Week 5: Is Valentino credible?

While I am entrenched in my readings, I completely trust Achak/Valentino as a narrator, but if I step back later and think critically, I start to let some of the one-line admissions sink in, and I know that he is pretty much confessing to us that he's embellishing or at least making assumptions at certain points, “None of the boys who walked with me say Monynhial perish in his hole but we all know this story to be true, It is very easy for a boy to die in Sudan” (160), and quotes like that prove it. I am fascinated, though, at the subtle ways that Eggers establishes a sort of overarching air of credibility for Valentino (at least in my eyes). I Think the story telling aspects do a lot to this end. For example, when he is telling the story of how William K made it to the river, he stays in William's mind using only direct quotes, and then without any commentary, he falls back into his own story. Now, I know William K's story is thrown in for effect, but I forget that seeing it recounted this way; it just seems like an honest conversation with his best friend. Secondly, I feel that Eggers keeping Valentino in story telling mode is very effective as well. Valentino recounts the story frankly, and he speaks frankly to his audience--Powder, Michael, and Julian (even if they are unaware they are his audience), and this calm tone doesn't make me feel as if I am trying to be convinced of anything. Lastly, the intimate way he talks to his audience reminds me of a father or a teacher--some who is wise with authority--always calling them by name, and asking them questions as he goes, "Do you know what she wants, Julian?"
(249). I guess what I am trying to say is that, intellectually, I know I am being convinced of something, but not until I think about it; it is innocuous to me while I'm reading.