Is authenticity something we can control?

[anthrodisiac]

It comes across as if the author wanted to write it. I wouldn't go so far as to say 0 motivation other than that.

But unless the author is being forced against their will, of course they want to write it, otherwise they wouldn't. But they could be writing it because they want to grab cash by trying to jam into a suddenly popular topic, and their only real motivation is trying to profit on a fad. Is that authentic?

My point is that it's an extremely hard thing to pin down, whether an author is writing from a place of authenticity. The term is so slippery when applied to "something that is authentic to the author, not the story" that it's purely a vibe people get from the story, and it's rarely about the author themselves, but how the reader interpreted the story. One reader might felt that it was the author being true to themselves, and another might feel that the author is a shill. Same exact story, totally different interpretations.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Can fiction ever be completely authentic? Aren't we really talking about plausibility/realism?

The OP was more about an author being authentic, not the story. True to themselves, as it were.

 

[Writer61]

The OP was more about an author being authentic, not the story. True to themselves, as it were.

I am not sure what that means in practice.

 

[SkyBubble]

I think one form of authenticity is a story that seems so true-to-life that people begin speculating about the lives of the characters outside the story. They seem so much like real people that people think they know them.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I am not sure what that means in practice.

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.

 

[AG31]

Can fiction ever be completely authentic? Aren't we really talking about plausibility/realism?

No. I was trying to talk about something else. Perhaps you could re-visit the OP and help me re-phrase?

 

[AG31]

My point is that it's an extremely hard thing to pin down,

Precisely why I offered it as a point for discussion here. Different folks shed different lights.

whether an author is writing from a place of authenticity.

The OP was more about an author being authentic, not the story. True to themselves, as it were.

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,"

 

[Writer61]

No. I was trying to talk about something else. Perhaps you could re-visit the OP and help me re-phrase?

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.

EDIT: just seen the post above. Seems like I misunderstood what you were getting at.

 

[TheIntrepidBoyager]

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.

 

[Britva415]

Can fiction ever be completely authentic? Aren't we really talking about plausibility/realism?

Authenticity in this context doesn’t have to do with truth or falsehood.

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.”

 

[Britva415]

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.

Heh. It could have been called “Is a discussion about authenticity something we can control.”

 

[Writer61]

Authenticity in this context doesn’t have to do with truth or falsehood.

What is it about, then?

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.”

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.

 

[Britva415]

I think I said exactly that. Fiction, by definition, is not real. or authentic, and I don't have a problem with that

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?

 

[Writer61]

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?

Er, no. Nothing to walk back. I stated my view. You can talk about whatever you like.

Fiction is not real. A story may be influenced by real-life experience, but it is still fiction. You may consider it authentic