Prose Mock 1
Narrative analysis and interpretation.
2 questions • Estimated time: 25-30 minutes
How to Use This Mock
- Read each question carefully
- Attempt your own answer first — spend at least 5 minutes thinking
- Only reveal the model answer after you've tried
- Compare your reasoning to the model answer
What is the difference between a first-person narrator who is unreliable and one who is simply limited in knowledge? Can you think of examples of each, and why an author might choose one over the other?
Model Answer
This distinction is crucial for understanding narrative technique:
Limited but Reliable: The narrator tells us truthfully what they perceive and think, but doesn't have access to full information. Nick Carraway in 'The Great Gatsby' is often discussed this way — he reports honestly but interprets events from his own biased perspective. We trust his account of what he saw, even if we question his judgments.
Unreliable: The narrator actively deceives, misremembers, or fundamentally misunderstands in ways we can detect. The governess in 'The Turn of the Screw' may be projecting her fears onto reality. Stevens in 'The Remains of the Day' suppresses truths he can't face.
Why the distinction matters:
With a limited narrator, we work alongside them to understand — we're in the same epistemological boat. With an unreliable narrator, we read against them — we must decode gaps, contradictions, and psychological evasions.
Authorial purposes:
- Limited narrators can create intimacy and suspense (we discover with the narrator) while exploring how perception shapes reality.
- Unreliable narrators dramatise self-deception, raise questions about truth and memory, and make the reader an active interpreter — we become detectives of the text.
The best answer would note that the categories can blur: all first-person narrators are limited, and 'reliability' exists on a spectrum. The question is always: limited or unreliable in what ways, and to what effect?
'It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.'
This is the opening of 'Pride and Prejudice'. What work does this sentence do, and why is it effective?
Model Answer
This sentence is a masterclass in ironic economy. Let's unpack what it achieves:
The Irony: The sentence states a 'universal truth' that is obviously not universal at all — it's a very particular social prejudice. Austen signals immediately that her narrator sees through social pretensions. The passive construction ('it is acknowledged') distances the narrator from the claim while exposing those who hold it.
The Real Subject: The sentence appears to be about what men want, but is actually about what society (particularly mothers with daughters) wants from men. The 'truth' is really about the marriage market and economic anxiety. Austen has smuggled in her central theme while appearing to discuss something else.
The Voice: The mock-authoritative tone establishes the narrator's wit and intelligence. We immediately trust this voice to guide us through a society it can see with clarity and amusement.
Expectations: By opening with marriage, Austen signals her genre (the marriage plot) while simultaneously ironising it. We're being invited to read a love story critically.
The Hook: On a practical level, the sentence provokes curiosity: whose fortune? Whose wife? The irony creates anticipation — what will this sharp narrator show us next?
A strong answer might compare this to other famous openings: the very different tone of 'It was the best of times' or 'Call me Ishmael'.