anthrodisiac
Dorkaeopteryx
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2025
- Posts
- 4,488
The OP was more about an author being authentic, not the story. True to themselves, as it were.Can fiction ever be completely authentic? Aren't we really talking about plausibility/realism?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The OP was more about an author being authentic, not the story. True to themselves, as it were.Can fiction ever be completely authentic? Aren't we really talking about plausibility/realism?
I am not sure what that means in practice.The OP was more about an author being authentic, not the story. True to themselves, as it were.
Which is exactly my point. It's an incredibly nebulous quality that varies wildly between readers of even the same work. The definition is fuzzy, subject to interpretation and misinterpretation.I am not sure what that means in practice.
No. I was trying to talk about something else. Perhaps you could re-visit the OP and help me re-phrase?Can fiction ever be completely authentic? Aren't we really talking about plausibility/realism?
Precisely why I offered it as a point for discussion here. Different folks shed different lights.My point is that it's an extremely hard thing to pin down,
whether an author is writing from a place of authenticity.
Actually, I was talking about the quality of the story, not the author's actual state of mind. "is a quality in a story such that it seems as if the author were writing from within,"The OP was more about an author being authentic, not the story. True to themselves, as it were.
Re-reading the OP, I think that you are talking about the writer's authenticity rather than the story itself. It amounts to writing for yourself, not what somebody else wants, which I agree with, at least for the amateur writers here.No. I was trying to talk about something else. Perhaps you could re-visit the OP and help me re-phrase?
Authenticity in this context doesn’t have to do with truth or falsehood.Can fiction ever be completely authentic? Aren't we really talking about plausibility/realism?
Heh. It could have been called “Is a discussion about authenticity something we can control.”Surely the wide ranging answers and debate about the very definition of the word that have been shared in this thread answer the question posed in the title.
No.
What is it about, then?Authenticity in this context doesn’t have to do with truth or falsehood.
I think I said exactly that. Fiction, by definition, is not real. or authentic, and I don't have a problem with that. Some writers may be skilled enough to come close to a story that feels real, and good for them.You might as well ask how it can be “realistic” if “fiction isn’t real.” It can be because that’s how our words work. Same goes for “authenticity.”
Let me go back and re-read. Maybe I got you all wrong.I think I said exactly that. Fiction, by definition, is not real. or authentic, and I don't have a problem with that
Er, no. Nothing to walk back. I stated my view. You can talk about whatever you like.Let me go back and re-read. Maybe I got you all wrong.
Yes, there it is: You’re postulating that we can talk about realism in fiction, while simultaneously doubting that we can talk about authenticity.
Are you now walking that back, and saying we can’t talk about either?