Unreliable Narration in Italo Calvino's the Castle of Crossed Destinies

In Italo Calvino's The Castle of Crossed Destinies, the idea of an "unreliable" narrator/narration plays a major role in telling its various stories. Through the use of tarot cards on behalf of the adventurers, the people of the castle (or tavern in the second story) are able to weave their own tales about who they are and how they have arrived at the castle, since some apparent form of mysticism prevents the patrons from speaking. Obviously through this unorthodox form of narration there is room for erroneous interpretations, possible errors not only in reading the cards but also in presenting them if the adventurer holding the deck does not know tarot well, but our narrator serves us fairly well as a guide to the world of tarot. He seems to have a previous knowledge of each card's meaning and often gives us several possible stories from what is laid out on the table. While some argue that this makes our narrator "unreliable," since he has no way of knowing what the absolute correct interpretation is (yet continues to give us a story), the reader can afford to put their trust in him since not only can we believe he wants to tell us the story without fabrications but he is also the only source of translation we have, the only narrator qualified to interpret the cards. Otherwise the reader may as well look at the cards and attempt to piece the story together themselves.

All narrators are associated with a level of trust. In many stories the reader is led to believe that the narrator is simply telling his/her account of what happened, and that whoever is receiving the story should not be skeptic of all the details. This type of narrator has a high level of truth behind their story, since we have no implication to believe otherwise. Unreliable narrators contrast this idea, as the story they tell may or may not be actually happening due to several different reasons, possibly from the narrator's insanity or the need to compulsively lie, etc. Usually several hints exist within the story which could indicate any of these reasons, to create doubt of the narrator's credibility. These narrators are associated with a low level of truth value, since we are led to believe what they are saying is possibly false.

We are supposed to believe early on that the narrator in The Castle of Crossed Destinies can be trustworthy, to the point where he is actually the most reliable character in the story. As early as the introduction to the first story, titled "The Castle," the narrator discusses what he was doing before he sought asylum within the castle's walls: "I crossed a rattling drawbridge... I was breathless, hardly able to stand on my legs; after entering the forest I had faced so many trials, encounters, apparitions, duels, that I could no longer order my actions or my thoughts" (3). With this statement, we have reason to believe that our narrator is a simple adventurer, much like any other resident of the castle on that night. There are no apparent extenuating circumstances in his background which could lead us to believe he was possessed by Satan, or a complete schizophrenic, or anything else which could damage the reputation he had built up in half a page. We have no reason to believe that the story he is about to tell is tailored to deceive.

The story progresses until every patron is seated at the dinner table, and someone pulls out a deck of cards. Soon all the guests begin to present their own stories one at a time, and the narrator tells us what he believes to be the story hidden within the cards. Again, we are led to believe that he is interpreting to his fullest abilities, with no reason for him to skew the truth.

The most unreliable factor in the story appears to be the other patrons of the castle, for many reasons. A key note to make is that all of the other patrons are narrating too, much like our very own narrator. They are all story-tellers, weaving their own tales before the table; the only differences between them and our narrator consist of our frame of reference locked in with one certain character, and an already determined and established truth level behind what our narrator tells us. This means that every other patron at the castle has the potential to be declared an "unreliable" narrator as much as our own.

Several reasons are present for why the other patrons at the castle, compared to our narrator, can be considered unreliable. While we have been given a back-story to our narrator (as little as it may have been), one given in actual words instead of cards, we know absolutely nothing about all of the patrons except for the cards they put down on the table. We don't know if the patrons have a tendency to embellish the truth for small bits of personal glory, or have an egotistical problem which requires them to always be at the center of attention, feeling the need to be better than the previous story told. Our narrator, as far as we know, does not have these tendencies.

The entire process of telling individual stories through tarot cards is flawed, which adds to the unreliability of each patron. Aside from the differences in interpretations, some of the characters may not fully know what each tarot card is suppose to represent, accidentally confusing a "Two of Swords" with a "Three of Coins." A small switch like this can entirely change the meaning or outcome of their story, a change the story-teller at the time may not see. Even if we assume that each other patron knows the connotations behind each card, all the other patrons (our narrator included) will definitely have different stories in their heads when a patron finishes. There is no way of getting around this, as everyone's interpretations will be different.

A glaring flaw which hinders the entire process is the lack of available cards to each patron. After the first person told his story, a young man who we are led to believe is a knight looking for love and adventure, he left his cards on the table for everyone to reflect on. The next patron, an alchemist who shows an encounter with the devil, added on to two of the cards the knight previously used. Since all of the stories were told in straight lines of cards, this means that all throughout his storytelling the alchemist did not have access to all of the cards. He had to work with whatever he had left. This is extremely unfortunate for whoever has to tell their story last, since they more than likely will not have the cards they need to accurately tell their story. A barbarian might want to tell his story of savage warfare and conquest, but if he is last in line and only has a certain 10 or so cards to work with, people will (more so) likely not understand what he is trying to say.

The errancy present in the method of tarot story-telling along with the lack of clarity behind the motives and characteristics of the other patrons all add to the unreliability of the other story tellers. When compared to our narrator who we have technically met longer and have a reasonable belief that he does not want to deceive us, our narrator has a higher truth value compared to everyone else in the castle. We also cannot deem him "unreliable" solely based on the fact that his interpretation of the cards can possibly be incorrect, as he has the best intentions of telling us the correct story, which makes him not necessarily a complete reliable narrator but certainly not an unreliable one.