In narrative analysis, how should readers approach an unreliable narrator?

• A. They should accept the narrator's account at face value.
• B. They should assess credibility, compare with other cues, and infer truth.
• C. They should ignore inconsistencies.
• D. They should rely solely on the narrator's explanations.

Answer: (B)

When a narrative features an unreliable narrator, readers must read actively and critically: assess the narrator’s credibility, compare what’s told with other cues in the text, and infer what is most likely true. The narrator’s perspective may be biased, incomplete, distorted by memory, or even deceptive, so taking every detail at face value isn’t reliable.

Look for clues that signal unreliability—contradictory details, shifts in tone, selective or omitted events, and moments where actions of other characters or outcomes don’t align with what’s described. Weigh these against other evidence in the story, such as the consequences of events or alternative viewpoints, to piece together a plausible version of what really happened.

This approach matters because it helps you uncover the hidden or true events behind the narrator’s account, rather than being misled by a biased voice. Accepting the narrator’s account without question, ignoring inconsistencies, or relying only on the narrator’s explanations would miss the essential insight that the narrator’s perspective is imperfect.