Realist writers like Honoré de Balzac defended themselves by arguing that not showing "evil" reveals bourgeois hypocrisy. But Balzac judged his characters, made his voice heard, unlike Flaubert, who opted for an impersonal narrator, for which he was Whatsapp Mobile Number List reproached in his trial, accusing him of "magnifying" adultery because of the ambiguous procedure of free indirect speech, where the author adjusts to the point of view of his characters. During the Third Republic, when access to reading increased thanks to the generalization of education, Émile Zola and the naturalists affirmed that it is the reader who must form his own judgment.
The distinction between representation and apology is not codified, but it is observed in the jurisprudence that underlies the decisions of the judges, especially when the representation is fictitious and the fictional universe is considered closed – except when Whatsapp Mobile Number List proper names of real people are cited, which opens the door to lawsuits for defamation by the latter, as Le Pen did against Mathieu Lindon, author of a novel entitled procès de Whatsapp Mobile Number List or even for invasion of privacy–. That said, there are representations that are more or less complacent in their descriptions of crimes or rapes, or even in the representation of racist characters, and it is up to critics to expose these forms of complacency, without the work having to be censored.
In the book I analyze the case of Platform, by Michel Houellebecq, which shows complacency regarding the Islamophobia of his characters. What does it mean that there is a triple relationship (metonymic, similarity and internal causality or Whatsapp Mobile Number List intentionality) between an author and his work? Although you refer to authors such as Michel Foucault or to the theories of proper names of analytic philosophers to argue your position, the analysis of this triple relationship is originally yours, isn't it?