The
answer to this question is based on an individual reader's opinion.It is possible for a reader
to believe and defend that the narrator's lack of trustworthiness actually decreases the
suspense in the story; however, I believe that most readers would support the idea that the
suspense is increased through our inability to trust the narrator.
The
narrator alerts readers in the very first paragraph that he is somebody that readers should not
openly trust.The narrator questions why we should think that he is crazy.He then tells us that
his mental disease gave him extra sharp senses that allowed him to hear things that mere normal
people can't hear.This is somewhat believable, but then the narrator tells readers what sorts of
things he was hearing.He was hearing things from heaven and hell.That should immediately make
all readers think the narrator is crazy and should not be trusted.This lack of trust in him and
knowledge that he is crazy enhances the suspense and tension of the story because while we know
that the narrator should not be trusted, that does not change the fact that he might not be
lying to readers.Just because a person isn't trustworthy doesn't mean they aren't telling the
truth from time to time.Additionally, because the narrator is crazy and untrustworthy means that
readers legitimately suspect that he is quite capable of just about any horrific bit of
work.
No comments:
Post a Comment