. I think that the story shows how much Charlie has done to win back his daughter. The narrator did an excellent job of showing the strengths Charlie has and giving excuses to his weaknesses. The way the narrator makes Charlie seem as though he does not miss his past, is a bit sneaky. The scenes where Charlie visited the old bars and pubs seemed at first a bit confusing. Why did he go back to those places? Shouldn’t he be trying to forget them? However, as I re read the story I notice how the narrator makes it seem that Charlie was just curious how the place was like without being drunk.“He left soon after dinner, but not to go home. He was curious to see Paris by night with clearer and more judicious eyes than those of other days…” The narrator also makes Charlie seem as though he regrets what had happened in this city. “…I spoiled this city for myself. I didn’t realize it, but the days came alone one after another, and then two years were gone, and everything was gone, and I was gone.”It made me wonder how trust worthy the narrator was. As I analyzed both sides of the argument, I still feel as though Charlie deserved his daughter. The fact that the narrator might be unreliable is not a good enough reason for me to believe that Charlie is not responsible enough. I think that we have to give the narrator a certain amount of trust because he is the one telling the story and we have no other sources to compare with. If the narrator cannot be considered reliable then the story itself should not be trustworthy enough to read. So we must deal with the facts that are given to us and base most of the decisions on them. With this in mind I look at the situation evenly and try not to fully believe the narrator but still consider what he is saying. I understand that Charlie made a big mistake and hurt not only himself, but those that loved him. There is no excuse for what he did. H...
