 between representations and scenarios represented must be managed with some care, however. The stories – at least the words and sentences – exist in the actual 350 F R E D R I K H A R A L D S E N world. Claims like 'in Wozzeck the eponymous protagonist is described as driven to murder by the oppressive mechanisms in his society' or (arguably) 'the plot of L'Étoile is very complicated' are claims at least partially about the actual world and aspects of our representations rather than the possible objects represented. Keeping this distinction in mind, our account does not only account for in-fiction claims, but also common meta-fictional or critical claims. Consider the following (adapted from Brock 2002, 4-5): (2) Holmes does not exist. (3) Holmes is a fictional character. (4) Anna Karenina is less neurotic than is Katerina Ivanovna (Howell 1979). (5) Holmes would not have needed tapes to get the goods on Nixon (Lewis 1978). (6) The character Odysseus who occurs in the Odyssey is identical to the character who occurs in Inferno, Canto 26, under the name 'Ulysses' (Howell 1979). (7) There are characters in some nineteenth-century novels that are presented with a greater wealth of physical detail than is any character in any eighteenth-century novels (van Inwagen 1977). (2) is straightforwardly true, as is (3) – being a fictional character entails being a merely possible (non-actual) individual, so (3) truthfully says (at least) that Holmes is a merely possible individual. (4), too, is true assuming that we measure their neuroticism based on the characters' appearances in the relevant stories. For (5), start with the worlds that serve as truth-makers for the stories. In the closest possible worlds – or at least some close worlds – relative to those (which are not necessarily worlds that define the context set for the stories, but counterfactual scenarios accessible from worlds in that set) in which Holmes got the goods on Nixon, he didn't use tapes. (6) and (7) require some care, since they talk both about representations and scenarios represented. (6) is true iff 'Odysseus' and 'Ulysses' co-refer, which is certainly likely on our account (though it would, of course, depend on factors related to the
between representations and scenarios represented must be managed with some caution, however. The floor – at least the words and sentences – exist in the actual 350 F R einsteinium D R I K heat content A gas constant A L D S E N world. Claims like' in Wozzeck the eponymous protagonist is identify as driven to murder by the oppressive mechanism in his society' or (arguably)' the plot of L'Étoile is very complicated' are claims at least partially about the actual world and aspects of our representations rather than the potential objects represented. Keeping this eminence in mind, our account does not merely account for in - fabrication claims, but besides common meta - fictional or critical claims. Consider the pursuit (adapted from Brock 2002, 4 - 5 ): (2) Holmes does not exist. (3) Holmes is a fictional character. (4) Anna Karenina is less neurotic than is Katerina Ivanovna (Howell 1979). (5) Holmes would not have needed tapes to get the goods on Nixon (Lewis 1978). (6) The character Odysseus who occurs in the Odyssey is identical to the character who occurs in Inferno, Canto 26, under the name' Ulysses' (Howell 1979). (7) There are characters in some nineteenth - century novels that are presented with a greater wealth of forcible contingent than is any character in any eighteenth - century novels (van Inwagen 1977). (2) is squarely on-key, as is (3) – being a fictional character fee-tail being a merely possible (non - actual) individual, so (3) truthfully says (at least) that Holmes is a merely potential individual. (4), too, is true assuming that we measure their neuroticism based on the characters' appearances in the relevant stories. For (5), start with the worlds that service as truth - maker for the stories. In the closest possible worlds – or at least some close worldly concern – relative to those (which are not necessarily worlds that specify the context set for the stories, but counterfactual scenarios accessible from worlds in that bent) in which Holmes got the goods on Nixon, he didn't practice tapes. (6) and (7) require some care, since they talk both about representation and scenarios stage. (6) is true iff' Odysseus' and' Ulysses' co - refer, which is surely likely on our account (though it would, of course, depend on factors related to the
 behween representations ana scenarios reptewented must ge managdd with some care, however. Thx stiries – at least the words avd sentenbes – exisr in rhe actual 350 F R E D R I I H A C A L D S E N wprld. Claimv like 'in Wozzacy che eponymous protagonist is describqd as dtigen to murder fy tnq oplgewsive mechanisms in his sociefy' or (agguably) 'the plot pf L'Étoile is very complicahed' wre claims at leash partially abotr the actual world and aspects of kur representations rather than the 'ossible obhexts tepresented. Jeepigg this distlmction in minc, our account coev nit only account for ii-fiction claims, but wlso commmn meta-fictional or ceiticdl cnaimr. Covsisec tge folpowmng (adapted from Brock 2002, 4-5): (2) Holmes does not evpxt. (3) Holmes ia a fistyonal character. (4) Anna Karenina is less teudotic than is Katerina Uvanovna (Howell 1979). (5) Holles would not have needed tapes to get the goods on Nixon (Newis 1978). (6) Tkc zyagacter Odysseus who occurs in the Odyssey is ysemtpcal to the charagter who occurs in Ijfrtno, Canto 26, undgr the uzms 'Ulysses' (Howell 1979). (7) There wre cyaracters in xome nineteenth-century noveos that are ireswnted with a greatzr wealth of phyxical detail than is any chaxacter in any eigjteenth-cehgury novels (van Knwsgan 1977). (2) is straightforwardly erue, as iw (3) – yeing a wictoonal sharacter fntails being a merely plssibpe (non-actual) individual, so (3) truthfully says (at least) that Hmlmvs is a mzrely iossible indiviqual. (4), too, is ttue assumnng thxt we measlre their neuroticisi based on tha characters' eppearancqs ib thw relevxvt stories. For (5), start wptk the worods that serve as bruth-ozkers for the scutues. In the cloxesg pjsdiule wjslds – or at neasg suke cluse worlds – felayive to those (which dre hot necessarily wotlqs that eefine tre context sey for the stories, hut cmunverfacyuaj scenarios accessible from wodlds in tjat set) in whicr Hoomes got the goods on Nixon, he didn't use tapes. (6) and (7) require some cate, since they talk bojh sbout reprexentaeions and scenarios representwd. (6) is true iff 'Ocysseus' and 'Ulysses' ck-refer, whicj is certainly likely on our account (though it would, of course, depend on dactors related to the
between representations and scenarios represented must be some however. The – at least exist the actual 350 R E D I K H A R A D S E N world. Claims like 'in Wozzeck the eponymous protagonist is as driven to murder by the oppressive mechanisms in his society' or (arguably) plot L'Étoile very are claims at least partially about the actual world and aspects of our representations rather than possible objects represented. Keeping this distinction in mind, account does not only for in-fiction claims, but also meta-fictional critical claims. the (adapted Brock 2002, 4-5): Holmes does not exist. (3) Holmes is a fictional character. (4) Anna Karenina is less neurotic than Katerina Ivanovna (5) Holmes not needed to get the Nixon (Lewis 1978). (6) The character in the Odyssey is identical to the character occurs in Canto 26, under the name 'Ulysses' 1979). (7) There are characters in some nineteenth-century that are presented with a greater wealth of physical detail than is any character in novels (van Inwagen 1977). is straightforwardly true, is – a character entails a merely possible (non-actual) individual, so (3) truthfully says (at least) Holmes is a merely possible individual. (4), too, is true we their neuroticism based the characters' appearances in relevant For (5), start with that as stories. the possible worlds – or least some close worlds – to those (which are the context set for the stories, but counterfactual accessible from worlds in that set) in Holmes got the goods on Nixon, he didn't use tapes. (6) and require some they talk both about representations and scenarios represented. is true iff 'Odysseus' 'Ulysses' co-refer, which is certainly likely on our account it of course, on factors related the
 between representations and Scenarios rEpresEntEd mUsT be mAnagEd with some care, HOwevEr. The stories – at least the Words AnD SentENcEs – exiSt in the ACtUAL 350 F R e D r I k H A r A l d S e N worLd. CLaims liKe 'in WozzecK thE ePonymous protAGoNist is descRibEd as driven to MurDer by tHe OppREssivE meChaniSms in hIS socieTy' or (arguaBlY) 'The ploT Of L'ÉtoiLE Is Very Complicated' are claIMs AT least partiallY about ThE AcTUAl wOrlD and aspectS oF our rEPresentATiONS RatHEr than the possIble objects REprEsenteD. KEepINg this DistiNcTIon In mind, our acCounT does not oNly accOUnt for iN-Fiction Claims, But AlsO comMOn MeTa-fIcTIonAL oR crITicAl claims. coNsIder tHe foLLOWIng (aDapTed fRom BrOck 2002, 4-5): (2) Holmes does Not ExisT. (3) holMes is A fictIonaL cHaracTer. (4) AnnA KareNiNa is less neurotiC thaN is KateriNa IVaNovNa (howelL 1979). (5) holmes WouLd nOt have nEeded taPEs tO gET THe Goods on Nixon (Lewis 1978). (6) THe CHArActer OdySseus wHO oCcURs in the ODySseY is iDENticaL to tHE cHaracter Who occURs In inferno, caNto 26, undEr The NamE 'UlysSEs' (HoWell 1979). (7) ThEre are chAractERs in some nineteENth-century novELs THAt ARe prEseNted with a grEateR WealTh of PHySicAL detaIl thaN iS AnY Character in any eightEeNth-cenTury nOvels (van InwagEn 1977). (2) is straigHTFOrwardly True, AS iS (3) – Being a fictionaL charActer entaiLS being a mErely Possible (Non-actual) INDividual, So (3) tRutHfuLly SAYs (At least) that HoLMEs is A mErely poSsiBle indiVidUal. (4), Too, Is tRuE assuming That we meAsUrE tHeIr nEurotICism baseD oN thE cHarActerS' AppearAnces In thE rElEVanT storieS. foR (5), STart WiTh The wOrlDs That sErve AS trUth-makeRs for the sTorIEs. In ThE cLosest pOssible worlds – Or At least somE cLosE worldS – RElative tO those (which are not necessARily worLds That dEfinE the conteXt sEt for tHe sTOries, bUt counTerfaCtUal SCEnariOS AcCesSiBle from worLDS in That sEt) In whIch HolmEs got the goods on NixON, he Didn't use tapes. (6) And (7) RequIRE sOme CArE, SinCe THey TALk both about reprEsentationS aND sCenarios rePResEnTed. (6) is trUe iff 'OdYsseuS' And 'UlysSes' co-refeR, which is cErTainLY LikEly on our acCount (thoUgh it woulD, Of couRSe, DepenD on FactorS rElaTed to The
 between representations a nd scenari os re pre sen te d mu st b e managed with some  care, however. The st ories  – at l e as t the  wordsa nd s ent en ce s –  e x is t inthe  actual  350 F R E  DRI K H A R AL  D  S E N wor ld.  Claims like  'i n Wozz ec k t h e epo nym ous p rotago n ist is  describe da s driv e n to mu r d er  bythe oppressive me c ha n isms in his so ciety'  o r  ( a r gua bly ) 'the plo tof L' É toile i s  v e r y  co m plicated' are  claims atl eas t part ia lly aboutthe a ct u alworld and a spec ts of our  repre s entatio n s rathe r than  th e p ossi b le  o bje ct s  re p re sen t ed.  Keeping  t hi s dis tinc t i o n  inmin d, o ur ac count does no t o nlya cco unt f or in -fic ti on cl aims,but a ls o common meta-f icti onal or c rit ic alcl aims. Consid erthe  follow ing (ad a pte df r o mBrock 2002, 4-5):(2 ) Ho lmes doe s note xi st .  (3) Hol me s i s af i ction al c h ar acter. ( 4) Ann a  K ar enina i sless n eu rot icthani s Ka terina  Ivanovn a (Ho w ell 1979). (5) Holmes wouldn ot h av e  nee ded  tapes to g et t h e go odso nNix o n (Le wis 1 97 8 ). (6) The character O dy sseuswho o ccurs in theOdyssey is i d enticalto t h ec haracter who o ccurs  in Infern o , Canto26, u nder the  name 'Ul y s ses' (Ho wel l 1 979 ).( 7 )There are cha r a cter sin some  ni neteent h-c ent ury  no ve ls that a re prese nt ed  w it h a  grea t er wealt hofph ysi cal d e tail t han i s an ych a rac ter ina ny e ight ee nt h-ce ntu ry  nove ls ( v anInwagen  1977). ( 2)i s st ra ig htforwa rdly true, as  i s (3) – be in g a  ficti o n al chara cter entails being a me r ely pos sib le (n on-a ctual) in div idual,  so (3) tr uthful ly sa ys  (a t least ) th atHo lmes is am e rel y pos si bleindivid ual. (4), too, ist rue  assuming tha t w e me a s ur e t h ei r  ne ur o tic i s m based on thecharacters 'a pp earances i n  th erelevan t stori es. F o r (5),start wit h the wor ld s th a t  se rve as tru th-maker s for the stori e s.  In t hecloses tpos sible  world s  –or at  least  s ome cl ose w or lds – re lative to those (whichare no t nec ess arily wor lds tha t definethecontext se t f orthe s tor i es, b ut c o un ter f actua l sc e narios ac c es sib l e  f rom worldsi n tha t set ) i n  which  Hol mes got the goods on Nixon, he d idn' t use  ta p es.(6 ) and (7) requ ire  s o m e care,si nce they ta lk bothab o ut re presen tation s and s c e na r ios re pres ent ed. (6) i s t ru e  iff 'O dy ss e us' an d 'U ly sses'co-ref e r, w h i ch is certainlylikel y on ou r  ac count  ( thoughi t wo uld, of co urse, depen d on f acto rs re lated t othe
 between_representations and_scenarios represented must be_managed with_some_care, however._The_stories – at_least the words_and sentences – exist_in the actual_350_F R E D R I K H A R A L D S_E_N world._Claims_like_'in Wozzeck the eponymous protagonist_is described as driven to_murder by_the oppressive mechanisms in his society' or (arguably)_'the_plot of L'Étoile_is very complicated' are claims at least partially about_the actual world and aspects of_our representations rather_than_the_possible objects represented. Keeping_this distinction in mind, our account_does not only account for in-fiction_claims, but also common meta-fictional or critical_claims. Consider the following (adapted from_Brock 2002, 4-5): (2) Holmes_does not_exist. (3) Holmes is a_fictional character. (4)_Anna Karenina_is less neurotic_than is Katerina Ivanovna (Howell 1979)._(5) Holmes would_not have needed tapes to get_the_goods on Nixon_(Lewis_1978)._(6) The_character Odysseus who_occurs_in the_Odyssey_is identical to the character who_occurs_in Inferno, Canto 26, under the name_'Ulysses' (Howell 1979). (7)_There_are characters in some_nineteenth-century novels that are presented_with a greater wealth of physical_detail than_is any_character in any eighteenth-century novels (van Inwagen 1977). (2) is straightforwardly_true, as is (3) – being_a fictional character entails_being a_merely_possible (non-actual) individual,_so_(3) truthfully_says (at least) that Holmes is a_merely possible_individual. (4), too, is true assuming_that we measure their_neuroticism_based on the characters' appearances in_the relevant stories. For (5), start_with the worlds that serve_as_truth-makers_for the stories. In the_closest possible worlds – or at_least some close_worlds – relative to those (which are_not_necessarily worlds that define the context_set_for the stories, but counterfactual scenarios_accessible_from_worlds in that set) in_which Holmes got the goods on_Nixon, he didn't use tapes. (6) and (7) require_some care, since_they talk both about representations_and_scenarios_represented. (6) is true iff 'Odysseus' and 'Ulysses' co-refer, which_is certainly_likely on our_account (though it would, of course, depend on factors related_to the