Well surely RME that would depend on what your own view of the world was. Naturally we'd think the author whose world view coincided with our own had the most accurate take on things cosmic.
If you are comparatively sane this might vary a little depending on world events and personal crises. Authors in the end are probably just like us - with a very slippery grasp on what is actually going on in "world" terms. Any author who claims to have it all sorted out or those who champion certain authors as having a firm hold on the "accurate world view" championship cup should be viewed with a jaundiced eye and the utmost suspicion. Larry

For the Victorian Era, I think no one had a better handle on the "real worlds" of Paris and London than Emile Zola and George Gissing.

I also think John Steinbeck had a good view of the dustbowl problems in The Grapes of Wrath.

But I list these books with a grain of salt because I was not alive during those time periods and have no personal experiences in which to judge. I think this question may be better worded as "What authors do you think best grasped the reality of their environment?" Steinbeck could not have written on the high society stuff like Fitzgerald, neither could Fitzgerald grasp the reality of Steinbeck's settings. The bottom line may be that we admire them for writing so well on that which they knew.

PAM

Like larrry, I am not sure this question is answerable. An 'accurate' world view to me will be totally different than my mom's, my boss, or anyone in the world. We all come to a book with our own background and experience, with our own opinions, values and prejudices, and writers write with those as well. I could probably name a few authors who I think matches some of my world view. But as a general rule for every one? No.

rme, perhaps you could explain a bit more what you mean by 'the way things really are'? Are you referring to politics, daily life in a certain part of the country or among a certain population, or our values, our beliefs?

If you are looking for the Great American Novel - I have never figured out what that was supposed to mean, but maybe others have some ideas.

I agree with both Larry and Pam. We DO gravitate towards authors whose world-view closely accords with ours. That being said, we can't really understand some authors' world-views since we weren't around for the time period they're writing about.

For my money, I prefer Colin Wilson's world-view. Granted, it's not a very rosy one nor is it a hopeful one. But, to me, it does explain quite a bit. Now that I think about it, it may not be his world-view that appeals to me -- it could possibly be more his approach to things.

I agree with Larry and would add that the question also posits realism as the only form of literary expression that can meet the criteria. You have to exclude the supernatural(!) from King in order to discuss him. Now I personally think that realism (or as I prefer, "so-called realism") is quite over-rated. I might think that Shakespeare has the most accurate world view, as long as I discount the fact that his characters speak in verse, are often not bound by historical or geographic accuracy, and are involved in plots that often strain believability. But if I discount those things, I don't think I have much left to talk about.

So I guess I feel like I'm stuck with an interesting question that constrains me to answer "realistically." In that vein, I'd say Henry James. I'm not a huge fan of James, but I think his understanding of psychology and an individual's interaction with his or her world is pretty accurate.

Russ

I don't think it is possible to have an accurate and all-encompassing world view, either as a writer or as a reader. After all it is a view, as if through a window. Our windows are positioned differently and we see different things, depending on our experiences, clarity of vision, and temperament.

I must say that the comparison of Jan Karon and Thomas Kincaid struck me as very apt.

Rosefolly

Dyno, you said "We DO gravitate towards authors whose world-view closely accords with ours." I find that is more true for me now than when I was young. As a kid the more foreign to me the more exiting. It is only now in my 50s that I look for guidance to, or another take on, the world I actually inhabit. Anyone else find that they reach for the more familiar the older they get?

I think that sometimes writers do have an inaccurate world view. I thought, when reading Tartt's A Secret History that she was writing about a world she had only gazed upon from the outside. Yes, I know she went to a school such as depicted, but I felt she brought a lot of prejudgement to her characters. In fact, they struck mas as caricatures. Interesting, but still too much of a type to be real. And, truthfully, Fitzgerald has always seemed a bit like a kid who wanted to be a part of the world he descibed, but wasn't quite. And really didn't get it exactly right.

It's a great question and yet an unanswerable one.

Dare I say that no one on this planet can actually present an accurate view? We are all influenced by our surroundings, our philosophies, our religious beliefs, and our experiences. All of these things have an effect on how we perceive truth, and all of these things come together in varying, complex degrees to complete each of our own personal illusions (or delusions) of truth. Only a completely untouched, unbiased person/entity/observer can have a truly accurate concept and an absolute truth of what the world is, and putting aside any religious beliefs, that person does not exist.

To me, it's like looking at the inside of a clock at all the many cogs and wheels that work together. If people were living inside that tiny world, each in different areas and on different cogs and delicate parts, each view of that world would be different and would be influenced by that little part of that world, completely ignorant of how all the different pieces were working together. Only the clockmaker, as he takes the covering off the clock and peers within, can glimpse it in its entirety and fully and realistically appreciate the overall scheme of things.

Great philosophical question, though, and I will admit to being firmly on the side of the pessimists and so-called realists. :-)

Very interesting quesiton and interesting discussion. I would agree with those who believe that it is impossible for anyone to have an entirely accurate world view. Even those who write about the situations which they are in still have their own perceptions of those situations that impact their writing. As humans, we put our own interpretation upon the events we encounter based upon experiences in the past, beliefs we hold, and information we may have about that event.

When reading, the writer has already put one set of perceptions into his/her writing, while the reader brings along his/her own set of perceptions which further distorts reality. There are authors whose writing I have perceived to be close to my world view, thus I enjoy them. However, it may be that the author meant something totally different than what I take from the book - this is an addition issue when attempting to chose authors who have the most accurate world view. We can never know totally what they mean, because their meaning is clouded by our perception.

I really like the clock image. We do indeed all come from different backgrounds, which impacts our vision of the world. I, too, am an admitted realist.

I'm sure you have all heard the story of three blind men describing an elephant while they stood in different positions around it. That about sums it up to me.

I love the Jan Karon-Thomas Kincaid remark. I know someone who loves both of them and also reads mostly romance novels. She is an absolutely lovely person. She just likes her escapism pleasant.