Rashomon Effect
Quick answer: The Rashomon effect in fiction: one event told through contradictory accounts, from Akutagawa's In a Grove to modern novels, and how to write it well.
The Rashomon effect is the storytelling structure in which a single event is narrated through multiple contradictory accounts, none of them authoritative, so that the truth remains disputed. In other words, the story replaces the question of what happened with the more unsettling question of who is telling, and why. The contradictions are the content, not a puzzle awaiting solution.
The device lives in structure and viewpoint design, and it has escaped fiction entirely: lawyers, journalists, and psychologists use the term for the honest incompatibility of eyewitness accounts. In craft terms it is a specialised form of multiple point of view, native to crime stories, courtroom narratives, marriage autopsies, and any fiction about the manufacture of truth.
Seven testimonies and a body in a grove
The structure's source text is Ryunosuke Akutagawa's story 'In a Grove' (1922), which presents the death of a samurai through seven statements: a woodcutter, a priest, a policeman, an old woman, a captured bandit, the samurai's wife, and, through a medium, the dead man himself. The bandit claims a duel, the wife a shamed mercy killing, the dead man suicide. Each confession is coherent, each is self-serving, and the story ends without adjudicating. Akira Kurosawa's 1950 film Rashomon carried the structure to the world and lent it the name.
The story's engine is worth close attention: every narrator confesses to the killing. Akutagawa understood that people distort testimony not only to escape blame but to protect an image of themselves, honour, dignity, agency, and the three confessions disagree precisely where self-image is at stake. That is the effect's true subject. The contradictions map the witnesses' needs, and the reader becomes the only judge in a court that never rules.
Why writers refuse to adjudicate
The structure dramatises something realist fiction can otherwise only assert: that truth is filtered through interest, memory, and shame. It generates natural reread value and argument, since the evidence permits multiple verdicts, and it flatters no one, including the reader, whose own verdict is also an interested account. For character work it is unmatched, because each retelling characterises its teller twice, once by what they report and once by what they need to be true.
The costs are momentum and patience. Each retelling revisits ground the reader has covered, so the form taxes narrative drive; without escalation between accounts, the story becomes a deposition file. There is also the frustration budget: readers accept withheld verdicts only when the withholding is clearly the point. Used as a decoration, a Rashomon structure reads as indecision, and used everywhere it becomes a shrug about truth itself, which is a colder statement than most stories intend.
Running contradictory accounts in a short story
Choose an event worth disputing, one where versions carry moral weight: an accident, a betrayal, a rescue that may have been theft. Give each narrator a concrete interest in their version, then let the accounts agree on most facts; contradiction is only visible against a background of consensus, and total disagreement reads as noise. Escalate between tellings, each account should reframe the previous ones, not merely differ from them, and keep the number low. Two or three versions carry a short story; seven need a novel's room.
The trap is the secret answer key. If your story quietly signals which account is true, you have written a mystery with a lazy reveal, not a Rashomon structure; the form's integrity depends on the evidence genuinely supporting multiple verdicts. Interrogate your own sympathies in revision, since writers unconsciously give their favoured narrator the best prose. Every teller deserves equally convincing sentences.
Kin structures: unreliable narrators and multiple POV
A single unreliable narrator distorts alone, and the reader's job is to see past the distortion to a recoverable truth; the Rashomon effect multiplies narrators until no vantage point remains outside the distortions. Ordinary multiple point of view divides a story among viewpoints that complement rather than contradict, building one world from several windows. The frame narrative is often the delivery vehicle, as in Akutagawa's testimonies, but frames can carry any cargo.
The epistolary story is a natural cousin, assembling truth from documents that may disagree. The diagnostic question is simple: does the story ever settle what happened? If yes, you have unreliable narration or a whodunit wearing an interesting coat. If the settling is permanently impossible, and that impossibility is the meaning, you are in Rashomon country, and every craft choice should serve the standoff.
What poets can take from this
- Give every narrator a concrete stake in their version being believed.
- Let accounts agree on most facts; contradiction needs consensus to be visible.
- Escalate between retellings so each account reframes, not just varies, the last.
- Write every teller equally well; the favoured-narrator tell is prose quality.
- Keep versions few in short fiction; two or three accounts are plenty.
- Decide what the disagreements reveal about each teller, and build the story on that.
Try it yourself
Write a story in which three people who shared a taxi describe the same fifteen-minute journey to an insurance investigator. Each account must be internally consistent, self-flattering, and irreconcilable with the other two on exactly one decisive point.
Questions
What is the Rashomon effect in simple terms?
It is when the same event is described in contradictory ways by different witnesses, with no authoritative version available. The name comes from Kurosawa's film Rashomon, based on Akutagawa's story 'In a Grove', where testimonies about a death cannot be reconciled.
How is the Rashomon effect different from an unreliable narrator?
An unreliable narrator is one distorting voice, and readers can usually triangulate the truth behind it. The Rashomon effect stacks several interested accounts with no neutral vantage point, so the truth stays genuinely undecidable, and that undecidability is the point.
By the Writory editorial team, reviewed by working poets. Updated July 2026.
Enter a Writory poetry contest
Enter the August contest and have your own poem read and scored.