In fiction, narrators are considered "reliable" when the information they share is truthful or credible. They are different from "unreliable" narrators, who, intentionally or not, mislead readers by communicating something other than the whole truth.

Question

Based on these descriptions, is Christopher from The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time the ultimate reliable narrator? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Christopher Boone, the protagonist and narrator of Mark Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, presents a unique case when it comes to the reliability of narrators. While he is undoubtedly trustworthy in his perspective as a character, whether he is considered an "ultimate reliable narrator" can be debated.

On one hand, Christopher is reliable in that he sincerely communicates his thoughts and feelings, providing a clear insight into his experiences as a teenager with autism. His logical approach to understanding the world, combined with his meticulous attention to detail, lends credibility to many of his observations. He accurately recounts events as he perceives them and doesn’t intentionally manipulate the truth or mislead the reader. Readers can trust his description of his immediate experiences and his straightforward recounting of events, which stem from his logical thought process.

On the other hand, Christopher’s condition affects how he interprets the world around him. His unique perspective means that he sometimes misses social cues or emotional nuances that others would pick up on, which can lead to misunderstandings. For instance, his interactions with others may lack the emotional depth that readers might expect or recognize, potentially skewing his comprehension of certain situations. Furthermore, he occasionally acknowledges his own limitations, such as when he struggles to understand elaborate or abstract concepts, which could leave readers questioning the completeness of his narrative.

Ultimately, while Christopher is a largely reliable narrator in terms of his intentions and observations, his perspective is limited by his cognitive differences. He may not provide the "whole truth" in the traditional sense because his understanding is shaped by his experiences and worldview. Thus, he can be seen as a reliable narrator within the confines of his own perspective but not necessarily as the "ultimate reliable narrator" if one considers reliability to encompass a more comprehensive understanding of truth that includes emotional and social dimensions.