His entire argument rested on the necessity of novels. But every novel argues against its own necessity. The world of any novel, no matter how realistic, differs from the actual world in that the novel’s world can’t contain one specific book: the novel itself. For example, the world of Pamuk’s The Museum of Innocence didn’t contain a copy of The Museum of Innocence. If Pamuk’s fictional world was managing just fine without a copy of his novel, wasn’t the author—any author—revealing that the actual world didn’t need the novel either? Et cetera, et cetera.
Ummm...what? That makes no sense. This person is arguing for the importance of literarture on a whole, not any one particular novel.
Also, even in stories, there exist other, similar stories. Marvel, for example, famously exists in the world of DC because Dick Grayson reads Spiderman comics.
