Strega recommended that book, and I really enjoyed it.

A steady diet of unreliable narrators can be exhausting-- well, a steady diet of anything can be exhausting, come to think of it. Anyhow, reason I brought it up is because in the current MS, a friend who read it, was concerned that my lead character/narrator did something early on in the book that really startled the hell out of her. And she worried that it would render the character unsympathetic and keep a reader from sticking with the story (also make it potentially unmarketable, which would keep an editor from wanting to take a chance on it). Frankly, I was surprised by her reaction-- I didn't think that what the character did was all that shocking by a lot of lit standards. It's just the way things are. Overall, my argument is if the story and the character are compelling enough, the reader will be patient enough to allow the story to unfold-- to see what would drive the character to behave in such a way.

I realized then, that even though my friend is incredibly well-read, across the literary spectrum, she's been writing romance for several years now and is maybe looking at this through the scrim of the genre rules that tend to govern romance. People reading romance don't want their characters doing disagreeable things-- it renders them unsympathetic. And while my friend realizes that what I'm writing isn't a romance, in any way, shape, or form, I think she's so mired in those kinds of reader reactions, she's sort of lost perspective.

Which is why I came to the buffistas.

How do you differentiate an unreliable narrator from one who's narrating from their own viewpoint? People see things differently - ever read Nabokov's White Fire? I read it for a course in college and I think that was the first time I came across something where you can see how a narrator is obviously interpreting things in how own, very special way. (For those who haven't read the book, it's a long poem with loooong involved footnotes.)

The narrator, unless he's omniscient, is going to have his own take on things. I can deal with misunderstanding, but my interpretation of the unreliable narrator is that the narrator is intentionally misleading the reader for whatever reason. That's the part I don't get into.

I can deal with misunderstanding, but my interpretation of the unreliable narrator is that the narrator is intentionally misleading the reader for whatever reason. That's the part I don't get into.

Well, there are shades. Some are like that, like Trilipush in The Egyptologist. Some are just oblivious, like Stevens in The Remains of the Day. Some, like Palahniuk's narrators, simply withhold information. Really, I can't think of unreliable narrators where the narrator is speaking directly to the reader and deliberately misleading them.

Nabokov's White Fire?

You mean Pale Fire, sir. And yes, Nabokov was the master of the unreliable narrator.

I don't know about the market, but when the story calls for it, I certainly don't mind my narrators to be confused, deluded, and capable of horrible decisions, Barb. Makes 'em a little more human.

I don't know about the market, but when the story calls for it, I certainly don't mind my narrators to be confused, deluded, and capable of horrible decisions, Barb. Makes 'em a little more human.

Agreed on the humanity, Cor-- and you know, sometimes, there's definitely such a thing as knowing too much about the market. I generally ignore it and write what I want, but it's when others come in with, "Well... do you think the market will accept this?" that I start with the self-doubts. And of course, had it slap me repeatedly across the back of the head with the last MS, which straddled genres a little too much for either genre to want to take a chance on it. (Romance and mainstream-- although I never called it a romance. If anything, I called it a love story. Big diff, IMO.)

This one, however, is pretty much fully mainstream and as such, I think I can take more character risks with it and not even come close to some of the risks other writers take.

when others come in with, "Well... do you think the market will accept this?" that I start with the self-doubts

I hear you, and you should know that my contribution is the worst-selling book in the mostly successful series to which it belongs, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Or a saltlick. But as a reader, I appreciate risks that the author is willing to take to make the story more interesting and resonant.

My problem is that it's generally not the general reader who isn't willing to take the risks, it's the publishing industry trying to second-guess what they will or won't accept.

But then when they do take a risk -- Outlander, The Eyre Affair, even Harry Potter -- people gobble them up. You'd think they'd learn...

Random question:

Since we're all Buffistas, I'm making an assumption about our reading tastes that maybe I shouldn't. Most people here do read a fairly wide range of books, right?

I was working at the bookstore last night, and mentioned the musical theater history book I'm reading to my manager. She gave me a rather funny look and then said, "You read such different books! I've heard you recommend to customers titles on everything from early Christianity to the Time Travelers Wife, then science books, and now musical theater?"

Doesn't everybody do this?