JOURNAL NO.11

The unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is one that is biased and concerned with him/herself. One that doesn't include or consider any perspective other than their own. An unreliable narrator cannot be trusted. They are ignorant, they are liars and they are selfish.
John, the narrator of the passage we had to read for this blogpost, is most obviously unreliable. The story he is telling is that of an unfaithful and manipulative wife. If I were to narrate a story about my unfaithful and manipulative husband, I can guarantee that I would be unreliable, or biased, too.
Since we're only reading about John's perspective on this subject, I can empathize with him considerably. Although his tone comes off as quite arrogant and bitter, I can understand his anger and frustration.
Who wouldn't be angry at a spouse who was controlling and constantly cheating? Who wouldn't be bitter after knowing their loved one cheated on them multiple times and didn't seem to care at all?
Since we only get a look into how John, the narrator, feels/thinks about all of this, we automatically sympathize with him.
I find something kind of comforting in truly understanding one person's thoughts and feelings, however, this passage causes me to want something more. I want to hear about Florence's thoughts. I want to her about Jimmy and Edward, and if they agreed with John about her cold heart.
The unreliable narrator causes a story to be one-sided and extremely simple. I don't have any problems with John as a narrator or a character, I just don't like the role of the unreliable narrator here.
I don't think that John comes off as mentally unstable in any way. It seems as though he is just an angry man that has dealt with a lot of bullshit. I mean, granted, when he says he would have given Florence and Edward money and allowed them to be together, he didn't seem to sane. But generally speaking, he seemed like a guy who was caught up with a girl and did his best to marry her. He then realized that she isn't someone who he should be married to. She isn't someone who should be married at all.
I don't know if I'm a good person to have discuss the difference between American and British mannerisms because my father is British. My aunt and uncle are British. At least 20 of my cousins are, too. I know them all extremely well and their mannerisms don't seem much different to me.
However, to get stereotypical, I really can picture John's voice in a British accent. His sarcastic and bitter tone almost fits the sound of that accent.
It is interesting, though, how he talks about Florence's aunts and her family's desires for her. He seems to find them strange and he doesn't understand. This is a good example of a difference in British and American culture, not so much mannerisms.
I don't really feel like anything in this passage relates to Paris as a city. The Ford Maddox Ford passage I had to read did, though.
Ford's personification of Paris makes me feel warm. I feel his love for the city and I think I can relate to that love deeply.
I wish I knew where the square is that he talks about in the very beginning of the passage. Personifying the city brings the city alive, as redundant as that sounds. She [Paris] is the city filled with cafes and cigarettes and artists and politicians and writers alike speak at different volumes. She is the city who has endured many invasions.
In my opinion, Ford Maddox Ford's "A Paris Letter" doesn't seem to have an unreliable narrator. It seems to have a very reliable one, actually. The narrator doesn't seem to be only concerned with himself. It's quite the opposite, in fact. The narrator seems to include all different information and descriptions that are open to interpretation. They don't emphasize one feeling or thought. It's all over the place.