A scene from 'Crime and Punishment' by Russian painter Nikolai Karazin.

Literature is not merely the art of storytelling. It is a mechanism of thought that reveals what humans genuinely accept as truth. Therefore, dealing with the "effect of the real" is not simply explaining writing techniques, but rather akin to analyzing human perception itself.

Literature does not reproduce facts; it designs structures that make us believe them as facts. In this regard, literature touches upon philosophy.

First, we must distinguish between the depiction of reality and truth. While they can overlap, they are not identical. In philosophy, truth is a matter of how an object and perception are connected. Ancient Greeks understood truth as "unveiling," while since the modern era, it has been explained as the congruence of perception and object.

However, literature twists this standard. This is because even if an object does not actually exist, literature can make readers accept it as existing.

This is where the "effect of the real" emerges. The effect of the real does not prove truth; it is a device that makes something appear truthful. In other words, literature does not ask "What is true?" but rather deals with "What feels true?" This is not a mere technique but an epistemological problem.

This is because humans are beings who judge through clues, not by directly verifying facts.

One of the most extreme examples of this structure is found in *1984*. This work depicts a totalitarian state but does not precisely describe a specific country. Yet, readers accept it as a very real world. The reason lies in the details. Concepts like "Big Brother," "Thought Police," and "doublethink" have concrete systems, and even the minutiae of daily life are intricately constructed.

These details lead the reader to make the judgment, "This is plausible in reality." What the reader accepts at this point is not historical fact, but the truth of possibility.

A similar approach is observed in *Crime and Punishment*. The process by which Raskolnikov commits murder is not a record of a specific event. However, his psychological portrayal is extremely detailed. It unfolds sequentially, from his agitation before the crime, to the confusion immediately after, and his subsequent self-justification.

As readers follow this process, they feel, "This person could actually exist." What operates here is not the factuality of the event, but the concreteness of the psychology.

Now let's delve into the issue of thought. Why do humans accept something as more truthful the more details it has? This question is also connected to empiricism. Empiricism posits that humans perceive the world through their senses. In other words, it is believed that more concrete information leads to more certain perception.

Literature precisely utilizes this point. It stimulates the reader's senses through concrete scenes, trivial actions, and recurring habits, making them mistake those sensations for truth.

However, there is a trap here. Details do not guarantee truth. Rather, details can obscure the truth. The way political propaganda or misinformation works is identical. Listing dates, numbers, places, and names makes it appear like a more credible story. However, whether those pieces of information are actually connected is a separate issue.

Literature uses this structure consciously, and in reality, it is often repeated unconsciously.

The conviction that something is "plausible" is formed here. Humans more readily accept the familiar than the entirely new. Therefore, literature draws elements that already exist in reality. It utilizes actual city names, actual systems, and actual types of people. Fiction is then overlaid upon this foundation.

Readers enter the story through the familiar framework and naturally accept the fiction within it.

This method also clashes with historical narration. History also builds credibility through details. By accurately presenting years, figures, and events, readers accept them as facts. However, history is also a product of interpretation. The same event can have entirely different meanings depending on the narrative approach.

This is why the boundaries between literature and history are not completely separate.

For instance, a figure can be described as a "revolutionary" or a "mobster." The event itself is the same, but if the arrangement of details and the emphasis points differ, the reader's perception changes completely. Literature reveals this process explicitly, while historical narration carries it out subtly.

Ultimately, the effect of the real exposes the vulnerability of human perception. We do not judge based on complete information. We construct the whole through partial clues and impressions. And in that process, details play a decisive role.

Literature is a genre that intentionally designs this process.

Therefore, good literature does not merely end with telling a good story. It analyzes how readers believe and manipulates that belief. And through that process, it reveals the very way humans approach truth.

The effect of the real discussed in this article ultimately leads to one question: On what basis do we judge truth? Literature shakes that standard and simultaneously reveals it. Truth does not always exist solely in its revealed form. Sometimes, it appears in a designed form. And humans accept that design as truth.

◆ Songsan

A poet and researcher of history and philosophy. Former director of the Rhee Syngman Institute. Currently active as a senior advisor to the Korean Modern and Contemporary History Research Society and as the representative of the philosophical forum Lyceum. He has published four collections of poetry, co-translated 'Heroes of Hookogo', and authored 'Joseon That Became Myth' and 'Humanities on a Tatami Mat'. He is actively engaged in research and practice for the liberal cultural movement. Songsan is a pen name.