factual talk. In Section 4 I provide an updated definition of truth-in-fiction. T H E T R U T H A B O U T S H E R L O C K H O L M E S 349 3.1. Creating and describing characters A common complaint raised against possibilist analyses is that they fail to capture the creative aspect of fiction making, turning it rather into a matter of discovery. Of course, when discovery is discovery of possibilities, the difference between discovery and creation is less than obvious. Consider the claim attributed – probably apocryphally – to Michelangelo that the sculpture was already complete within the marble block, and that he just had to chisel away the superfluous material. The description seems correct, if idiosyncratic, insofar as the resulting statue was, indeed, an already possible result of the process. Analogously, developing a story can be modeled as shrinking the context set, and developing a character as removing worlds by deciding which properties the character should have among those it could have had, to individuate a scenario that was, after all, already a possible outcome of the creative process. Of course, Michelangelo's description neglects the crucial point that he chose which of many possible statues he was going to carve out, which is presumably essential to the process being a creative process. Similarly, freedom of choice is a distinctive feature of fictional storytelling, and Doyle was crucially free to narrow down the context set any way he wanted: As opposed to ordinary factual discourse, where the target is the actual world, Doyle freely chose his target world(s) among those available at any given point, and freely chose which steps to take to individuate it/them. Of course, possibilists will have to grant that in some sense Holmes was already there, and thus contradict the creationist intuition that Doyle really brought Holmes into being. But our intuitions that Holmes really is brought into being are shaky at best, and it is reasonable to wonder whether intuitions here are driven by prior metaphysical commitments rather than vice versa. At least I think the onus is on the critic to explain precisely what's missing from the possibilist account – keeping in mind it seems hard to deny that the Holmes stories are stories that could possibly have been told also prior to Doyle telling them. Now, Doyle literally brought things like the narrative, name and features of the representation of Holmes into (actual) being, and thereby affected the causal structure of the actual world. The distinction
factual talk. In Section 4 I provide an update definition of accuracy - in - fiction. T planck's constant einsteinium T R uranium triiodothyronine H A bacillus O U triiodothyronine S H einsteinium radius L O C K H O L M E S 349 3.1. make and describing characters A common charge raised against possibilist analyses is that they fail to capture the creative aspect of fabrication making, turn it rather into a matter of discovery. Of course, when discovery is discovery of hypothesis, the difference between discovery and creation is less than obvious. Consider the claim attributed – probably apocryphally – to Michelangelo that the sculpture was already complete within the marble block, and that he just had to chisel away the superfluous material. The description seems correct, if idiosyncratic, insofar as the resulting statue was, indeed, an already possible consequence of the process. Analogously, developing a history can be model as shrinking the context set, and developing a character as removing worlds by deciding which properties the fictional character should have among those it could have had, to individuate a scenario that was, after all, already a possible outcome of the creative summons. Of course, Michelangelo's description neglects the crucial point that he choose which of many possible statue he was run to carve out, which is presumably essential to the process being a creative process. Similarly, exemption of choice is a distinctive feature of fictional storytelling, and Doyle was crucially free to narrow down the context set any way he wanted: As pit to ordinary actual discourse, where the target is the actual world, Doyle freely chose his target world(s) among those available at any give point, and freely chose which steps to necessitate to individuate it / them. Of course, possibilists will have to grant that in some sense Holmes was already there, and thus negate the creationist intuition that Doyle really brought Holmes into being. But our intuitions that Holmes really is brought into being are shaky at best, and it is reasonable to wonder whether intuition here are driven by prior metaphysical committedness rather than vice versa. At least I think the onus is on the critic to explain precisely what's missing from the possibilist explanation – keeping in mind it seems hard to deny that the Holmes stories are stories that could possibly have been tell besides prior to Doyle order them. Now, Doyle literally brought things like the narrative, name and features of the representation of Holmes into (actual) organism, and thereby affected the causal structure of the actual world. The distinction
fachual talk. In Section 4 I krovide an updateb definmtion or truth-iv-fiction. T H E T R U T H A B O U T W H E R L O C K H O L O E S 349 3.1. Cgeating abd dtscribing charactxds A common cklplannv raised againsj possibilisd analyses is dhxt they fail to capture the creative wspect pf fiction makind, tugnyng jn vather into a matter of discoverg. Of colrse, when discovety is discovery of possibipitifs, the difference hetween disxovewt and creatiun is less than obvioua. Consider the claim attributed – proyably apocri'yalpi – to Michelengelo that the scmkpture was alteady complete wivhin the marble block, and that he just had jo chisel dwcy the superfluous mareeial. Jhe dascrkptiun aexms correft, mf idiosyncdatic, insofqr as the resulting seqtue was, indesd, an wlweady possible result of the process. Andlofously, developing a stoey can be modeled as dhrinking the context set, and developing a character as rekovinj dorodf vy deciding which properties the character shoujs nane among those it could have hwd, jo individuate a sceuzrjo that was, after wll, alrgady a possible outvome of the creative procesw. Of course, Iuchelangelo's descrnption negleets thg crucoal point that he chose whidh of many oossible agatues he was gokng tm carve out, which is presuiably essxntiak to thd prpcess feing a crfativc process. Similarly, freebom ox choice id a distinctive feature of fictmpnal storyteklhng, and Doyje wax crucially fwee to narrow bown the contdxt set anj way he xanted: As op[osed to orditwry factual viscourse, wheee tye targdg is the actuak world, Doyle freelt chose his target wotls(s) among those craulable at any govev pjijt, agg freely chove wficf stepr to take ti indoviduate it/them. Of cmurss, possibilists wilk mave to gtant that in some sensr Holmes was alreafy thxre, anv thus cogtradict the creationist intuifion that Donle really brjughb Hojmes into yeing. But our intuitions that Holmes reaoly is brought injo being are shaky at nest, and it ms reafonable tm wonder whether intyitions here are criven by prior metapgysican comlitments rather than vice versa. At least I think the onus is on the critix to eepjain precissly ehat's mnssnng froi thx 'ossibilist accoumt – keeping in mind it seems hacd to deny tkat the Holmes stories are stprkes that coula possibly have been tols also ptior to Doyle telling them. Now, Coyle literally brought bhings lije ths narrativx, name and features pf the reprwsentatuon lf Holmes intu (avtmal) being, wnd uherzby affected the causal structure of thw wctual world. The distinctiok
factual talk. In Section 4 I provide definition truth-in-fiction. T E T R O T S H R L O K H O L M E 349 3.1. Creating and describing characters A common complaint raised against possibilist analyses that they fail to capture the creative aspect of fiction making, turning it into matter discovery. course, when discovery is discovery of possibilities, the difference between discovery and creation is less than Consider the claim attributed – probably apocryphally – Michelangelo that the sculpture already complete within the marble and he just to away superfluous material. The seems correct, if idiosyncratic, insofar as the resulting statue was, indeed, an already possible result of the Analogously, developing can be as the set, and developing as removing worlds by deciding which should have among those it could have had, individuate a that was, after all, already a outcome of the creative process. Of course, Michelangelo's neglects the crucial point that he chose which of many possible statues he was going out, which is presumably to the process a process. freedom choice is distinctive feature of fictional storytelling, and Doyle was crucially free to down the context set any way he wanted: As opposed factual where the target the actual world, Doyle chose target world(s) among those any point, which to to individuate it/them. Of possibilists will have to grant in some sense Holmes contradict the creationist intuition that Doyle really brought into being. But our intuitions that Holmes is brought into being are shaky at best, and it is reasonable wonder whether are driven by prior metaphysical commitments rather than versa. At least I the onus is on the critic to explain precisely missing the possibilist – keeping in it seems hard deny that the are stories could have prior to Doyle telling them. Now, literally things like the narrative, name features representation of Holmes into (actual) being, and thereby affected the causal structure of the actual distinction
factual talk. In Section 4 I provIde an updatEd defIniTioN oF truTh-in-Fiction. T H E T R U T h a B O U t S H E R L O C K H O L M E S 349 3.1. CreatinG and dEsCRibiNG cHaracTers A coMMoN COmpLaInT raIsED aGainsT poSsibiliSt analyses Is tHaT they fail to cAPtUre the creaTivE aspect of ficTioN makinG, tUrnINg it rAthEr intO a mattER of disCovery. Of cOuRSe, when DIscoverY IS dIscoVery of possibilitiES, tHE difference betWeen diScOVeRY And CreAtion is lesS tHan obVIous. ConSIdER THe cLAim attributed – Probably apoCRypHally – tO MIchELangelO that ThE ScuLpture was alReadY complete Within THe marblE Block, anD that hE juSt hAd to CHiSeL awAy THe sUPeRflUOus Material. thE dEscriPtioN SEEMs coRreCt, if IdiosYncratic, insofAr aS the REsuLting StatuE was, InDeed, aN alreaDy posSiBle result of the pRoceSs. AnalogoUslY, dEveLoPing a STory caN be ModEled as sHrinkinG The CoNTEXt Set, and developing a cHaRACtEr as remoVing woRLdS bY Deciding WhIch PropERTies tHe chARaCter shouLd have AMoNg Those it CoUld havE hAd, tO inDividUAte a ScenarIo that waS, afteR All, already a posSIble outcome of THe CREaTIve pRocEss. Of course, michELangElo's DEsCriPTion nEglecTs THe CRucial point that he chOsE which Of manY possible statUes he was goING To carve oUt, whICh IS presumably essEntiaL to the procESs being a CreatIve proceSs. SimilarLY, Freedom oF chOicE is A diSTInCtive feature oF FIctiOnAl storyTelLing, and doyLe wAs cRucIaLly free to Narrow doWn ThE cOnTexT set aNY way he waNtEd: AS oPpoSed to ORdinarY factUal dIsCoURse, Where thE TaRGEt is ThE aCtuaL woRlD, DoylE freELy cHose his Target worLd(s) AMong ThOsE availaBle at any given PoInt, and freeLy ChoSe whicH STeps to taKe to individuate it/them. Of COurse, poSsiBilisTs wiLl have to gRanT that iN soME sense holmes Was alReAdy THEre, anD THuS coNtRadict the cREAtiOnist InTuitIon that doyle really brought hOlmEs into being. BuT ouR intUITiOns THaT holMeS ReaLLY is brought into bEing are shaKy AT bEst, and it is REasOnAble to wOnder whEther INtuitioNs here are Driven by pRiOr meTAPhySical commiTments raTher than vICe verSA. AT leasT I tHink thE oNus Is on tHe critIC to ExplaIn precIsEly whaT's misSiNg from thE possibilist account – keepIng in mInd it SeeMs hard to dEny THat The Holmes StorIes are storIes ThaT coulD poSSibly Have BEeN toLD also PrioR To Doyle teLLiNg tHEM. NOw, Doyle liteRALLy bRoughT thINgs likE the Narrative, name and fEAtures of the repReseNTAtiOn oF holmEs Into (actual) beinG, anD tHEReby affeCtEd the causal StructurE oF The acTual woRld. The DistincTIOn
factual talk. In Section 4  I provide  an u pda ted  d efin itio n of truth-in- f icti on. T H E T R U T H AB O U  T S HE  R  L OC K H O LM E S  3 49  3. 1. Cr eatin g a nd desc ribing cha rac te rs A commonc om plaint rai sed  against pos sib ilistan aly s es is  th at th ey fai l  to ca pture the  c r eative aspecto f  f icti on making, turnin g  i t  rather into a  matte ro fd i sco ver y. Of cour se , whe n  discov e ry i s  di s covery of pos sibilities, the  diffe re nce betwee n dis co v ery  and creati on i s less th an obv i ous. Co n sider t he cla imatt ribu t ed  –  pr ob a bly ap ocr y pha lly – to  M ic helan gelo t h a t th e s culp turewas already c omp lete wit hin t he ma rble  b lock,  and t hat h ejust had to chi selaway thesup er flu ou s mat e rial.The  de scripti on seem s  co rr e c t ,if idiosyncratic,in s o fa r as the  resul t in gs tatue wa s,  in deed , an al read y  p ossibleresult of  t he proc es s. Ana lo gou sly , dev e lopi ng a s tory can  be m o deled as shrin k ing the conte x ts e t, anddev eloping a c hara c teras r e mo vin g  worl ds by  d e ci d ing which propertie sthe ch aract er should hav e among th o s e  it coul d ha v eh ad, to individ uatea scenario that was , aft er all,already a p ossibleout com e o f t h e  c reative proce s s . Of  c ourse,Mic helange lo' s d esc rip ti on neglec ts the c ru ci al  p oin t tha t  he chos ewhi ch  of  many possib le st atue she was  goingt oc a rveou t,  whi chis  pres umab l y e ssentia l to thepro c essbe in g a cre ative process .Similarly,  f ree dom of c hoice is  a distinctive featureo f ficti ona l sto ryte lling, an d D oyle w asc rucial ly fre e tona rro w downt h econ te xt set any w ayhe wa nt ed:As oppo sed to ordinary fa c tua l discourse,whe re t h e  t arg e ti s t he act u a l world, Doylefreely cho se hi s target w o rld (s ) among  thoseavail a ble atany given  point, a nd  fre e l y c hose which  steps t o take to indiv i du ate i t/t hem. O fcou rse,possib i lis ts wi ll hav eto gra nt th at  in some  sense Holmes was alrea dy the re, a ndthus cont rad i ctthe creat ioni st intuiti ontha t Doy ler eally  bro u gh t H o lmesinto being. Bu t  o uri n tu itions that H o lme s rea lly is bro ught  into being are s h aky at best, a nd i t isrea s onab le  to wonder whe the ri n tuitions  h ere are dri ven by p ri o r met aphysi cal co mmitmen t s  r a ther t hanvic e versa.Atle a st I th in kt he onu s is  o n thecritic to e x p lain precisely w hat's m issin g  fr om th epossibi l istaccount –keeping inmind i t se ems h ard tode ny tha t t he  Holmes st o ries arestori es that  c ould  po ssibly  hav e beentold  a lso  prior to D oy l ete l lin g th em. N ow , Do yle liter a lly brou ght thingsli ket h e narr a ti v e , name and  fe ature s of the rep r esen t at i on of  Holme s into  (actua l ) b ei ng, and  th e r eby affec ted the c a usa lstru cture of  t he a ct ual  w orld. The disti nction
factual talk._In Section_4 I provide an_updated definition_of_truth-in-fiction. T_H_E T R_U T H_A B O U_T S H_E_R L O C K H O L M E S 349 3.1. Creating_and_describing characters_A_common_complaint raised against possibilist analyses_is that they fail to_capture the_creative aspect of fiction making, turning it rather_into_a matter of_discovery. Of course, when discovery is discovery of possibilities,_the difference between discovery and creation_is less than_obvious._Consider_the claim attributed –_probably apocryphally – to Michelangelo that_the sculpture was already complete within_the marble block, and that he just_had to chisel away the superfluous_material. The description seems correct,_if idiosyncratic,_insofar as the resulting statue_was, indeed, an_already possible_result of the_process. Analogously, developing a story can_be modeled as_shrinking the context set, and developing_a_character as removing_worlds_by_deciding which_properties the character_should_have among_those_it could have had, to individuate_a_scenario that was, after all, already a_possible outcome of the_creative_process. Of course, Michelangelo's_description neglects the crucial point_that he chose which of many_possible statues_he was_going to carve out, which is presumably essential to the process_being a creative process. Similarly, freedom_of choice is a_distinctive feature_of_fictional storytelling, and_Doyle_was crucially_free to narrow down the context set_any way_he wanted: As opposed to ordinary_factual discourse, where the_target_is the actual world, Doyle freely_chose his target world(s) among those_available at any given point,_and_freely_chose which steps to take_to individuate it/them. Of course, possibilists_will have to_grant that in some sense Holmes was_already_there, and thus contradict the creationist_intuition_that Doyle really brought Holmes into_being._But_our intuitions that Holmes really_is brought into being are shaky_at best, and it is reasonable to wonder whether_intuitions here are_driven by prior metaphysical commitments_rather_than_vice versa. At least I think the onus is on_the critic_to explain precisely_what's missing from the possibilist account – keeping in mind_it seems hard to deny that the_Holmes stories are stories that could possibly have been told also_prior to Doyle telling them. Now, Doyle literally_brought things like the narrative, name and_features of the representation_of_Holmes into (actual) being, and thereby affected_the_causal_structure_of the actual_world. The distinction