Respuesta :

Answer:

No, I don't think he's very trustworthy because throughout the story you can tell how out of it and demented he is.

Explanation:

I think he just told the story as he lived it, but it might not be what had happened. From the very beginning of the story, he tries to make a case for his sanity, but the story he tells completely undermines it and is at odds with his declarations of sanity. Throughout the story, he recalls the events that led him to murder the old man and then confess. According to the text it states, "'Villains!' I shrieked, 'dissemble no more! I admit the deed!— tear up the planks!—here, here!—it is the beating of his hideous heart!'"

A first-person narrator is never a reliable narrator in any story.

A first-person narrator is a narrator who is also a character in the story. This type of narrator tells the story using first-person pronouns, which are the pronouns "I," "me" and "mine."

The first-person narrator is never reliable. The reasons for this are:

  • This narrator has a limited view of the story as he only tells what he witnessed and what he knows.
  • The entire story is told from this narrator's point of view and the opinions he has about everything he saw.
  • As the reader does not have access to the opinions of other characters, he can be highly influenced by the first-person narrator, who can modify the story as he sees fit and present it in the way he feels most appropriate.

In summary, we can conclude that the first-person narrator is unreliable, because he has full control of the information available to the reader, and can modify it whenever he wants.

You can get more information about this at the link below:

https://brainly.com/question/22806868?referrer=searchResults

Ver imagen annyksl