I don't mind nothing happening in a book, but nothing happening in a phony way--characters saying things people never say, doing jobs that don't fit, the whole works--is simply asking too much of a reader. Something happening in a phony way must beat nothing happening in a phony way every time, right? I mean, you could prove that, mathematically, in an equation, and you can't often apply science to literature.
In "The Polysyllabic Spree," Nick Hornby expresses his thoughts on authenticity in literature. He suggests that readers can tolerate a lack of action in a book, as long as the events and characters feel genuine. When characters engage in unrealistic dialogues and behaviors that do not reflect true human experience, it detracts from the reader's enjoyment and engagement with the story.
Hornby argues that, despite the lack of action, a narrative featuring genuine interactions is preferable to one that feels contrived. He humorously implies that it is possible to mathematically prove the superiority of authenticity in storytelling over fabrications, highlighting the unique relationship between literature and the human experience that cannot always be quantified.
