For me, the "editor's notes" were a way for the author to tell us that the narrator was unreliable. Many of them remarked that the narrator was mistaken about something.
I liked them. I like little details that keep up the pretense that the story is from a real manuscript or diary that someone discovered years later. "Name of the Rose" was like that.
That's a great point, Erin. I forgot that's how "Rose" worked, too.
I liked how it showed the narrator was infallible, as Ben notes, but if it weren't for the editor's notes, I might have wondered if the narrator was hallucinating the entire event. Instead we were to buy in to the unusual sci-fi element. Kind of neat, really. I am gullible to sci-fi, but I almost read along thinking, sure, if radio, if TV, why not this multimedia mirage?
For me, the "editor's notes" were a way for the author to tell us that the narrator was unreliable. Many of them remarked that the narrator was mistaken about something.
ReplyDeleteI liked them. I like little details that keep up the pretense that the story is from a real manuscript or diary that someone discovered years later. "Name of the Rose" was like that.
ReplyDeleteThat's a great point, Erin. I forgot that's how "Rose" worked, too.
ReplyDeleteI liked how it showed the narrator was infallible, as Ben notes, but if it weren't for the editor's notes, I might have wondered if the narrator was hallucinating the entire event. Instead we were to buy in to the unusual sci-fi element. Kind of neat, really. I am gullible to sci-fi, but I almost read along thinking, sure, if radio, if TV, why not this multimedia mirage?