>Fiction in any form has always intended to be realistic.
Thoughts?
Most of the oldest literature is completely preposterous and based around stories about gods, monsters, and superhuman heroes
>>7894597
That stuff was real
>>7894597
but the gods and monsters and superhumans are all very relate able
Read Auerbach.
>>7894603
did he say relatable or realistic?
The idea of "fiction" as a genre is actually a modern convention. The tendency to categorize art into markets is a result of the increased production capabilities of a post-printing-press economy. As for "realistic," that is also a term strictly defined by technological capabilities - write non-fiction today, ship it back to the 19th century, and they'd call it utter balderdash (especially if they were British).
Is this realist in that events might be fantastic in affect but still constituted by realistic or believable elements?
>>7894487
>he hasn't read Don Quixote
i thought that norweigan wood had a very realistic approach to growing up and the changing view of the world a person has as they mature
>>7894612
if you can relate to the characters it's realistic in some points
>>7894709
Very nice post.
>>7894709
even if they didn't catagorized it they were some fiction and non fiction back then too
>>7895770
But the line was very thin. Take Robinson Crusoe, for example. People that was a non-fictional account. The same happened with Gulliver's Travels, which is a much more fantastic story. The common reader didn't make a distinción between fiction and non-fiction.
>>7895841
>People before me were retarded!
>>7895851
>>7895851
You are the retarded one here. I never said nor implied that. That is the way people read. Even today some people still read fiction as if it were a true account.
>>7895872
retard
>>7895879
Whatever, friendo.
>>7895841
But in that time the was little to no separation from the author and the text.
>>7895897
Are you saying that Swift and Defoe also believed what they wrote was not fictional?
>>7894487
I think you should answer your own essay questions.
Apart from that, it's blindingly obvious that the assertion is false.
>>7895956
find one reason it's false
>>7895952
Just the readers.
>>7894487
That's a great cover. Looks very much like Suehiro Maruo's stuff (which I realize is influenced by others but it was the first thing that came to my mind).
>>7894487
Of course not. This statement is patently retarded. What about myths? Polytheism all you want, but Homer did not fucking think that there really was a cyclops or sirens of any of that shit. Even a lot of the bible is not supposed to be realistic. And then there are even specific genres that are blatantly non-realistic (see: satire, fantasy, surrealism). Whoever said this doesn't know what they're talking about or is using "realistic" in a different way than most people use it.
>In Trent’s Last Case (often called "the perfect detective story") you have to accept the premise that a giant of international finance, whose lightest frown makes Wall Street quiver like a chihuahua, will plot his own death so as to hang his secretary, and that the secretary when pinched will maintain an aristocratic silence; the old Etonian in him maybe. I have known relatively few international financiers, but I rather think the author of this novel has (if possible) known fewer. There is one by Freeman Wills Crofts (the soundest builder of them all when he doesn’t get too fancy) wherein a murderer by the aid of makeup, split second timing, and some very sweet evasive action, impersonates the man he has just killed and thereby gets him alive and distant from the place of the crime. There is one of Dorothy Sayers’ in which a man is murdered alone at night in his house by a mechanically released weight which works because he always turns the radio on at just such a moment, always stands in just such a position in front of it, and always bends over just so far. A couple of inches either way and the customers would get a rain check. This is what is vulgarly known as having God sit in your lap; a murderer who needs that much help from Providence must be in the wrong business. And there is a scheme of Agatha Christie’s featuring M. Hercule Poirot, that ingenius Belgian who talks in a literal translation of school-boy French, wherein, by duly messing around with his "little gray cells," M. Poirot decides that nobody on a certain through sleeper could have done the murder alone, therefore everybody did it together, breaking the process down into a series of simple operations, like assembling an egg-beater. This is the type that is guaranteed to knock the keenest mind for a loop. Only a halfwit could guess it.
>>7896098
>There is a very simple statement to be made about all these stories: they do not really come off intellectually as problems, and they do not come off artistically as fiction. They are too contrived, and too little aware of what goes on in the world. They try to be honest, but honesty is an art. The poor writer is dishonest without knowing it, and the fairly good one can be dishonest because he doesn’t know what to be honest about. He thinks a complicated murder scheme which baffles the lazy reader, who won’t be bothered itemizing the details, will also baffle the police, whose business is with details. The boys with their feet on the desks know that the easiest murder case in the world to break is the one somebody tried to get very cute with; the one that really bothers them is the murder somebody only thought of two minutes before he pulled it off. But if the writers of this fiction wrote about the kind of murders that happen, they would also have to write about the authentic flavor of life as it is lived. And since they cannot do that, they pretend that what they do is what should be done. Which is begging the question–and the best of them know it.
http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/scans/chandlerart.html
>>7896102
This is a large part of why I hate thrillers. They aren't made as mysteries to be solved, they're just poorly-written masses of endless cliches.
If it was intended to be realistic nobody would consume fiction.
>>7894487
in the sense that it imitates nature
which goes without saying, as human beings are not separate from nature
>>7897690
/thread
>>7897690
Kek
John dies at the end
