There are many fallacies in French Culture, beginning with Rabelais, that at least cited Aldus Manutius the Elder' work on which he inspired his famous work "Gargantua and Pantagruel". Rabelais copied, but in fact giving his own grotesque vision, much better than Thomas More (England), that plainly copied the whole of the Venetian's work. The most ignomious fallacy was done by Moliere. He copied the worst of Plaute's (1st c. ac, Rome) work "The Golden Pot" into "The miser", by suppressing the main character, a slave that steel his greedy master to pay his own freedom and just kept the cynical portrait of the miser, not to unplease his king, Louis 14, that just published his "Code Noir", a slave user book, that would, through Louisiana, give step to segregationnism in USA and would feed any kind of racism worldwide. The most brilliant French fallacy was Gros-Calin (Big-Hug), a wonderful work of an unknown Emile Ajar, recibed the Goncourt prize in 1975. Emile Ajar wasn't but Roman Kasew, as Romain Gary, winner of Goncourt Prize 1957 with The Roots of Heaven (filmed by John Huston). The worldwide success of this book didn't let the writer quiet enough to write what he wanted. So, he invented another him, Emile Ajar, all literature critics celebrated as a genious newcomer. He married Jean Seberg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romain_Gary

your comment is highly appreciated, yet still these are not the types of fallacies i seek in literature.

Perhaps it would help if the querant provided an example of some of the fallacies about which the question is posed. . . .?

Although the question is not as clearly and coherently stated as it might have been, I venture to suggest that the most relevant "fallacy" might be "the intentional fallacy," which is not really a term that pertains to the authorial creation of a literary work, but, rather, "the intentional fallacy" is a term utilized in the domain of literary criticism. A research paper in which the writer proceeds to discuss a literary work, e.g., a novel, by assuming, and indeed asserting, that everything in the literary text may be traced to the author's intention is an example of the researcher committing or falling into the trap known as "the intentional fallacy," which should be avoided, particularly when the literary work belongs to a period in literary history after, say, 1800 or so. Much more could be said about "the intentional fallacy"; however, I proceed no further until Amjed L. Jabbar or another respondent speaks to the term "the intentional fallacy"! The question is certainly a good one; however, it just needs to be clarified a bit more.

first and foremost, I am grateful to Mr Jim and Ms Nancy for their comments on the posed querie. Next, though the question is clearly set to ask about not the types of fallacies in literature. It more poses thoughtful exploration and insight on their roles in shaping and forming a work of literature. As for types or examples requested by Mr Jim, to mention some, there are Ad Hominem, False Analogy, intentional fallacy (as thankfully stated by Ms Nancy), circular reasoning, false dilemma, among others. The above-mentioned are some of the types of fallacies to be found in literary publications about which I kindly request your comments on what do you speculate to be their vital roles in literature and what are their impacts on literary characters and/or plots.

I'm not sure if this relates to the posed question, but in memoir or autobiographical fiction the distorted or modified events are changed sometimes for literary or artistic reasons. Since literature is an art its main concern is not documentary like history; hence, fallacies in literature, particularly poetry, are justified as far as they contribute to the writer's aesthetic goal. Another point is to decide the meaning of truth; for example was Theodore Roethke telling the "truth" when he relates in a note that once he felt what's it like to be a tree, a river or a blade of grass? If we talk from a literary view point, which I assume you do, then Phenomenology is an adequate approach to handle the issue.

Muthana Makki Mohammedali grateful for your answer, the question, yet, is to wonder and dig deep in the core meaning of fallacies themselves to figure out what role they play in shaping the characteristic features of literary personae in works of literature.

Cops in mystery novels often fall prey to post hoc ergo propter hoc: after the fact therefore caused by the fact. It is a device to show that the detective who is in private practice or the amateur detective always are smarter than the cops. Poe and Conan Doyle used this device often to demonstrate the fact that the logical faculty cannot take primacy over neutral perception. Phenomenology shows that pure perception is true but happens in a nanosecond and is immediately succeeded by a sort of filling in the blanks i associations, assumptions, ad hominem expectations, and the like -- and the reflection on that perception is unreliable because it is based on false analogies or habitual expectations which distort the initial perception. This is why zen involves the practice of just looking without judgment. It is not easy to suspend judgment, but that is what the best observers (and detectives) have learned to do. This principle can be carried over into non-crime literature- consider Being There by Jerzy Kosinski and the 1979 film starring Peter Sellers. Look also at Samuel Beckett's only movie, Film, and read Merleau-Ponty's The Phenomenology of Perception..

Jim Drummond your response is thoroughly amazing and adds more depth to the issue raised here. My gratitude for this clarification and for the textual recommendations made by you.