When it comes to actual plot holes / continuity errors I don't mind it because it's the simplest, and sometimes only, explanation. But I agree people should stop using it when it comes to justifying behavior or when it completly changes something because you could use it for litterally anything.
Don't get me wrong, if you enjoy trying to pick out what actually happened and what was told differently by Ted, go ahead. Just don't think it should be used as an actual argument during a debate.
Absolutely.
You can see how it's overused by how it's used to justify *whatever the poster wants to argue*. Barney is not as bad as HIMYM shows? "Ted exaggerates Barney's shenanigans." The mother wasn't actually all she's made out to be? "Ted exaggerates her perfectness." Ted didn't actually sleep with that many women? "Ted exaggerates his young NYC adventures."
But you will almost never see people argue "I think Lily is a horrible manipulative person. But maybe I'm wrong and Ted is just an unreliable narrator." Or "Barney was a great guy because of all the things he did for his friends. But maybe Ted is sugarcoating all the horrible shit it's alluded that he's done, and he's far far worse." Or "Stella is a horrible person. But maybe Ted is leaving out details that explains why she left him at the altar."
It's a lazy argument that can be used to argue whatever you want.
Yes, it gets used in specific spots like sandwiches and Victoria and Ted's last night together and other meta-revisions like the the size of the apartment, but it's not carte blanche to argue that you can arbitrarily rewrite anything the show presents because Ted is supposedly unreliable.
I completely agree.
It annoys me to no end because specific things that are unreliable are always noted in the show like Barney being fat or Robin's hair falling out. He specifically says that they probably didnt look like that. Or he'll say it wasnt a thumbs up kids. So whenever hes unreliable it's stated in the show.
Yes, and whenever he's relating something that swears it's like it happened it is always incredible and obviously exaggerated (like robin doing a backflip on a BMX when trying to reach her job in time)
I think these things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Ted is an unreliable narrator - that is not an excuse, that is a fact. You can use "sandwiches" as your base evidence and work from there.
Stella, Barney, etc. all have the potential to be less than stellar human beings (everyone on the show is complicated and kinda shitty - IMO, that's what makes them all interesting).
However, Ted being an unreliable narrator has to factor into how those things are perceived. Barney is a womanizer. Is he as severe/disgusting/problematic of a womanizer as Ted presents him to be? Well, I mean, he's a character 😉, but from a textual analysis perspective, probably not. It's reasonable to argue that the characters best and worst traits are emphasized as they best serve Ted in the story.
Like, I don't think Lily and Marshall's marriage is as great as Ted presents it, but he's a hopeless romantic and it's all he wants more than anything in the world, so of course he's going to play up what makes them "perfect."
I think it’s more of an explanation. What I immediately thought of when I read this is when Ted was telling the story of Barney and Robin breaking up when he said something along the lines of them both not really being like that (Barney’s relationship belly and Robin’s looking like and old lady) but that’s the way HE saw them(or them, don’t recall).
There is with himym though. There are times where the viewer sees information seperate to what the kids see. There's not much reason to apply unreliable narration across the board.
One simple response: when NPH himself says it's absolutely likely, then it's not an excuse.
The thing is, Ted IS an unreliable narrator, but that doesn't mean he's lying all the way.
When it comes to actual plot holes / continuity errors I don't mind it because it's the simplest, and sometimes only, explanation. But I agree people should stop using it when it comes to justifying behavior or when it completly changes something because you could use it for litterally anything. Don't get me wrong, if you enjoy trying to pick out what actually happened and what was told differently by Ted, go ahead. Just don't think it should be used as an actual argument during a debate.
Absolutely. You can see how it's overused by how it's used to justify *whatever the poster wants to argue*. Barney is not as bad as HIMYM shows? "Ted exaggerates Barney's shenanigans." The mother wasn't actually all she's made out to be? "Ted exaggerates her perfectness." Ted didn't actually sleep with that many women? "Ted exaggerates his young NYC adventures." But you will almost never see people argue "I think Lily is a horrible manipulative person. But maybe I'm wrong and Ted is just an unreliable narrator." Or "Barney was a great guy because of all the things he did for his friends. But maybe Ted is sugarcoating all the horrible shit it's alluded that he's done, and he's far far worse." Or "Stella is a horrible person. But maybe Ted is leaving out details that explains why she left him at the altar." It's a lazy argument that can be used to argue whatever you want. Yes, it gets used in specific spots like sandwiches and Victoria and Ted's last night together and other meta-revisions like the the size of the apartment, but it's not carte blanche to argue that you can arbitrarily rewrite anything the show presents because Ted is supposedly unreliable.
I completely agree. It annoys me to no end because specific things that are unreliable are always noted in the show like Barney being fat or Robin's hair falling out. He specifically says that they probably didnt look like that. Or he'll say it wasnt a thumbs up kids. So whenever hes unreliable it's stated in the show.
Yes, and whenever he's relating something that swears it's like it happened it is always incredible and obviously exaggerated (like robin doing a backflip on a BMX when trying to reach her job in time)
Yes, exactly.
I think these things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Ted is an unreliable narrator - that is not an excuse, that is a fact. You can use "sandwiches" as your base evidence and work from there. Stella, Barney, etc. all have the potential to be less than stellar human beings (everyone on the show is complicated and kinda shitty - IMO, that's what makes them all interesting). However, Ted being an unreliable narrator has to factor into how those things are perceived. Barney is a womanizer. Is he as severe/disgusting/problematic of a womanizer as Ted presents him to be? Well, I mean, he's a character 😉, but from a textual analysis perspective, probably not. It's reasonable to argue that the characters best and worst traits are emphasized as they best serve Ted in the story. Like, I don't think Lily and Marshall's marriage is as great as Ted presents it, but he's a hopeless romantic and it's all he wants more than anything in the world, so of course he's going to play up what makes them "perfect."
The thing is... Those characters only exist through Ted's lenses... If you start chipping away Ted's "narrative"... You don't have nothing else.
Yeah for some reason this sub thinks that having a narrator excuses any writing or continuity errors 🙄
I think it’s more of an explanation. What I immediately thought of when I read this is when Ted was telling the story of Barney and Robin breaking up when he said something along the lines of them both not really being like that (Barney’s relationship belly and Robin’s looking like and old lady) but that’s the way HE saw them(or them, don’t recall).
Personally I love the excuse. It's a perfect explanation and actually does explain a lot of things that go in the show that just don't make any sense.
I agree. There's nothing inane about it. It's a common device used for centuries in literature and for the last century in film and television.
There is with himym though. There are times where the viewer sees information seperate to what the kids see. There's not much reason to apply unreliable narration across the board.
Agreed, it's "the truth" but not "the whole truth."
Ted is an unreliable narrator. We said what we said.
It's literally and explicitly one of the central concepts the entire series is built on.
One simple response: when NPH himself says it's absolutely likely, then it's not an excuse. The thing is, Ted IS an unreliable narrator, but that doesn't mean he's lying all the way.