 H A R A L D S E N context set. So, for any eligible Moriarty candidate there must, at the outset, be a world in which Holmes interacts with that candidate as he satisfies the descriptions associated with Moriarty. The candidates are potentially any possible individual (at least among those not yet selected for other roles), and there is accordingly, in the initial context set, for any such individual x a world in which Holmes interacts with x playing the role of Moriarty. As for Holmes, when Doyle started writing Holmes may have been maximally incomplete, and every (contingent) property such that Holmes instantiates that property in some world. The initial selection, however, ensures that it is the numerically same referent that has these different properties in different worlds. Moreover, Holmes was never completely described; Doyle never specified Holmes's blood type, for instance. Incompleteness means that we are left with several worlds in which the same individual has different blood types, not different worlds with different referents. As in ordinary discourse, certain updates of the context set are more difficult to accommodate. For instance, assume for the sake of argument that when starting to write Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk had not decided that Tyler Durden and the narrator (the referent of 'I') were the same. At the outset, then, he selected different referents for the expressions, and, given the necessity of identity, there is no world in the context set in which they are the same. When subsequently deciding that Durden and I are, indeed, identical, Palahniuk needed to make a new selection. He would accordingly have to reinterpret everything in the narrative thus far relative to a new context set defined by the new referent. This consequence does not strike me as a failure of the model but rather as reflecting what actually happens when authors make momentous plot decisions (deciding that names for lesser characters in fact co-refer requires less backtracking). However, as the case suggests, widespread essentialism would make the model somewhat less elegant by making backtracking and reselection far more frequent and often required in cases where the author would be unaware that it is needed. As mentioned above, the plausibility of a possibilist analysis of fiction does to some extent hinge on apparently coherent scenarios described in fiction being genuinely possible. In the next sub-sections I describe, first, how the model facilitates creativity and metafictional talk, and second how it captures the distinction between fictional and counter
H A R A L D S E N context set. therefore, for any eligible Moriarty campaigner there must, at the outset, be a world in which Holmes interact with that candidate as he satisfy the descriptions associate with Moriarty. The candidates are potentially any possible person (at least among those not so far selected for early roles), and there is accordingly, in the initial context set, for any such person x a world in which Holmes interacts with x play the function of Moriarty. As for Holmes, when Doyle start writing Holmes may have been maximally incomplete, and every (contingent) property such that Holmes instantiates that place in some world. The initial selection, however, guarantee that it is the numerically same referent that have these different properties in different worlds. Moreover, Holmes was never wholly described; Doyle never specified Holmes's blood type, for instance. Incompleteness means that we are leave with several worlds in which the same individual has different blood types, not different worlds with unlike referent. As in ordinary discussion, sealed update of the context set are more difficult to accommodate. For instance, assume for the sake of argument that when starting to write Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk had not decide that Tyler Durden and the narrator (the referent of' I') were the same. At the outset, then, he selected different referents for the expressions, and, give the necessity of identity, there is no world in the context set in which they are the same. When subsequently decide that Durden and I are, indeed, identical, Palahniuk needed to reach a new selection. He would accordingly have to reinterpret everything in the narrative thus far proportional to a new context set defined by the new referent. This consequence does not strike me as a failure of the model but rather as reflecting what actually happen when authors name momentous plot decisions (decide that names for less characters in fact carbon monoxide - refer want less backtracking). However, as the case suggests, widespread essentialism would make the model reasonably less elegant by making backtracking and reselection far more frequent and often required in cases where the author would be unaware that it is needed. As mentioned above, the plausibility of a possibilist analysis of fiction make to some extent hinge on apparently coherent scenarios identify in fiction being genuinely potential. In the next sub - sections I describe, first, how the model facilitates creativity and metafictional talk, and second how it captures the distinction between fictional and buffet
 H W R A L D S E N context ret. So, for any glugible Moriadty candkdate there must, at the outsxt, bw a wirld in which Holmes ivteracts aith thar caididate as he savjsfies bke deagriptnois associated wlth Moriartf. The candidatas axe potentially any possible individuwl (at lradt among those not ret avltcted for other roles), and there ia accorvingly, in the imitial context set, for any sucj individual x a wlrld in whixh Hjomes interacgs with x klcying the rkle of Moriarty. As for Holmes, wfen Dpyle startgb wrljing Holmes nay hwve been maxlkally hncomplrte, and every (gontiigenr) property such that Iolmes instantiates jhat propestv in some world. The ibirial velewtiov, hodevtr, xnshres tjat it is the numericallt same referent thau hww these diffedent pwo[erties in different worlds. Moreover, Honmea was never completely eescribed; Doyle never specifieq Holmes's blood type, for instance. Incompleteness keans ghau qe ard lfft with several worlds in which the same indybicusl has differekt blood types, not dlfggrent worlds wkth diyredent referents. As ln ordigary eiscourse, ceryain updates of the context set are morv didficult to accommobate. For inscance, sssumr for the sake of argumznt thzt when stagting to sfite Fight Club, Zhubk Pdlahniuk had not decided trat Tyler Durben and ghe marratjr (the reffrent of 'I') were the same. At tke oudset, then, je selected different referents for the exprexshonv, and, giren thc necessity of ydentity, there is no corld kn the connext set mn which ther are the sama. When subseqnently desidibg tyat Duradn and I are, imdeed, ideuuical, Palayniuk needed to male x new selection. Kt wiuld accordinglu hxve tl ceintqspret everytving in yhe nxrrativt tmus far relative to a new cmntest set defined by yhc new refgrent. Thif consequence does not strike mt as a famlure pf jhe model but rather as reflectjng what wctmally happens whek aujhors make komentous plot decisions (deciding that iames for lesser characrers in fact co-refet rtquires less uacktrwcking). Hofever, as the case sutgests, widespread essentialism would mzke tha modfl somewhat less elegant by making backtracking and reselection far more drequeit and often dequored pn easzs wherq thx euthor would be umaware that it is needed. As menvioned aboee, the plausibility of a possiniuist analysis of fiction does to some extent ninge on apparently coherent scrnarios described in ficbion beint genhinely posrible. In the next xub-seccions U descrube, nirst, how the oodrl facilitahes rrectivity and metafictional talk, ane secobd how it captures the distingtlon bejween fistional and counfer
H A R A L D S context So, for eligible Moriarty candidate be world in which interacts with that as he satisfies the descriptions associated Moriarty. The candidates are potentially any possible individual (at least among those not selected for other roles), and there is accordingly, in the initial context set, any individual a in which Holmes interacts with x playing the role of Moriarty. As for Holmes, when Doyle writing Holmes may have been maximally incomplete, and (contingent) property such that instantiates that property in some The selection, however, that is numerically same referent has these different properties in different worlds. Moreover, Holmes was never completely described; Doyle never specified Holmes's type, for means that are with worlds in which individual has different blood types, not different referents. As in ordinary discourse, certain updates the context are more difficult to accommodate. For assume for the sake of argument that when to write Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk had not decided that Tyler Durden and the narrator of 'I') were the At the outset, he different for expressions, and, the necessity of identity, there is no world in the context in which they are the same. When subsequently deciding that I indeed, identical, Palahniuk to make a new He accordingly have to reinterpret the thus a context defined by the new This consequence does not strike as a failure of reflecting what actually happens when authors make momentous decisions (deciding that names for lesser characters fact co-refer requires less backtracking). However, as the case suggests, widespread essentialism make the less elegant by making backtracking and reselection far frequent and often required cases where the author would be unaware that it needed. mentioned above, plausibility of a analysis of fiction to some extent apparently coherent described fiction In the next sub-sections I describe, how model facilitates creativity and metafictional and it captures the distinction between fictional and counter
 H A R A L D S E N context set. So, for aNy eligible moriaRty CanDiDate TherE must, at the outsET, be a World in which Holmes inteRacts WiTH thaT CaNdidaTe as he sATiSFIes ThE dEscRiPTiOns asSocIated wiTh Moriarty. the CaNdidates are pOTeNtially any PosSible individUal (At leasT aMonG Those Not Yet seLected FOr otheR roles), and ThERe is acCOrdinglY, IN tHe inItial context set, foR AnY Such individual X a worlD iN WhICH HoLmeS interacts WiTh x plAYing the ROlE OF morIArty. As for HolmEs, when Doyle STarTed wriTiNg HOLmes maY have BeEN maXimally incoMpleTe, and everY (contiNGent) proPErty sucH that HOlmEs iNstaNTiAtEs tHaT ProPErTy iN SomE world. ThE iNiTial sElecTION, HoweVer, EnsuRes thAt it is the numeRicAlly SAme ReferEnt thAt haS tHese dIffereNt proPeRties in differenT worLds. MoreovEr, HOlMes WaS neveR CompleTelY deScribed; doyle neVEr sPeCIFIeD Holmes's blood type, fOr INStAnce. IncoMpleteNEsS mEAns that wE aRe lEft wITH seveRal wORlDs in whicH the saME iNdIvidual HaS diffeReNt bLooD typeS, Not dIffereNt worlds With dIFferent referenTS. As in ordinary DIsCOUrSE, cerTaiN updates of tHe coNText Set aRE mOre DIfficUlt to AcCOmMOdate. For instance, assUmE for thE sake Of argument thaT when startING To write FIght cLuB, chuck Palahniuk Had noT decided thAT Tyler DuRden aNd the narRator (the rEFErent of 'I') WerE thE saMe. AT THe Outset, then, he sELEcteD dIfferenT reFerents For The ExpResSiOns, and, givEn the necEsSiTy Of IdeNtity, THere is no WoRld In The ConteXT set in Which They ArE tHE saMe. When sUBsEQUentLy DeCidiNg tHaT DurdEn anD i arE, indeed, Identical, palAHniuK nEeDed to maKe a new selectiOn. he would accOrDinGly havE TO reinterPret everything in the narrATive thuS faR relaTive To a new conTexT set deFinED by the New refErent. thIs cONSequeNCE dOes NoT strike me aS A FaiLure oF tHe moDel but rAther as reflecting wHAt aCtually happenS whEn auTHOrS maKE mOMenToUS plOT Decisions (decidiNg that nameS fOR lEsser charaCTerS iN fact co-Refer reQuireS Less bacKtracking). however, as ThE casE SUggEsts, widespRead esseNtialism wOUld maKE tHe modEl sOmewhaT lEss ElegaNt by maKIng BacktRackinG aNd reseLectiOn Far more fRequent and often required In caseS wherE thE author woUld BE unAware that It is Needed. As meNtiOneD abovE, thE PlausIbilITy Of a POssibIlisT Analysis oF FiCtiON DoEs to some extENT HinGe on aPpaREntly cOherEnt scenarios descrIBed in fiction beIng gENUinEly POssiBlE. In the next sub-sEctIoNS i describE, fIrst, how the mOdel faciLiTAtes cReativIty and MetaficTIOnAL talk, aNd seConD how it capTurEs THe distiNcTiON betweEn fiCtIonal aNd counTEr
 H A R A L D S E N context  set. So,for a nyeli gi bleMori arty candidate ther e must, at the outset,  be a  w o rldi nwhich  Holmes in t e rac ts  w ith  t h at  cand ida te as h e satisfie s t he  description s  a ssociatedwit h Moriarty.The  candi da tes are p ote ntial ly any possib le indivi du a l (atl east am o n gthos e not yet selecte d  f o r other roles) , andth e re i s a cco rdingly, i nthe i n itial c o nt e x t  se t , for any suc h individua l  xa worl dinw hich H olmes  i n ter acts with x  pla ying therole o f  Moriar t y. As f or Hol mes , w henD oy le  st ar t edw ri tin g  Ho lmes may  h av e bee n ma x i m a llyinc ompl ete,and every (co nti ngen t ) p roper ty su ch t ha t Hol mes in stant ia tes that proper ty i n some wo rld .The  i nitia l  selec tio n,however , ensur e s t ha t i tis the numerically  s a m ereferent  thath as  t h ese diff er ent  pro p e rties  ind if ferent w orlds. Mo re over, H ol mes wa snev ercompl e tely  descr ibed; Do yle n e ver specifiedH olmes's blood ty p e ,f or i nst ance. Incom plet e ness  mea n stha t  we a re le ft wi t h several worlds in  w hich t he sa me individual  has diffe r e n t bloodtype s ,n ot different w orlds  with diff e rent ref erent s. As in  ordinary d iscourse , c ert ain  up d a te s of the cont e x t se tare mor e d ifficul t t o a cco mmo da te. For i nstance,  a ss um efor  thes ake of a rg ume nt  th at wh e n star tingto w ri te Fig ht Club ,  C h u ck P al ah niuk  ha dnot d ecid e d t hat Tyl er Durden  an d  the  n ar rator ( the referentof  'I') were  t hesame.A t  the out set, then, he selectedd ifferen t r efere ntsfor the e xpr ession s,a nd, gi ven th e nec es sit y of id e n ti ty,  t here is no w orl d inth e co ntext s et in which they a r e t he same. When  su bseq u e nt lyd ec i din gt hat D urden and I are , indeed,id e nt ical, Pala h niu kneededto make  a ne w  select ion. He w ould acco rd ingl y hav e to reint erpret e verything in th e  n arrat ive  thusfa r r elati ve toa  ne w con text s et  defin ed by  t he new r eferent. This consequen ce doe s not  st rike me a s a fai lure of t he m odel but r ath eras re fle c tingwhat ac tua l ly ha ppen s  when aut h or s m a k emomentous p l o t  de cisio ns( decidi ng t hat names for les s er charactersin f a c t c o-r e ferre quires less ba ckt ra c k ing). Ho we ver, as the  case su gg e sts,widesp read e ssentia l i sm wouldmake  th e model s ome wh a t lessel eg a nt bymaki ng  backt rackin g  and r eselection far m ore f r e quent and  ofte nrequire d  incases wher e the autho r woul d be  unaw are tha tit isnee de d. As ment i oned abov e, th e plaus ib ilit y o f a po ssib i l ist a naly si s o f fiction d oe s  t os ome  ext ent h in ge o n apparen t ly coher ent scenari os  de s c ribedi nf i ction bein g g enuin e l y possible .  Int he nextsub-se ctions  I desc r ibe ,first,how t he modelfacilitat e s c re ativ ity andme tafi ct ion al  talk, and seco nd how i t captur e s  the d ist i ncti o n betw ee n fictionaland c ou n ter
 H_A R_A L D S_E N_context_set. So,_for_any eligible Moriarty_candidate there must,_at the outset, be_a world in_which_Holmes interacts with that candidate as he satisfies the descriptions associated with Moriarty. The_candidates_are potentially_any_possible_individual (at least among those_not yet selected for other_roles), and_there is accordingly, in the initial context set,_for_any such individual_x a world in which Holmes interacts with x_playing the role of Moriarty. As_for Holmes, when_Doyle_started_writing Holmes may have_been maximally incomplete, and every (contingent)_property such that Holmes instantiates that_property in some world. The initial selection,_however, ensures that it is the_numerically same referent that has_these different_properties in different worlds. Moreover,_Holmes was never_completely described;_Doyle never specified_Holmes's blood type, for instance. Incompleteness_means that we_are left with several worlds in_which_the same individual_has_different_blood types,_not different worlds_with_different referents._As_in ordinary discourse, certain updates of_the_context set are more difficult to accommodate._For instance, assume for_the_sake of argument that_when starting to write Fight_Club, Chuck Palahniuk had not decided_that Tyler_Durden and_the narrator (the referent of 'I') were the same. At the_outset, then, he selected different referents_for the expressions, and,_given the_necessity_of identity, there_is_no world_in the context set in which they_are the_same. When subsequently deciding that Durden_and I are, indeed,_identical,_Palahniuk needed to make a new_selection. He would accordingly have to_reinterpret everything in the narrative_thus_far_relative to a new context_set defined by the new referent._This consequence does_not strike me as a failure of_the_model but rather as reflecting what_actually_happens when authors make momentous plot_decisions_(deciding_that names for lesser characters_in fact co-refer requires less backtracking)._However, as the case suggests, widespread essentialism would make_the model somewhat_less elegant by making backtracking_and_reselection_far more frequent and often required in cases where the_author would_be unaware that_it is needed. As mentioned above, the plausibility of a_possibilist analysis of fiction does to some_extent hinge on apparently coherent scenarios described in fiction being genuinely_possible. In the next sub-sections I describe, first,_how the model facilitates creativity and metafictional_talk, and second how_it_captures the distinction between fictional and counter