Literary term
Unreliable narrator
A narrator whose account cannot be fully trusted, through bias, ignorance or dishonesty.
What it means
An unreliable narrator is one whose account the reader cannot fully trust, because of bias, limited understanding, self-deception or deliberate dishonesty. The writer plants clues, such as gaps, contradictions or reactions from other characters. These let the reader sense that the true picture differs from the narrator's claims.
This gap between the narrator's version and reality creates irony, tension and interest. It invites the reader to read actively, weighing what is said against what is likely true. Unreliable narration is a sophisticated technique that rewards careful, questioning reading.
Why it matters in the exam
In Literature, recognising an unreliable narrator lets you discuss the gap between telling and truth. That is exactly the kind of subtle interpretation that earns high marks. Examiners reward you for spotting the clues that undermine the narrator and for explaining the ironic effect.
It also sharpens your reading generally, reminding you never to accept a first-person account as simple fact without questioning it.
Example
A narrator insists everyone else is to blame for a ruined friendship, yet lets slip his own cruel remarks. This quietly shows the reader that he cannot be trusted.
How to use it
Look for contradictions, gaps or reactions that clash with the narrator's version, then explain how they signal unreliability. Discuss the ironic gap between what the narrator says and what the reader concludes. Support your reading with evidence, not assertion.
Show exactly which clues make you doubt the narrator's account and read against it.
Knowing the term is the first step. In a paid one-hour trial, a teacher helps your child use "Unreliable narrator" accurately in an answer.