More often than not, real life is so rich, complex and unpredictable that it would seem completely implausible in the pages of a novel.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Successful fiction does not need to be validated by 'real life'; I cringe whenever a writer is asked how much of a novel is 'real'.
Real life is far more complicated than fiction.
Real life is crazier than fiction.
Realistic novels simply pretend that the rules of their invented worlds are identical to the rules of actual life, but that's a ruse.
All fiction relies on the real world in the sense that we all take in the world through our five senses and we accumulate details, consciously or subconsciously. This accumulation of detail can be drawn on when you write fiction.
I think most writers will say that at the start of each book they think, 'I'm not sure I can do this.' But eventually, you reach a magical point where the story suddenly becomes real to you, and you become totally invested in it.
I think novels are profoundly autobiographical. If writers deny that, they are lying. Or if it's really true, then I think it's a mistake.
It isn't as if a writer merely records life as it unfurls. Reality does not automatically transcribe as literature; real people are not shapely, compelling characters to be harvested. Charming facts and sharp observations rarely slide seamlessly into whatever narrative is at hand.
Fiction is based on reality unless you're a fairytale artist.
Every reader knows about the feeling that characters in books seem more real than real people.