Parasites Blog 2: On truth.

In class last Friday we briefly touched on the idea that narrators are not necessarily trustworthy. Either by design or by the simple truth that all narration is bound to be biased as soon as it entered the narrators brain, we're always seeing a story presented to us. Sometimes the book is presented as a clearly biased work- first person narrative is obviously going to be a result of the created characters bias, with the authors bias on top of that. Third person similarly shows the authors influence. Autobiographical novels, even as non-fiction, are works of imagination and biased memory- no one can write a story of their life without consciously or unconsciously attempting to change or skew facts. A novel such as that, without bias, would simply be a long list of events and descriptions. Incredibly boring. Perhaps an accountant would read it, everyone else would no doubt rather read the latest Twilight novel.
So if all narration is biased, what, I wonder, is more offensive to us as readers? A clear bias or a hidden one? I'm inclined to say most people would prefer a direct and obvious bias, as the later makes us feel like the author is trying to pull something on us.

This is a blg in progress. Also, my O key is sticking.