#it seems to be for this agency I meantioned. Besides I think it's clear he doesn't really hide his faults deliberately

[dxxtruction]

I'm genuinely concerned that iwtv (tv) spells out EXACTLY how Louis is unreliable in his narration, but people spin this into what they think unreliable narration more generally means to them, and not what it means to this narrative. Just to be clear here are the ways Louis IS unreliable (If I happened to have missed something feel free to add):

Louis shows signs of forgetting which are normal in people who've endured long term traumatic events. Any relevant pieces of information forgotten are however righted, and sought to be righted.

Like anyone recounting a personal narrative, Louis states how things occurred from this limited perspective and worldview of the personal. He has a personal idea of himself he'd like to get across, much like anyone. He is not omnipotent. But while most might be fine if the person receiving this story interprets their experiences differently, offering to wider perspective, Louis is often very particular about the ways it must be described fitting how he can already perceive it. Which makes for times of there being a rigid perception of events, where broader narrative introspection could've offered a more truthful telling. Though sometimes this actually keeps it more truthful. This character flaw, if you will, is what Daniel is around to challenge, and he's very successful at it, even when his challenging can push in the wrong directions and draw up the wrong conclusions. Bringing up latent memories, and digging out hard truths Louis has long not admitted. At least hitting on something real, in any case. Meaning, for us, the audience, we are still in relatively reliable hands even with this in play, and so are not actually that off from truth when it is being told by Louis, who is intentionally seeking to tell it, even get it. Merely, our narrative is being, in ways, restricted as to how much is being told, and, outside Louis control, obfuscated in its reliance deliberately. (which we'll return to).

To jump off from this, Louis does withhold. He can sometimes tell Daniel something then never explain or have an answer for it he's willing to say. But we see this most apparently in how the diaries exclude certain events. That he doesn't detail much of his time with Armand, especially sexually, is a more subtle way of this. He withholds narratively to protect others, and respect them and their histories from being exploited. Though in other instances he withholds moreso to protect himself from this, and the image he wishes to present to Daniel and thus the world. One could see the act of presenting he and Armand's relationship as, firstly one where Armand is his servant Rashid, but then one of far more affection than it really holds, at this point in time, as withholding the truth as well. One could go a step further and say he does this to preserve a sense of agency and control over his inner and personal life, not just over the interview, but over this relationship as a whole. In a sense, Louis editorializes because the reality of things is beyond what feels his right to tell, and otherwise be endangering to his sense of self to tell. Louis usage of language is another way he keeps a sense of agency, as he can still pick the words he chooses to describe his life, even if his life has been largely out of his control. He can't in ways tell the full truth without giving up something he's simply unwilling to give.

Related to this, how he defends things, or is defensive of things, portrays a distorted idea of reality, but an honest portrayal of his own perspective on it. Most starkly I'd say is his claim to consider himself not abused.

His complicated feelings, especially about loved ones, give rise contradictory statements about people and events. Where he can claim one thing, and likely claim it from his personal feelings about it, but we are then shown events where this claim doesn't exactly live up to itself in every way, in his or others actions.

However, the main way Louis narrative becomes unreliable is through the lies and distortions manufactured into it and the ways in which the interview is undermined by conflicts of interest in it. Louis story is in fact one containing lies, and active distortions of events/thoughts, beyond normal forgetting, because of Armand's conflict in letting the truth be told. Mind though, that by the end of the story, much like [1] these we can presume have all been corrected for. Or at the very least who this information truly pertains to, Louis, is shown to have no interest in questioning that it hasn't been. What is relevant to have been the full truth has all been said.

There's a bit of a cultural thing influencing the interview. By this I mean Louis and Armand together had created a culture of politeness and respect, which discouraged and fought down getting at the heat of conflict, or emotional and mental vulnerability. Setting aside differences. Leaving things unaddressed, or burying issues, making up quickly, and in incomplete ways, as a means of maintaining a peaceful environment, leads to a level of transactionally met falsehood of how either is portraying themselves, especially in relation to one another, playing into what seems beneficial to them, more than what would be confrontational of the truth between them. Armand offends far more aggressively in this, and one can only guess this comes more from a rearing much more solidified in this kind of culture where there is a multitude of rules around maintaining a facade of 'nice' behavior for a presumed benefit of the group. Whereas, even if Louis follows this in some ways, he is more often seen to push against this, actually. (see; 'acting out')

There was a period (post 2x05 especially) where he makes claims about Armand, with no real way to back them, but for the purpose of continually marking Armand as a traitor. So, making purely emotional claims as opposed to knowing he's getting the facts straight. Discrediting Armand, even if he might be telling the truth. (debatable, of course, but I feel the need to include it anyhow).

The only real thing left of Louis unreliability in our conclusion is some residual effects of his doing where things are then left unanswered, and the information to be found in other peoples perspectives, which Louis isn't held responsible to be knowing about. So it's highly doubtful these are to where Louis is ever to be discredited on his telling of things, more that he just simply can't account for everything without betraying himself, and can't be held responsible to what he simply can not have known, or others controlling his narrative either.

To summarize what this all then means is that Louis is not telling any sort of story, at any point along it, worth discrediting, let alone fully, and wherever he was swaying in that direction, past or presently, it has been corrected for, or at least questioned, to where we can draw all the reliable conclusions on it through inference and sound interpretation. Making what we are left with by the end of season 2 the most reliable version of events of Louis personal perspective, even if quite a good sum of it is still left to this inference. It is because of what is left to inference, and what is something outside the realm of his personal perspective, that makes us the more unreliable sources of determining these events. WE are more likely to be distorting it by this point in the story, than Louis is shown to be. Our judgments, can do more impeding on what ends up being Louis honest account, than Louis ever was.

What Louis unreliability is not, is ever entirely dishonest - is ever one making up events, or turning them into something they were not. Everything we are told is a personal account of things that actually happened. It's certainly not one where, by the end, you can point at anything, and claim there's an irreparable falsehood about it. Perspective on events change, but that they had happened and in a sequential way, does not. One might not like or be satisfied with his point of view, yet this changes nothing. Memory is a monster, but Louis', a monster himself, is still real. These are his true memories as he is remembering them.

Beyond that, the more imperative story told here is the emotional one. On this journey of truth telling, Louis is also relieved of being unreliable about his emotions, and in the conclusion, he's living shamelessly for who he is, past and presently. This opens new doors for his character to exist beyond memory. The interview was a journey of self acceptance, and one's fight for having and reclaiming a self. The true take away, frankly, is that Louis got this, and nothing we can infer and interpret otherwise about his truth, where it is left open, can take this away from him.

I guess this is all to say Louis 'unreliable narration' is actually something he works through, perhaps in its realistic entirely (we are always a little unreliable). It's something that gets righted as a major part of the resolved conflicts that happen over the course of the interviews events, as so we, like Louis, are also resolved of this unreliability if we hold it to that same level of being the truth. And that is also if we are inferring and interpreting things left open properly, which is hard to say, even for Louis. That is where all of that 'unreliability' rests on is the things left open to question still, or gain new perspective on, and not that any one part of what we were presented with is falsely constructed. As we have actually gotten it reconstructed out of that.