Unreliable Child Narrators and the Limits of Innocence

I. Two Kinds of Not-Knowing

The unreliable narrator is usually discussed as a problem of concealment: a narrator who knows more than she tells, or who tells what she believes while the text arranges evidence against her. Child narrators complicate this taxonomy because they introduce a third condition, neither concealment nor delusion: a narrator who does not yet possess the interpretive frame required to understand what she is reporting, even as she reports it accurately. James Mulhern’s fiction — especially the novel Molly Bonamici, but also the child-Aiden sections of Give Them Unquiet Dreams — explores this third condition. His child and adolescent narrators are rarely naïve in the sentimental sense; they can be more perceptive, articulate, and emotionally guarded than the adults around them. What they lack is not perception but consequence: they see accurately and feel — or claim to feel — strangely little, and it is the gap between accurate seeing and absent feeling, rather than any failure of perception, that constitutes the unreliability this essay examines. Both novels are narrated from an adult retrospective vantage looking back at childhood, which means the “unreliability” can operate on two temporal tracks: what the child character did not understand in the moment, and what the adult narrator, looking back, does not fully explain.

II. Molly and the Toad: Affect Withheld as Narrative Style

Molly Bonamici opens with its title character, sixteen, retreating to the back steps after witnessing her father choke her mother in the kitchen. Within the space of a single page, Molly’s attention detaches from the domestic violence she has just witnessed and fixes instead on a sick toad: “I searched the backyard for several minutes until I found a large rock. I walked over to where the toad sat, lifted the lid of the trashcan until he fell onto the cement pad, where he continued to croak and shake. To put him out of his misery, I smashed the rock against him a few times and watched his guts smear across the concrete. Then I sat on the bottom step for at least twenty minutes.”¹ The prose registers no shock, interpretive frame, or causal link between the violence indoors and the violence Molly commits on the animal; the narration juxtaposes the two acts with similar flatness. This is one of the novel’s notable technical choices: rather than filtering the abuse scene through visible childhood trauma (crying, fear, a shaking hand), Mulhern displaces affect onto an ostensibly unrelated action and lets the reader make a connection. The killing of the toad may function as displaced violence, an assumption of the father’s power by proxy, but Molly’s narration offers no such gloss; she reports the act with the same declarative calm she uses to describe pouring a glass of orange juice a paragraph later, “I added some vodka from my stash hidden in the closet, and took a few sips.”¹

The novel names this flatness through another character rather than through Molly’s self-awareness: it is Aunt Bianca, not Molly, who diagnoses the problem. Watching Molly’s unmoved reaction to a chaotic kitchen accident, Bianca says, “The girl doesn’t seem human sometimes. It’s like she doesn’t feel things… Always so cool, so cold… It’s not normal. I tell you it ain’t right.”¹ Molly’s response is to turn the accusation into a joke — “I come from another galaxy. I am an alien… My people are planning an invasion” — delivered, the narration specifies, “completely straight-faced.”¹ The joke may illustrate the novel’s unreliability mechanism: Molly deflects an observation about her emotional detachment by performing a more extreme version of it, treating her alleged inhumanity as deadpan comedy rather than a claim to defend or deny. The reader is left to decide whether the joke is a child’s defense mechanism, evidence that Bianca is right, or both at once, while the retrospective adult narrator does not settle the question.

III. The Retrospective Frame: What the Adult Narrator Still Withholds

Both Molly Bonamici and Give Them Unquiet Dreams are narrated by adults recalling adolescence, and Mulhern uses small temporal markers to remind the reader that a gap exists between the experiencing child and the narrating adult, without collapsing that gap into full explanation. Molly’s opening chapter is dated with unusual precision for a first-person memory narrative — “I was sixteen, a senior in high school; the year was 1980”¹ — a specificity that signals documentary intent even as the content that follows (killing a toad, mixing a screwdriver alone in a dark bedroom) resists documentary neutrality. Later in the novel, discussing the discovery of a neighbor’s decomposed body, the adult narrator makes the retrospective frame explicit: “It wasn’t until many years later that I learned the source of the friction between the two of them, and when I did, I was the one who was shocked.”¹ This sentence is doing careful work: it confirms that the adult narrator possesses information the child character did not, which technically resolves one kind of unreliability (withheld information becomes, eventually, available information) — but it withholds that resolved information from the reader in the same breath, reporting only that a shock occurred, not what caused it. The adult narrator is thus unreliable in a second-order way distinct from the child’s flat affect: she curates her own retrospective disclosures, telling us that understanding eventually arrived while declining, at that exact narrative moment, to share it.

The same passage extends Molly’s affectless register into a meditation on the macabre that borders on clinical: describing public curiosity about a corpse, adult-narrator Molly writes, “I found it a strange paradox then, as I still do now, that most of us don’t want to think about death, our own mortality… Yet, when we hear about someone else’s death…”¹ The construction “then, as I still do now” collapses the distance between the sixteen-year-old and the narrating adult that the novel has otherwise been careful to maintain — suggesting that the coldness Aunt Bianca diagnosed in the child was never a phase Molly outgrew, but a durable feature of the consciousness narrating the entire book. This is a significant interpretive fork: readers who assumed Molly’s childhood detachment was trauma-response, likely to soften with age, are told directly that it did not soften. The unreliability is not a temporary distortion to be corrected by adult hindsight; it is the narrator’s permanent temperament, present in both the remembered child and the remembering adult.

IV. Aiden and the Ambiguity of the Gift

Give Them Unquiet Dreams deploys a structurally different but related form of narrative unreliability through Aiden Glencar, whose first-person narration is complicated not by withheld affect but by an unverifiable claim to supernatural perception. Aiden reports his grandfather’s ghostly visitations, his mother’s visions, and his own “second sight” with the same declarative confidence Molly uses to report killing the toad — the prose style does not flag these episodes as delusion, dream, or metaphor, and the reader has no external narrator to corroborate or debunk them. This creates a distinct variety of unreliable narration: not a narrator concealing what she knows, but a narrator whose reported perceptions cannot, by the nature of the material, be adjudicated as true or false from within the text. Aiden’s own uncertainty about how to read his mother’s visions — “Maybe those visions she was having were true?” he asks his brother Martin, who answers, “Aiden, she was acting crazy”² — stages the interpretive problem inside the plot itself, so that the reader’s uncertainty about Aiden’s reliability mirrors Martin’s uncertainty about Laura’s. Mulhern refuses to resolve this ambiguity even at the level of adult retrospection: the novel’s frame narrator, an adult Aiden looking back, confirms in a late passage that he “tried to ignore my second sight, the flashes of intuition, and telepathy” as an adult,² which reads simultaneously as confirmation that the gift was real (why suppress something imaginary?) and as the self-account of someone who has spent a lifetime uncertain whether to trust his own perception. The child narrator’s unreliability and the adult narrator’s unresolved doubt are, in this novel, the same problem restated at two ages.

V. Conclusion: Innocence as a Craft Position, Not a Character Trait

What unites Molly’s affectless deadpan and Aiden’s unverifiable second sight is that both may withhold interpretation rather than information. Neither narrator obviously lies to the reader in the classical unreliable-narrator sense of misrepresenting events. Both report scenes — a strangled mother, a smashed toad, a ghost at the foot of a bed — without the emotional or moral scaffolding an adult narrator might ordinarily supply, producing unease for the reader. Mulhern’s “limits of innocence,” then, need not be a matter of children failing to perceive the adult world correctly; the child narrators often perceive it sharply. The limit is interpretive: these narrators see clearly and refuse, or are unable, to tell the reader what the seeing costs them, leaving that cost to be inferred from displaced acts (a toad, a joke about aliens) or from the frame narrator’s incomplete hindsight. The technique leaves much of the moral judgment with the reader and draws on an unsentimental tradition of childhood narration rather than a more redemptive arc.

— Silver Current Press

Notes

Works Quoted

All Essays Second Sight as Narrative Technology → Pastiche and Undertow