@BlushinBlaqBunny Mmmm, *no*, I didn't. Fine, you called her IGNORANT, which (while the two DO often have different nuances) is not much better than calling her stupid. If you wanna play semantics though, that's fine, you called her IGNORANT.
My point still stands though: it's ridiculous to hold her fully responsible as an unreliable narrator when she was deliberately kept from a lot of information regarding Ethans execution of her father. She's not some perfect heroine, as certain perspectives ARE distorted (like the ones concerning her father), but others are not (like the ones concerning Ethan). He didn't kill her dad for no reason (obviously), but he was vague and lacked the communication necessary to prevent this from spiraling. Some important events she's saying are true either aren't, or just didn't happen in the way she remembered it, however some important events did. Most people, who've read the original/spoilers, including myself, agree that she's not some fully objective force and that there ARE things she got wrong, but we also understand that there's nuance to it. Her narration is fractured (by both her own actions and by Ethan's), but it's not totally unrealiable.
At its bare bones, an unreliable narrator is someone who's rendition of events is to be taken with a minute or no accuracy, and that isn't the entire case here. It's like The Great Gatsby vs One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or some of H.P. Lovecraft's stories (like the one with the German captain. It's been awhile since I've read it so I can't remember the name)
My point still stands though: it's ridiculous to hold her fully responsible as an unreliable narrator when she was deliberately kept from a lot of information regarding Ethans execution of her father. She's not some perfect heroine, as certain perspectives ARE distorted (like the ones concerning her father), but others are not (like the ones concerning Ethan). He didn't kill her dad for no reason (obviously), but he was vague and lacked the communication necessary to prevent this from spiraling. Some important events she's saying are true either aren't, or just didn't happen in the way she remembered it, however some important events did. Most people, who've read the original/spoilers, including myself, agree that she's not some fully objective force and that there ARE things she got wrong, but we also understand that there's nuance to it. Her narration is fractured (by both her own actions and by Ethan's), but it's not totally unrealiable.
At its bare bones, an unreliable narrator is someone who's rendition of events is to be taken with a minute or no accuracy, and that isn't the entire case here. It's like The Great Gatsby vs One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or some of H.P. Lovecraft's stories (like the one with the German captain. It's been awhile since I've read it so I can't remember the name)