Memory and Reliability: Oryx and Crake

Memory and Reliability

What is a reliable narrator?

A reliable narrator is one which the reader can trust implicitly; usually this is because we have omnipresent knowledge of their thoughts and actions. We believe that what they say is true, because we have no reason to suspect that they are not being truthful.

However, more often than not, we must question a narrator's believability – in literature, we call this their reliability – for a variety of reasons, such as, but not limited to:

• a character who is projecting or presenting themselves to a presumed audience, so they are constructing an image that we are to consume
• a character whose memory is faulty; we presume that a narrator's ability to recall certain details are limited especially in the following cases:
  • those with brain injuries or other physical impairments to memory
  • children
  • elderly
  • those with dementia

• a character who is emotionally compromised. Obviously, characters have emotions. This is sort of obvious. However, a character that has experienced powerful or obsessive or traumatic emotion may sometimes be thought of as unreliable.
  • Trauma such as violence, war, abuse, etc
  • Heartbreak
  • Insanity
    • *** This type of theory of reliability should be used with caution. This does not mean that everyone who has experienced awful things will be a liar (think how unfair that would be to victims of sexual assault, refugees from war-torn countries, etc). It is useful to think about the character's POV and how they might have a narrow perception of events after their trauma; rather than alienate the character, it can help you think meaningfully about how the trauma has coloured their perspective.

Reliability is inherently tied to memory:

How effective is the character's memory?

How embellished is the memory?

How is the presentation of the memory constructed?

And how does that presentation change your perception of the character?

Why is it useful to ask this question (How reliable is the character?) ?

The question forces you to think outside of the text that you are presented; thinking of reliability can help you see more about the character's motivation and perception of self that you might otherwise miss.

Is Jimmy a reliable narrator?

Identify what parts of his memory show his (un)reliability.

(childhood memory – inherently faulty; memory loss (unexplained cause), ie he's losing his words; trauma of the apocalypse and its aftermath; obsession over Oryx and Crake – can't know if his interpretation is coloured by his love for them or not)

February 14^th, 2014

Jimmy Questions:

What do you think Jimmy's happiest memory is? With Oryx? With Crake?

(Besides the moment where he watches Oryx die and kills Crake), what is his saddest memory?

How is Jimmy both hero and anti-hero?

Are there heroes in this novel? Are there villains? Is there comedy?

Oryx Questions:

Why does he continually return to the memory of Oryx in the porn film? (Where does his obsession come from?)

Why does Jimmy ask Oryx so many questions about her life before she's with him and Crake?

How does Oryx participate in Jimmy's construction of her? Why does she present herself in certain ways?

What makes Oryx (un)reliable?

Craker Questions:

How do Jimmy's memories of the past influence the Crakers?

How are the Crakers both harmed and enhanced by his memories?

How are the Crakers defined by their own memories? (How do they take the information that Snowman gives them and reconstruct it to suit their own needs?)

The Crakers encounter three humans and tell Snowman about it. Atwood employs some literary strategies to give them reliability. Obviously, Snowman confirms that they exist, so we know that the Crakers were right. What exactly do they say that convinces Snowman, and how do they say it? (What does this say about the kind of characters whose testimony we take at face value?)