that power, but maybe she just wants to believe she does, so that she can take Simon's volition away, and therefore absolve him of any blame and any dirtyness their sin might have attached to it. This way, it's all on her, and he can continue to be her big brother shining with goodness and untouched by the darkness that seems to be taking her over.
Re: My Interpretation
Re: My Interpretation
Heh.
I don't think it's prudery, but I do think that in Simon and River's particular case, there are lots of circumstances that might make Simon give in even when he knows it's wrong, and not all of them have to do with desire.
If it's something River clearly wants, he may feel so guilty about her condition (and his inability to get to her before it was done to her, his at-the-time inability to heal her, etc.) that he will do *whatever* she wants. After all, he's only really hurting himself, right?
The mind is amazingly flexible when it comes to rationalizing away things we know are wrong, especially when someone we love is in pain or need.
I definitely think it's one possible reading of the story, and of his character. He may not even realize he's doing it, either, until afterward, which will make him feel even more guilty.
Lovely circle of angst, there. *g*
Re: My Interpretation
Okay, that I can grok. *nods thoughtfully* Simon's love and devotion for his sister is... pretty much his primary motivating force at this point.
Yeah. Cool. I suspect I'm not adding anything material to this conversation so I'll just wander off grinning merrily. I love reading what you guys have to say about this, the complexity and clarity of your arguments.
no subject