The Unreliability of Narrators in 'The Great Gatsby' and 'Gulliver's Travels'

In literature, the term, ‘unreliable narrator’ can refer to someone who cannot be fully trusted, or believed. There can be a number of reasons for not trusting the narrator. They could be suffering from personal anguish, mental problems, or they might have a personal bias against another character which may be unfair, have a hidden agenda or, even, be naïve or lack intelligence. Unreliability should not be confused with irony, sarcasm or satire, where although the narrators cannot be taken literally, it does not mean that they are trying to deceive, either accidentally or on purpose. In my essay, I will examine the unreliable nature of Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby and Lemuel Gulliver in Gulliver’s Travels.
In the case of Nick, his unreliability starts around chapter 7 of the novel. Before this he seems to be a fairly reliable narrator, claiming to tell events as honestly as he can. Nick seems to be following Gatsby’s actions and it seems that the more bizarre Gatsby’s actions become, the more Nick becomes unreliable. By chapter 7, it is obvious that Nick’s mind is not entirely focused on what is going on around him. There is a large confrontation between Gatsby and Tom which Nick mainly gives a commentary of rather than giving his opinions, which he usually does.
He does not respond to when he is asked a question by Nick:
“‘Want any of this stuff? Jordan? Nick?’
I didn’t answer.
‘Nick?’ He asked again
‘What?’”
It is obvious that his mind is on other things at that moment, mainly Gatsby’s and Daisy’s affair. After the argument between Gatsby and Tom, Nick mentions that the afternoon “slipped away”. After such a confrontation it is unlikely that the afternoon would pass without any incident worth mentioning. Nick has his mind on the argument that has just happened and does not commentate accurately on the time shortly after that accurately. Another argument to suggest that he is not fully aware of what events are happening around him comes next when he even mentions that he just remembered that that day was his birthday. “Thirty – The promise of a decade of loneliness, a thinning list of single men to know, a thinning brief-case of enthusiasm, thinning hair.” Also he does not like the idea of becoming older and it could be another negative effect on his mind which is making him unreliable as a narrator.
If becoming old is a problem for him and his mind is on other things at this point in the story, such as the argument between Nick and Gatsby then he would not be able to recall this time accurately. He does actually acknowledge the fact that his narrative may not be completely accurate, when, in chapter 7 Gatsby appears from behind a hedge to ask about whether it was him who had killed Wilson’s wife. This happened after the argument when Daisy was driving Gatsby’s car too fast.
“Gatsby stepped from between two bushes into the path. I must have felt pretty weird by that time, because I could think of nothing except the luminosity of his pink suit under the moon.”
Gatsby mentions the accident in a quite matter of fact way at first and it seems like he is not too concerned by it. Then he tells us that his reaction is because he “must have” felt weird, so he isn’t sure at all about how he really felt at that moment. For this reason, it is hard for Nick’s narrative to be taken as unbiased, as he is telling second hand information about an accident which Gatsby actually admits he will lie about in the future to save Daisy. The story of how Daisy knocked the girl down is actually Nick re-telling Gatsby’s story, so it cannot be guaranteed as accurate.
In Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travel’s, the protagonist and narrator is equally as unreliable, although it is in a different way to Nick in The Great Gatsby. Whereas Nick’s state of mind is what is stopping him from recounting an accurate story, it is Gulliver’s naivety and gullible nature which makes it difficult to take his stories at face value. He seems to take everything that he hears as truth although sometimes it does not make sense for him to do so.
In ‘A voyage to the country of the Houyhnhnms’, he discovers a race of people who are very similar to humans in appearance, but their nature is much less civilised. He learns from the ‘Houyhnhnms’ which are in essence, civilised horses that are the dominant race of the land, that these creatures are called ‘Yahoos’ and are terrible creatures that do have any purpose in life. Gulliver quickly gives his respect to the Houyhnhnms and they convince him to adopt their opinion of the Yahoos.
Although they are basically the same race as him, he develops a hate for them, which has a lot to do with the Houyhnhnms. Gulliver bows to the horses and even refers to the leader as his master. He tries to be more like the Houyhnhnms and by the time he gets back to his normal life at home he considers himself as better than humans because of the time he has spent away. “My wife and family received me with great surprise and joy […] I must freely confess, the sight of them filled me only with hatred, disgust and contempt; and the more, by reflecting on the near alliance I had to them.” (Page 219) He has an extremely weak mind when it comes to accepting other people’s opinions and seems extremely impressionable.
When Gulliver is recounting the events which happen to him, he is telling the truth as accurately as he can, but there is a feeling that he is unable to effectively interpret what he is seeing and experiencing and therefore the reader gets a blurred version of events. Another problem for him is that in the case of the Houyhnhnms he does not know the language so he attempts to learn it from listening to the horses. He does not know if what he is translating is anything like what is being said, but he expects the reader to believe him. For this reason also, he cannot be seen as completely accurate.
One similarity between The Great Gatsby and Gulliver’s Travels is that the protagonist is also the narrator. They expect the reader to take everything they say as the truth. However, in both these stories the narrators have a flaw. The difference being though, that Nick’s problem is more one of mental anguish. This prevents him from being able to give an accurate account of the events which happened to him. Apart from chapter 7, he seems to be a fairly reliable narrator. In Gulliver’s Travels, the narrator suffers from a flaw in his character which makes it difficult to accept his story as reliable. He is very gullible and he always seems to believe other people’s opinions as the truth. It is possible for the reader to see Gulliver as an open-minded character, but he is in fact very narrow minded, the main example of this being when he hates his wife, mainly because of what he has been told about a certain creature in another land. Both stories have an element of unreliability in them from the narrator’s point of view, but they have different reasons for their inability to accurately give an account of their experiences.

Reference:
“Unreliable Narrator” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 6 June 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator

Romeo and Juliet - Keywords

Death
“Well we were born to die” – Capulet. Act 3, Scene 4.
Death seems to be a recurring theme throughout the play and it seems to be a common occurrence. Most of the main characters in the play die. Romeo, Juliet, Paris, Mercutio and Tybalt are all central characters to the play, but end up dead before the end. It is Romeo’s love for Juliet that causes him to kill himself, and Juliet’s love for Romeo which causes her to kill herself.

Name
“‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy” – Juliet. Act 2, Scene 2.
The names of Capulet and Montague are mentioned a lot throughout the play. They are the names of the two main families from which Romeo and Juliet come. It is historical that the two families do not like each other and the tradition was carried on. When the play is set, the people of the two houses are only defending the two names because history says that they have to. It is also only the reputation of the two names disliking each other which is the problem which Romeo and Juliet have. Juliet acknowledges this when she says that the only problem is history, rather than a physical thing: “What’s Montague; It is nor hand nor foot, nor arm nor face, nor any other part belonging to a man. O be some other name.”

Reputation
“Two households both alike in dignity” - The Prologue
The houses of both Montague and Capulet feel that the names of their houses are something which has to be protected. They are always trying to uphold what they believe are the good names of their houses. The planned marriage of Juliet to Paris is also because of his reputation. He is related to the prince, so he has a good reputation, and is someone who can give the name of Capulet a better reputation.

Appearance
“Young men’s love then lies not truly with their hearts, but in their eyes” - Friar Laurence. Act 2, Scene 3
It should be noted the speed that Romeo and Juliet fall in love. It can be argued that it was something more than physical appearance which caused them to fall in love, but it cannot be much more. They know very little of each others personalities, which shows that physical appearance plays a major part in them being in love.

Goodfellas

“As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster”

Shot in typical slick Martin Scorsese fashion, “Goodfellas” is the true story of Mob figure Henry Hill in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, based on Nicholas Pileggi's book "Wiseguy".
The movie follows his turbulent life as he rises through the mob hierarchy. The story follows the typical lifestle of a gangster and those around him, in this case Jimmy Conway (Robert Di Niro) and Tommy Di Vito (Joe Pesci)
Henry struggles to juggle family life along with the demands of being a gangster. Scorsese gives a real feel for the glamorous and not-so-glamorous side of being in the mob.
Eventually it’s the greed of the characters and the determination to save their own skins which is their downfall.
Like any Scorsese film, this contains slick filming, editing, witty dialogue and a very captivating story. The acting from Ray Liotta (who plays the main character, Henry Hill) and Robert Di Niro shows the two to be right on their game with Di Niro giving the performance which many consider to be his finest in acting. However, the real star of the show comes in the shape of Joe Pesci who portrays Henry’s psychotic and unpredictable friend, Tommy.
Whenever Pesci is on the screen its impossible to not know he’s there and most of the time he’s incredibly funny although his change of moods can be quite disturbing. In one scene he shoots a barman dead who has the audacity to answer him back. The dark humour of the movie is evident in this scene, as Jimmy is very angry at Tommy, as he doesnt want to dig a hole for the grave that night. It’s no surprise that Pesci won an Oscar for Best Supporting Role for his acting in this film.
Eventually the inevitable happens and Hill's life starts to head downhill as the crimes get worse and he is dealing with drug addiction and paranoia after he had to raise money selling drugs following a stint in jail.
I wouldn’t recommend this movie to anyone who is disturbed by graphic, realistic violence and strong language. Although the violence may seem a little dated following the clever special effects of more modern movies, it doesnt make it any less believable. For anyone else, I would recommend this movie as one of my favourites of all time. Even if you are not a fan of the usual gangster/mafia story, there is still so much to love about this movie. Though it was made in 1990 it will undoubtedly become timeless and will go on to be mentioned as one of the greatest movies of all time for years to come.

Sweden and The Euro

For many years it has been argued around Europe and in Sweden about whether Sweden should join the European currency, “The Euro”.
Sweden is currently part of the European Union (EU) but it is not, however, part of the European Monetary Union (EMU)
There are currently 25 members of the EU and 12 of them are part of the EMU. Those who are not part of the EMU include the UK and Sweden.
Would it be a good idea for Sweden to join the EMU and embrace the Euro as its new currency?
In September 2003, Swedish citizens were given the chance to vote in a referendum to decide whether they would prefer to have the traditional Swedish Kronor replaced by the modern Euro currency.
They were given the choices of ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘Blank Vote’.
82.6% of the population who were eligible to vote did so. Of these, 2.1% handed in a blank vote, 42 % were in favour of the Euro, and 55.9 voted against it.
A popular opinion outside of Sweden was that people were not really voting about the currency as such, but voting about the economics, sovereignty and democracy of their country.
Another factor which surely influenced the voting behaviour was the murder of the Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, who was a strong supporter of Sweden joining the EMU and the face of the yes campaign in Sweden.


Reasons Sweden should be a part of the Euro
In his report 'to be or not to be in the Euro?', Lars Jonung stressed that the reasons that Sweden should become a part of the Euro is that competition, employment and economic growth would all rise as a result of the larger market that the Euro would provide. Competition is always good, especially for consumers, as more competition forces prices to be lowered and development of products to increase. For this, more jobs would be created and overall be better for the economy of Sweden.
He also mentions that the Euro is a good way of keeping the peace with other countries around Europe. Sweden could feel more connected to other countries around Europe and this could lead to better relationships with these countries. He mentions that a common identity is created amongst countries which share use of the Euro.
Trade involving Sweden would also increase, because businesses could make both long and short term investments because of the diminished risk, created by the stability of the Euro.
A huge benefit for the average everyday citizen is that travel becomes easier and cheaper around Europe and the world. Goods are easier to buy, it becomes much easier for consumers to compare prices and the Euro is a currency which is widely accepted around the world.

Reasons for Sweden not to be part the Euro
The main reason against Sweden not joining the Euro is that the European Monetary Union will have control over the decisions made concerning the banks and the monetary policy. The central bank of Sweden, the “Riksbank” currently has this control.
Lars Jonung wrote in his report that when the Swedes said no to the Euro, they chose to keep their currency “based on a floating exchange rate combined with inflation targeting by the Riksbank”.
This could be used as a strategy to support their export during difficult times, but it only provides a short period of safety, as these problems will arise in the long run anyway.
Another disadvantage which Jonung mentions is that Sweden will lose power because they will have to follow and respect the decisions and rules of the European Central Bank, instead of the Swedish Riksbank. However, with the introduction of the Euro, Sweden will gain power inside the European Union as it would become a more prominent member and have a more active role. He says that with the Euro, Sweden has the opportunity to “be able to influence policies to a larger extent as a member of the euro area than as an outsider”

There are lots of economic, political and social benefits for Sweden in joining the Euro, as I have already mentioned. The problem at the moment seems to be one of tradition, and the Swedes being too proud to change what they believe is their heritage. If Sweden were to join the Euro the people would see the benefits in only a short space of time and it would definitely be a change which would be for the better.


Adapted from a piece of work by Monique Rozeman

Cologne

During my stay in Holland I took a trip to the German city of Cologne. The travel time was a little over 2 hours and for the relatively short travel, the difference between the two countries. Though being two modern and cosmopolitan countries, the two still hold their own distinct identities. Each having their own way of life and being proud of their differences in food, culture, language, music and even beer.
On driving into Cologne from any direction, the first thing that anyone will see is the Cologne Cathedral, or "Kölner Dom" as it is known in German. Its quite a sight for any tourist and what really stands out is the sheer size of the structure. Not just the towers which stand at over 157 meters, but the width and bredth of the thing also.
Upon finding the hotel, which is by far the best hotel I have ever stayed in, it was time to explore. A stones throw from the hotel was the Hohenzollernbrück bridge, which we had to cross to reach the city centre. What really struck me in particular about this bridge was it's resemblance to the Tyne bridge in Newcastle. The main difference being that it is a hell of a lot bigger! Its about 3 Tyne bridges long, and 3 Tyne bridges wide. Now thats pretty big!!!!
A must in Cologne is to take one of the numerous tour boats which travel along the Rhine. This is a great way to see the city and find out things which you probably would never have known from the tour guide. It is a very pleasant experience to see most of the sights from a different angle. When on the boat, it sinks in that there is so much in Cologne to see and everything is so close to each other. Cologne is definitely a place that has more than just a famous fragrance (Eau de Cologne, which took its name from the city.)
Once in the city centre, I found that Cologne has most things that you would expect from a large European city, designer stores, cafes, bars, restaurants and a few art galleries. The old part of town is what was the most interesting though. From the outside, the old town doesnt look so big, but once you are in there, following the narrow cobbled streets it doesnt take long to realise that there is plenty to see and do here and the atmosphere was extremely pleasant and upbeat. There were a couple of decent sized market squares which were quite lively, even in the middle of the day, which looked like the place to go for a party once the sun goes to sleep.
From here, it was decided that a thing which had to be done was climbing the steps of the cathedral. Something which seems a good idea until you are about a quater of the way up. The narrow spiral staircase was busy from the bottom to the top and it seems to take a lifetime to reach the top. Every now and then, on the way up, it is possible to catch a glimpse of outside through one of the thin windows and really see how quickly you are climbing. Once you reach the top and manage to get past all of the tired and out of breath people the view is quite spectacular and you forget the journey you just took to get there. On a clear day you can see for miles and miles around the city and looking down at the people who look like ants down below is something which will be impossible to forget. You also have to think about the effort which went into designing and building something as huge and dramatic as this building (It was started in 1248 and wasnt completed until 1880.) In the night sky, with the spotlights shining up onto this cathedral, it looks like something from a horror movie, almost unreal. Still today, it is the second highest gothic structure in the world. Although I didnt see it myself, the cathedral holds the shrine which is thought to contain the bones of the three wise men. Im sure this would be quite a sight and probably quite a moving experience for people who are religious.
The bars I visited in Cologne I found to be of a good standard. All had a friendly atmosphere around them and none seemed to ever be quiet. Before visiting Cologne, I was warned by some German friends (and even someone who lives in Cologne) not to drink the Cologne beer, as its the worst in Germany, but I found nothing wrong with it. I think its something to try for yourself!
The natives of Cologne all seemed to be very friendly and helpful and this helped to create the friendly, feelgood feeling that is apparent all around the city.
Back across the bridge to the hotel, where we were treated more like royalty then just normal people in Cologne for a weekend. The facilities were second to none and there was nothing better than relaxing in the hotel jacuzzi after the exitement of a new city.
Two nights after arriving it was time to leave and I couldnt help but notice how fast the time had went by since I arrived. The thought in my head when I left was that I will definitely visit this place again and no doubt will discover one or two things I didnt find before.