In no way do I feel that Sybil became any less of a reliable narrator once she entered the insane asylum. In fact, I find the very idea that a change setting, no matter how drastic, can invert our trust in a narrator is preposterous, if not offensive. The reader’s job, as we’ve addressed in class, is to actively make personal judgments as the text goes on. And, sure, it’s possible for an author to be deceptive, but just because we can be deceived as readers, does not mean that we blithely step in time with everything the author says.
Even in the story, there is overwhelming evidence that Dr. Karnac and Sybil’s uncle had been planning Sybil’s incarceration for some time. Simply at show of emotion that is, I might add, perfectly normal, Dr. Karnac says that Uncle is “perfectly justified in doing so;” So, in light of future events, obviously refers to incarcerating Sybil. These subtle hints in conversation (“take this quieting draft,” “virulence is a bad symptom” and “drink with me… I was unused to wine… proved too potent for me”) utterly prove that Sybil’s uncle has engineered the entire situation.
To conclude, when Sybil enters the insane asylum the readers should not change their opinions on her. With as much experience as we have with Sybil, the reader should have already known if they trust her or not. The reality is there is no real element of insanity that enters the story. Sure, there is mention of the word and a threat of becoming insane in the asylum, but that is not Sybil’s fault.
I 100% agree with you! I really do not think that having Sybil committed indicated her lack of credibility as a narrator. I'm so glad that you also took this view point too :)
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point in saying that the readers should have known whether or not they should trust her before knowing she entered the insane asylum. It is not like it came completely out of left field, we all knew there was something off about her, we just didn't know if it was because she had family issues or if she was actually mentally unstable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you thoroughly. The fact that the reader has already decided whether they like or trust Sybil in the beginning of the story says a lot about how they will feel about her when her insanity is questionable. And I think most people probably liked Sybil in the beginning because of her strong personality. So I feel it would be wrong for a reader to turn on her or distrust her once things go awry. It's hard to put into words what I'm thinking though. The personality and being that Sybil has in the beginning is the same one that withstands all the trials that her uncle has put on her in the second half.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree Bill. Sybil was merely desperate and scared. Any rational person would have acted the same...even had thoughts of suicide. Flirty, yes; manipulative, yes; insane, no. Her Uncle sabotaged her. She was young and nieve and he took total control of the situation to ensure his wealth. I applaud her for lasting as long as she did.
ReplyDelete