Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes: How to Write an Unreliable Narrator

Most of the time, if you are reading a novel, you can trust whoever is telling you the story. Whether it be a character speaking from the first person, or an omniscient voice that whispers from the third, you believe everything they say because there is no other option. That character or that mysterious voice is your only insight into the events of the story. 

Narrators are the tour guides. They take your reader by the hand and lead them into a brand new world they’ve never seen or experienced before. But what happens when the character who’s speaking actually can’t or shouldn’t be trusted? What if the lens your reader peers through is tainted? How can they know the truth or decipher what’s really going on?

This kind of ‘tour guide’ is called an unreliable narrator, and they are very difficult to write. However, although writing from such a perspective may be hard, there’s a simple technique that can make things much easier to tackle this complex idea. 

In order to explore how to write unreliable narrators, today we’ll dive into the Hunger Games prequel, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes. 

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes

This novel follows the dreaded Coriolanus Snow, before he became the cruel dictator and main antagonist of the Hunger Games trilogy. In this story, he’s eighteen years old and preparing to mentor in the Hunger Games for the first time. Although his last name is famous and he loves to brag about all the wealth and power his family has, the Snows have recently fallen into poverty and are depending on his success. If he doesn’t win, his family will probably starve, and he will never be able to gain power in the Capitol. He goes in with an arrogant mindset, and is determined to help his tribute win the Hunger Games no matter what.

His classmate Sejanus Plinth is also mentoring in the Hunger Games, but he’s less enthusiastic about it. He used to live in District Two, but his father bought the family’s way into the Capitol so he could have more opportunities. Now he’s forced to aid the massacre that is the Hunger Games, even though he doesn’t want to play a part at all. 

When the tributes are assigned, Snow is given the lowest of the low: The girl from the poorest district, Lucy Gray. On the other hand, because his father was able to bribe the officials, Sejanus is assigned to mentor Marcus, a boy from his own district. Marcus is a large, strong, boy from the same high-end District as Sejanus and is almost certainly guaranteed to win. Sejanus is less than happy about this as well since he hates the Hunger Games and doesn’t want his legacy tied to a grand victory in the Games.

How does this work?

Since this entire book is in the deep point of view of Coriolanus, it’s clear he sees Sejanus’ unwillingness to participate as a bad thing. He thinks Sejanus is whiny and ultimately a competitor that must be stopped. However, despite all the reader hears about Sejanus, he is still a beloved character. Why are they able to understand Sejanus’ take on things as well? Why is the reader able to make this distinction between Coriolanus’ opinions and the truth? 

To answer these questions, take a look at the snippet below. Coriolanus has just watched Marcus effortlessly throw a pair of boys across the cage of tributes, and the text says:

“He’ll still win,” said Coriolanus. If he’d had any doubts, Marcus’s display of superior power had silenced them. He again felt the bitterness of a Plinth being granted the mightiest tribute. And he was tired of Sejanus’ whining over his father’s buying him the victor. “Anyone of us would’ve been happy to get him.”

Sejanus brightened a bit. “Really? Then take him. He’s yours.”

”You’re not serious,” said Coriolanus.

”A hundred percent.” Sejanus sprang to his feet. “I want you to have him! And I’ll take Lucy Gray. I will still be horrible, but at least I don’t know her…There’s no way she’ll beat him. Trade tributes with me. Win the Games. Take the glory. Please, Coriolanus, I would never forget the favor.”

… His mouth was forming the word done, when he stopped. To win with Marcus was no win at all…

Snow goes on to explain how, on second thought, winning with his frail tribute would bring him even more glory than winning with Marcus would. It took no particular skills to mentor Marcus, but Coriolanus’s image would look so much better if he mentored Lucy instead. Even though he’s calling Sejanus selfish, it’s clear that he’s really the one who’s self-absorbed. 

When trying to write an unreliable narrator, pick a lie that your character will tell to the audience, and then have the story around them prove that lie to be wrong. For example, Coriolanus constantly justifies his actions by tearing down the others around him, like Sejanus. However, although Coriolanus constantly tells himself and the audience that the others are the problem, the story itself proves just the opposite. The plot shows Coriolanus as someone who uses tragedy to his own advantage and creates a path of destruction wherever he goes. The side-characters are simply well-intentioned people who just happen to get in Coriolanus’ way. Senjanus may think to feed the tributes or actually care for their lives, but to Snow, that makes him a threat, not an admirable person. In this novel, Snow lies while the story reveals the truth. 

Whether your character intentionally deceives the audience or is simply blind to their own vices, that major lie is what makes a narrator unreliable. By using your character’s perspective to your advantage, you can give your readers an untrustworthy tour guide who will lead them down all the wrong paths. However, in order not to confuse the truth, make sure the plot and characters around them gradually take down those lies and build a clear picture of what’s really going on. If you do that, your audience will be given a clear picture of the truth while your unreliable narrator can remain his truly authentic, deceptive self.

Let us know:

What characters are your favorite unreliable narrators? What did the author do to make sure that you could tell they were unreliable?