Before I begin this post, I want to preface that I enrolled in this class late and read up to the end of the first chapter (like the syllabus suggested). As a result, the thoughts I will be sharing are preliminary (until I finish the entire work by the Wednesday discussion). Upon reading, a number of ideas stood out to me (which I will elaborate throughout this post): the distinct writing style and static textual progression. These themes made me question the validity of the narration by the main character (MC). By validity, I mean whether the version of the story written is actually what transpired during, what seems to be, the MC’s childhood.
The best way I would describe the narration of this work is “descriptive yet unclear.” It is this quality that makes the narrator feel alive and thereby represent the human experience. Our thoughts (no matter how simple) make up who we are as people since they guide how we interact with the surrounding world. This is evidently observed in the case of MC where he tends to go on tangents, making multiple revelations before making a conclusion about the actual circumstances. Such is demonstrated when MC was explaining a time when he was in trouble (37-39). He clearly detailed his mother’s, father’s and grandmother’s actions while providing many options for why they occurred. In a way, these options make their intentions ambiguous, despite all the detail.
Combray is a retrospective, memory-based reflection hidden under the guise of a story written partially in the present tense. The uncertainty in the series of events in the memory is clearly demonstrated by the narrator talking in circles. The circular, almost unrelated themes, make it seem like the MC is trying to recollect the memory as he describes it. For example, MC attempts to deduce the time he wakes by describing the lack of light in the room (3) or by imagining how a traveller may act in such darkness (4). This leads to an almost stagnant story where the only timely advancement occurs when MC has decided he himself has “appropriately” recollected the scene.
Ultimately, the uncertainty in the work and the perceived temporal distortion has led me to believe that our MC is considered an “unreliable narrator.” His version of events, albeit interesting, is laced with so many questions to the point where MC even takes a step back and says that he “no longer recognized” the location the story transpired (9). This moment of doubt encouraged me to start thinking of the MC in such a way. As a result, I end my blog with some food for thought: do you think MC is an unreliable narrator and why? I am interested in hearing your thoughts!
Side note: I can’t wait to continue and really hope that my interpretation up to this point appropriately discusses the text haha!
3 replies on “Proust, can we really trust our MC?”
“In a way, these options make their intentions ambiguous, despite all the detail.” Zara, your observation is fascinating, and I must say it aligns with my own reading: sometimes, the more details the narrator gives us, the less concrete the situation seems. There’s a moment in that return to memory when everything seems to fade, and each new detail becomes part of the effort to recover it.
This was a really interesting read! I hadn’t fully thought about the narrator as unreliable, but your point about him talking in circles and questioning his own recollection really convinced me. However i also think that this unreliability can make the story feel more human in a sense.
Hi Zara! Thank you for your blog post. I 100% agree that the perfect way to describe the work is “descriptive yet unclear.” I had to keep rereading the same sentence because it felt like I’m solving a puzzle reading it. It felt overly wordy and descriptive however, I was not able to understand what the author was getting at.