Just a Face and a Caption: Unreliable Narrator

There’s little to indicate that this person is a narrator (aside from them seemingly reading from a book) and there’s basically no indication that they’re unreliable.

As a replacement, we could move this image from the Webcomics subpage to the main page:

back lol

I'd be down with that. Also, is it just me, or does the MA 3 pic look grainy even though it's a PNG?

I think it's the art style — half-tones and all that.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Works for me.

she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report

I just figured it out - it's not that it's grainy, the lines and edges of everything are really jagged.

Isn’t this more Unreliable Expositor?

Some other options:

• Spectrum of Unreliable Narrators◊
• From Humanities Core: Christina's Corner◊: "Is the Magistrate an Unreliable Narrator?"

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

The first one probably won't look that great at 350 and is really text-heavy.

The second one kinda works. Text-reliant, but every illustration for this will be.

to 7.2, it's Talking Heads. 7.1 is better, but it's still too texty.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

7.1 doesn't work unless you're familiar with most of the work depicted.

to 1, and pull current as a textbook JAFAAC, regardless of replacement.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Does the current qualify as JAFAAC if it's a joke? The joke is the narrator (caption box) is obviously lying and the picture is completely unimportant. I would say that falls under the same JAFAAC protection as My Greatest Failure, where the image and caption work in concert.

I wouldn't mind a replacement because I prefer something from a work generally, but nothing in this thread is better.

Edited by MurlocAggroB on Mar 27th 2020 at 4:52:28 AM

Eh, OP still relies on us taking the boy's skepticism at greater face value than the girl's story. To those not familiar with the comic it could be a fantasy comic for all they know.

I'd like to reiterate my suggestion of this Simpsons example:

Does its value to this page hinge on what I propose as a replacement for Crazy Memory or no?

Decent concept, but my god is it blurry...

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I can quality-swap it after if enough people like the concept.

...Why not just start with a better-quality version?

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Because I'm not yet sure where to find higher-quality screenshots of that scene.

Incidentally, this is the weekend of a road trip prior to a new job, so I'm not sure if/when I'll get the time to look, but I'd need some indication of whether or not it's conceptually worth the time.

I don't really like any suggestions.

This page has also had multiple threads.

I think the current is funny. Just A Face and A Caption is for images that rely on your understanding of the work. The current is Self-Demonstrating.

"It's just a show; I should really just relax"

Actually, that's true. The current works can be understood without knowing anything about the guy.

The Simpsons example could work too, but that's also on Crazy Memory, and I think that works better there.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

Current a Self-Demonstrating image, and I think it works just fine. to all the suggestions so far.

It may not be JAFAAC, but I would argue that if the image doesn't matter, then we should replace it with one that does, i.e., an illustrative image. It may not be just a face and a caption, but if it relies on the caption to work then it is necessarily weaker than an image that does not require a caption.

Also, the image on My Greatest Failure at least shows someone who looks like they regret something, making that particular image not wholly reliant on the caption. That is not the case here, though, where the caption is the unreliable narrator itself. I mean, we could then use literally any image so long as the caption utilizes Blatant Lies. That doesn't seem kosher, does it? Clearly there is something wrong with this situation — if we could replace the image with an octopus and say "this is the person who coined the term," then clearly the image is weak as all get-out.

---

Regarding 7.2, I fail to see how it better illustrates Talking Heads, since it was obviously created to illustrate the concept and nothing else. I suppose I'll reetract 7.1 on account that it spoils some of the works, but I disagree that you have to be familiar with the works to understand this very basic and self-explanatory image. Maybe if someone wants to crop the image in some way it'll be better, idk.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

I honestly didn't even realize that the image and caption was self-demonstrating at first. Maybe change the caption a bit to make the self demonstrating part a bit more obvious? Like "Shown above is W. Booth, who coined the term, wearing her trademark hat."

(Sometimes jokes like this do go over my head, so I'm not sure if this is an issue for everyone or just me)

back lol

The current may not be that good, but all the suggestions are even worse.

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

Can you please explain why the others are worse? I fail to see how OP, for example, is necessarily worse. (And sometimes people forget that we could find a quality upgrade...)

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

OP, for one, is too text-based.

Granted, I'm not a huge fan of the current partially because I think the joke is too subtle and went over my head, but yeah; people usually prefer non-text-based images, and OP is very text-based.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness