What is it done And what it is fiction in novels and stories
In literature, the dividing line between fact and fiction is sometimes blurred. On Fiction It often happens that the writer claims no consciously with the intention of including autobiographical elements in the novel / short story. But it’s not like that? And does it make any difference to us, the readers and / or the quality of the book?
In any case, when you read a novel or a story, you probably rarely wonder what is fiction in the book and what is based on the autobiographical elements of the author. And why would you do it? Would knowing one way or another make a difference? Does knowing, for example, that part of the plot or characters in the book are based on some aspects of the author’s own life, give the book more credibility? More attractive powers? Or does a book stand on its own merit, whether or not it is based, in part, on the autobiographical elements of the writer?
Knowing that? done and fiction Do the blurry add any value or credibility to the novel / story?
It is a well known fact that the Belgian writer Georges simenon (1903 – 1989), who has published some 500 novels and short stories, has based many of his characters on people he knew.
It is also known that many of the tales of the American writer Raymond Carver (1938 – 1988) contain some autobiographical elements (that is, drunkenness, divorce and couple quarrels).
A similar case is found in Jonathan Safran FoerComment on his latest book (“Here I am”, 2016). Eleven years after Foer published his last book (“Extremely Loud & Increasingly Close”, 2005), his new novel is about relationships.
When asked if the book is based on autobiographical elements, Foer replied that the same question is often asked. He admits to having divorced his ex after 10 years of marriage, and also says that for the past 11 years he has been constantly writing on topics related to marriage and divorce.
So, without having received a clear answer, we see that, once again, fact and fiction seem to blur, intermingle and intertwine.
And once again, knowing that’s the case, do you add any additional quality to Foer’s book?
What if the perpetrator had not told us what the description of the rape was based on?
Jessica knollThe first novel “Luckiest Girl Alive” (Simon & Schuster, 2016), describes, in a very credible way, the gang rape of a 14-year-old girl. Knoll was asked by some of the critics about the research she had done prior to writing the book, which helped her describe the rape in such a credible way. Several weeks after the book was published, Knoll admitted in an interview that the rape scene happened to she (as Knoll explained in “Lenny,” a newsletter and website for young women, March 29, 2016)
If Knoll should have no He said, would this have made any difference? How often do authors not tell us? And does it really matter if the “fiction” is based, in part, on some of the author’s autobiographical elements?
Can an author write passionately about love and eroticism without having a personal experience?
The novel of the Israeli author Judith Katzir “Dear Anne” (Feminist Press, 2008) tells the erotic love story between a 14-year-old girl and her 27-year-old teacher. Apparently, their love is “unique” to the two of them. But, would it be possible for the author to describe love and sex in such a detailed but aesthetic way, without having had a personal experience (similar, to say the least)?
Could it be that an author who dedicates page after page to describe, in great detail, an erotic love between two; their yearnings for each other; their “sexual games”; your addictive and forbidden love, have you not based it, at least in part, on your own experiences (even to the point of “using” the writing process as self-therapy)?
When reading Katzir’s book, one might wonder how many autobiographical elements the book is based on. Such beautiful, vivid, explicit and emotional descriptions of love and attraction – is it possible that they all came only from Katzir’s imaginary mind, or is it possible, simply possible, that she must have at least experienced? Some (similar) level of love and attraction to be able to write about it so convincingly?
Katzir’s “Dear Anne” is just one example, among many, that shows that in literature it is not always possible to differentiate between the author’s imagination and elements based on the author’s life. The two often look blurry.
It does knowing that Nabokov Had the synesthesia made a difference?
It may not be known that the Russian-American writer Vladimir Nabokov (1899 – 1977; famous for the novel “Lolita”, 1955) – had synesthesia (a neurological condition in which the stimulation of one sense produces experiences in a totally different sense. For example, people with synesthesia can see colors in the letters; or they can see colors in the food they taste or they can associate colors with emotions).
Knowing that Nabokov had synesthesia could explain why some of the characters in his books suffer from synesthesia (even in the novels “The Defense”, 1930 and “The Gift,” 1952).
Nabokov used to tell how synesthesia helps and enriches the lives of the characters (as well as that of the readers: the writer can use synesthesia as a literary device, describing people, places, events and emotions in terms of multiple senses). [which is often the case in poetry]. This “technique” makes the reader feel more “in touch” with the story / poem).
However, the question again is: is there a difference for the reader, knowing that the writer has had experiences similar to those of his characters? Does it add any value to the novel / story?
We do not know. However, having a similar experience could allow the writer to “get inside the head” of his characters and describe them in a more credible way (which, in the long run, can give the novel greater credibility and perhaps make it a “better” novel with a broader universal appeal).
Between fiction and reality: where does the quality of the story lie?
Getting into the mind of another person, even a “normal” person, is a difficult undertaking. Not even psychiatrists, psychologists, and other therapists can do it without hesitation and difficulty.
When it comes to “unconventional” people – murderers, crazy people, and the like – it can be even harder to get into their heads.
When it comes to literature, there are those who claim that good writers, who have a keen eye for observing and recording, can really get into the heads of their personalities, whether they are “normal” or “deviant.”
Still, this is not an easy task, and often we do not know if the writer has had a “close encounter” with a similar case or not … Often when the work of fiction attracts and impresses us, it is not like that. make a difference.
Or does it?