This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Lord TNK: What the hell is this about that isn't covered by Literary Agent Hypothesis? And what the hell does this have to do with this namespace?
CAD: I'm fine about not having known we had this, but you can't tell me the article isn't "so optimistic it's sappy", which is the point of sugar wiki, right?
Lord TNK: I can. It basically states that some believe fiction is real and it leads to fanfiction. That's more a statement of fans than an optimistic notion, and is already covered by other tropes.
CAD: The optimistic notion is that all fiction is equally fictitious, which means you're free to take anything seriously, regardless of whether it's funded, fan-made, or un-published. That's a fact, and that was the point I was trying to make. The rest of it was just extra stuff I felt naturally followed.
fleb: This isn't really the same idea as Literary Agent Hypothesis; it's practically its opposite, even if it reaches the same conclusion about fanon. It is a little weird / Something Completely Different in the wiki Sugar Bowl, but if it's going to exist, it fits better here than elsewhere.
Kilyle: I don't see this idea as represented by other tropes. The idea that all fiction is of equal reality, so that fanfiction is just as valid as published works, that's a worthy idea that I think this page does well with. And it's a page to throw at those people who go "Fanfiction is just stupid and why aren't you writing something real" - let alone "Fanfiction is stealing! you are destroying the real authors' babies!" If I were still back in college, I'd probably being pointing this page out to my writing professor.
Document N: Meh. I still think the creator of a world has the right within reason to say what really happens in it, and that the reality of a fictional world can be gauged by how badly it contradicts itself, how badly logic contradicts it, and to what degree it just feels real; in particular, to what degree events in the story seem to be the natural consequences of previous events and actions (edit: shown or otherwise), rather than being bent to reach a desired conclusion or because of some lame rule. After all, a perfectly self-consistent story could be made real simply by building a computer simulation to generate it; in no sense would it be "exactly 0% real" then.
William Wide Web: I don't know about the hypothesis itself, but that story is amazing. Maybe there should be a page "Make Crappy Ideas Good" or something.
Trope Kira: I'm doing something like that in Writer's Block.
"Real isn't how you are made," said the Skin Horse. "It's a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you for a long, long time, not just to play with, but REALLY loves you, then you become Real." —The Velveteen Rabbit
Computer Sherpa: Couldn't it be said that as more people "believe" in a story, the author puts more and more work into it, and the universe the story defines becomes larger and more complex, that it becomes more "real"? None of the things Shakespeare wrote actually happened, but if you think of the influence they've had on our culture they might as well have. Tolkien spent his entire life developing Middle-Earth, and his books have had a profound influence on most of the fantasy literature written since; you're going to have a hard time convincing me that they're no more real than a freshly-penned fanfic.
Document N: I think it could. Some stories become so "real" that you can catch people (or yourself) literally thinking of them as though they happened
; the Tailsteak quote shows that nicely. I agree with CAD and Kilyle's posts too, though.
