Does it even matter how a novel ends if the story was told by an unreliable narrator? Well that’s exactly what I think, I’m not going to really care or even believe the ending of a story if it was told by an unreliable narrator. For “Written on the Body” the narrator says himself/herself that he/she can not be trusted or may very well be biased. To me it just seems like a terrible waste of time if I’m reading a biased story, because it might as well be a diary instead of a novel. To me, reading a diary is a way to better understand a person and know more about the writer, even though they will be biased because it is from their perspective. But when you read a diary, that biasness is not as annoying as it is in “Written on the Body” because it may be bias, but the narrator really does not open up completely or give out any details (especially gender) about himself/herself.
So if you ask me if Louise was alive or was she an apparition at the end of the story, I’ll just have to say that it really does not matter and she can be either be dead or alive. The fact that the narrator had been in many different affairs before Louise, indicates that he/she is not a stable person. I don’t care if the narrator states that there is biological evidence that supports how long “love endorphins” last in the body when one is in a relationship, because I don’t trust him/her. That can very well be an excuse on his/her part to cover up how unstable he/she is with relationships. Again, the fact that the narrator is unreliable and bias, just makes me even wonder if he/she is telling the truth about that. The narrator doesn’t even tell me his/her gender, which is one of the most important qualities of a “human”, so that there loses my trust and their credibility. To me, the narrator may as well be insane, not only because he/she is unstable in relationships but is passionate about love, but also because it still bugs me that he/she does not tell me his/her gender. What is he/she trying to hide? If a person is going to open up and tell the story about themselves, why keep certain things secret? There is no point in saying anything at all if that is the case.
So even though Louise at the end of the story was left for the reader to decide if she was dead or alive, I believe that she might have been dead because how I stated earlier, the narrator just seemed insane to me. The image of Louise at the end can very well have been a figment of the narrator’s imagination, because I still question the narrator’s sanity and that will never change. Unless there is a sequel to “Written on the Body” and the narrator tells us more about what happened after that or if he/she finally decides to tell us what gender they are; Louise is dead to me…
------------------------
ReplyDelete“But when you read a diary, that biasness is not as annoying as it is in “Written on the Body” because it may be bias, but the narrator really does not open up completely or give out any details (especially gender) about himself/herself.”
I’m going to have to disagree on this point.
This is very much a diary written in the same way anyone else will a philosophical mind set would write. Anyone well versed in language tend to write for an audience and not necessarily themselves. Even Virginia Woolf has many person letters that were released to the public long after herself and her husbands death and they very much have the feel of being written for people rather than herself and the specified second party.
Everyone is bias. Everyone is dishonest, especially with themselves firstly. However, that’s very telling of the person and why it could be said they are telling the truth on many occasions. We know they’re a liar and trying to hide from the truth for their own sake, however they still tell us many details completely unrelated to a lie. Like when they talk about their ex in the greenhouse. The narrator may not have disclosed what the fight was about, but making their ex out to be a crazy bitch is a huge give-away, especially when our narrator is so keen on neglecting what the fight was about. We know from that alone that the narrator must have done something particularly dreadful. The narrator is highly reliable in a lot of ways, you just have to read closely and beyond the exact words to see that.
Also, the lack of revealed gender, even in a diary, is irrelevant. Their sex would not have changed the story and doesn’t make them any more of a liar. It just means the narrator didn’t think it mattered to mention it. If you’re looking at this from a diary perspective. If this is all internal thought, which it is, it’s all the more un-necessary because no one is going to think to themselves “I am a woman therefore-”, especially in this age.
I liked your blog but I felt different about some things that you mentioned, like when you wrote “To me, reading a diary is a way to better understand a person and know more about the writer, even though they will be biased because it is from their perspective. But when you read a diary, that biasness is not as annoying as it is in “Written on the Body” because it may be bias, but the narrator really does not open up completely or give out any details (especially gender) about him/her.” I actually really enjoyed the fact that the narrator didn’t open up completely, it gave a sense of mystery to the novel. I was constantly wondering what the gender of the narrator was and what s/he looked like. Initially, being a female I’m able to relate to female narrators or authors when they’re giving off different emotions, with written on the body, the narrator was anonymous so keeping in mind that the narrator COULD very well be a male, it was more of a challenge to try and relate with a male narrator, so it was an interesting novel to read for me, but regardless…good blog :)
ReplyDelete