Abstract
This study reexamines the narrative device of unreliability in postmodern prose published between 1970 and 1999, with a specific focus on how metaleptic gaps—violations of narrative levels—intersect with deceptive narration. Drawing on theoretical frameworks from Hansen, Brown, and Wolting, the research employs a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative textual analysis with descriptive quantification of a purposive corpus of twenty novels from North American, European, and Soviet traditions. Results indicate a marked increase in self-conscious unreliability during this period, often linked to metaleptic disruptions that challenge reader trust. Three primary patterns emerge: the “metaleptic deceiver,” where the narrator’s jumps between diegetic levels are used to conceal or distort information; the “ontological trickster,” whose unreliability stems from unstable fictional worlds; and the “historiographic ironist,” who uses unreliability to critique official narratives. Tables detailing frequency distributions and correlation coefficients between unreliability types and metaleptic occurrences are presented. The findings suggest that postmodern authors weaponized unreliability not merely as a formal experiment but as a means of interrogating truth, memory, and power structures. The study contributes to narrative theory by providing an empirically grounded typology of metaleptic unreliability and by demonstrating its political resonance in the late Cold War and post-Cold War literary landscapes.