Oliphant’s beef with sensation fiction is that the books in this genre are written by the authors just to incorporate ideas and notions that evoke sensation in the reader without paying close attention to the realism of their writing. Oliphant states how “it is only natural that art and literature should, in an age which has turned to be one of events, attempt a kindred depth of effect and shock of incident.” In other words, art and literature in today’s society should relate to an incident and be designed with the sole purpose in my mind of creating an effect on the reader. Thus, authors become so focused on deepening the effect and sensation their book has on their readers, but “the effect is invariably attained by violent and illegitimate means… contradictory to real life.” When reading these books, the reader is definitely going to feel a sensation because that’s the whole point of the book, but that sensation, argues Oliphant, is obtained by “violent and illegitimate means” that contradict “real life.” Ultimately, the sensation isn’t genuine and real that the reader is feeling, but rather in result to the author putting so much emphasis on the sensation in the reading. This doesn’t allow for the reader to be purely satisfied by the book and story alone, it leads to them being satisfied simply because the author is so focused on doing so. I would compare her essay with Ruth Graham’s because both Oliphant and Graham claim that sensation in reading should be obtained simply from the reader feeling emotion from the text, not by the author trying to impose it to the point it drowns out the story.