How do you feel about Marc Schlosser as a narrator? Do you trust him?

When reading Summer House with Swimming Pool, how did you feel about Marc Schlosser as a narrator? Do you trust him?

He truly is untrustworthy to me. I think he is objective but not trustworthy. Marc tells the version he wants to see. There is probably much that he does not tell us.

Absolutely not! I continued to hope he would change his stripes as the book developed, but he just got worse!

Marc is an unreliable narrator and I have a problem with this. I am just learning to treat the narrator with skepticism.

He is sly,crafty and not to be trusted. Very interesting however.

Still finishing this one, but no! He is fascinating, but sly and has quite a unique perspective...

I disliked and definitely did not trust Marc starting about three pages in. He was sooo superior, uncaring and self serving. I pray that no one ever has a doctor like him.

Marc is far too narcissistic to be believed. everything he says is tinged with his need to feel superior and above others around him.

Marc is entirely untrustworthy as a physician, a husband and a friend. As a narrator I'm positive he even tries to make himself seem better, more caring than he really is. So, no, he is not a trustworthy narrator. Even trying to rationalize his behavior and motivations he fails so I can only imagine how he really is, how he might be portrayed by another narrator, say, Julia or his wife.

I also often ponder how an author must have to bend his/her own mind in order to write a novel from the point of view of a character such as this. It must be totally exhilarating to give yourself permission to be as despicable as you can be -- on paper, of course. Or maybe it's scary?

Marc can be trusted in so far as he relates what he is feeling. Anything that includes interaction with others is beyond his ability to be truthful.

Although I occasionally enjoyed his sarcasm as a narrator, the bottom line is that i felt he was not trustworthy, that there always could be some important detail left out. However, I think the author wanted Marc to be exactly as he is, perhaps making Marc memorable for his unsavory attitude.

The more he talked, the more I disliked him. His view of most humans is ridiculous and his actions more so

While I didn't trust Marc as a narrator - I agree that he saw his own perspective and nothing else, and even in light of new information rendering his conclusions false he didn't seem to have any remorse - I appreciated his candor. His openness in his fantasies - he was not embarrased or ashamed one bit regardless of how creepy they may have been - makes him slightly more reliable in my opinion. I think he was completely blinded by his disillusionment with life & the human race, and he saw everything through that lens, but he actually was honest in the sense that he did not try to hide or pretend. Sure, in his actual life, he hid and pretended constantly. But we were in his head, and in that sense, in that arena, he was as honest as he was capable of being.

I think that I would have to read the book again to answer this question.
He was obviously not a reliable, honest person...but he may have been reporting honestly what he thought happened.
Second readings can be very enlightening!

I agree with elizabethabby that Marc's candor was striking. If you were going to tell a story in which you painted yourself the hero, you would not have portrayed yourself as Marc did. The more he shared, explained and rationalized the more odious he became. In that sense I trusted him as a narrator.

I can't find one redeeming quality about Dr. Schlosser! I felt he was self-centered and self-serving.

While I did not like Marc, I did like his as the narrator. I felt he gave us good insight and was honest to the point that we were able to see the "real" Marc.

Really agree with donnac and others about how interesting it must be to write such a character. I loved - as a reader not a person - how he would manipulate the situations for his own ends and not feel bad about it. And while he was truly upset about the rape, even then he tried to cover up his indiscretions first. So I guess you could trust him to think of himself!

In the conversation with the author (at the back of the book), Koch is asked to speak to the question of the unreliable narrator. He responded,

"I think we are all unreliable narrators - and therefore, the unreliable narrator in a novel is the closes character to real life. Just think for a minute how we present ourselves to another person, how we try to impress a man or a woman on a date, or a prospective employer. Where is the reliability there? We invent from the start, trying to make ourselves just a little bit more interesting or smart or adventurous than we really are. My narrators try to make an impression on the reader - but we can see through them. They contradict themselves all the time, but I hope the reader gets a fuller picture of him (or her) from the outside: by what he says and does, but also by what he doesn't say and leaves undone."

Concurring with elizabethabby and jeant I found Marc to be an absolutely compelling narrator. In a character narrated novel the narration is not necessarily intended to provide an objective description of characters and events but rather to provide an alternate reality refracted through the mind, heart and life experiences of the narrator. The stronger the narrator's personality the greater the effect on the story. And Marc's view of his profession, celebrity, human nature and himself is so jaded that it colors the story in a most entertaining and ghoulish way. The reader cannot understand the book without understanding Marc, and I cannot think of a better way to have truly exposed Marc than through his narration.

As for trusting Marc as a narrator (as opposed to as a physician, friend or husband), I do. Marc is so self deprecating, so open about his moral failings, that I do not believe that he skewed his perception of the truth or had an agenda other than to tell the story as accurately as he could. That said, though, I do not understand the author's comment in his interview that questions the reliability of the narrator.