The concept of the unreliable narrator has been studied in academic circles for the last fifty years. When an author decides to create unreliable narration, there is a reason for it. This essay compares the unreliability in Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita and Agatha Christie’s The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, using theories formulated by Tamar Yacobi, Bruno Zerweck, Therese Heyd, James Phelan and Amit Marcus. In The Murder of Roger Ackroyd the technique of other-deceptive narration is used by Christie. In Lolita the unreliability is complex. Using both other-deception and self-deception to create discrepancies between descriptions of the same event and phenomenon, Nabokov succeeds in creating an intricate unreliability. The effects of the unreliability in both novels, however, create an emotional bond between the reader and the narrator. The reader can be emotionally cathected to the narrator, even if the narrator is clearly a criminal.

The plot twist is a complex narrative surprise in which a revelation retroactively transforms readers’ understanding of the preceding events. Readers discover belatedly that the situation depicted in the narrative had all along been quite different from what they thought. Although the term “plot twist” was first used in the early twentieth century, many of the best-known works of fiction of the nineteenth century were revealed, in retrospect, to be twist narratives. This dissertation studies twist narratives and their readers in the period before the plot twist became a known device. Through case studies of Jane Austen’s Emma, Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations, Guy de Maupassant’s “The Necklace” and Agatha Christie’s The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, the chapters investigate what kinds of knowledge-making practices readers engage in during first-time readings and rereadings of twist narratives, as well as before and after reading. Across these chapters I make the case that twist narratives demonstrate the crucial and interconnected roles of knowledge and temporality in any narrative experience. What we know, and when, and especially what we don’t (yet) know, is crucial to how narratives work and why we enjoy them.