Print

Fictional entities

DOI
10.4324/9780415249126-M021-1
Versions
DOI: 10.4324/9780415249126-M021-1
Version: v1,  Published online: 1998
Retrieved April 29, 2024, from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/fictional-entities/v-1

References and further reading

  • Crittenden, C. (1991) Unreality: The Metaphysics of Fictional Objects, Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press.

    (Mentioned in §3. Good general introduction to the subject, with a point of view sympathetic to that of Meinong.)

  • Currie, G. (1990) The Nature of Fiction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    (Presents a detailed logical theory of all aspects of fictionality. Quite technical.)

  • Goodman, N. (1968) The Languages of Art, New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

    (Referred to in §2. A strict eliminative theory of fictional entities applied to all art forms.)

  • Howell, R. (1979) ‘Fictional Objects: How They Are and How They Aren’t’, Poetics 8: 129– 77.

    (Careful, critical exposition of the main logical approaches.)

  • Inwagen, P. van (1977) ‘Creatures of Fiction’, American Philosophical Quarterly 14: 299– 308.

    (Referred to in §3. Attributes some reality to fictional entities.)

  • Lamarque, P.V. and Olsen, S.H. (1994) Truth, Fiction and Literature: A Philosophical Perspective, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    (Useful introduction to logical, epistemological and literary conceptions of fiction, as outlined in §1.)

  • Meinong, A. (1960) ‘Theory of Objects’, in R.M. Chisholm (ed.) Realism and the Background of Phenomenology, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    (Referred to in §3. Classic statement of the case for nonexistent objects as well as existent objects.)

  • Ogden, C.K. (1932) Bentham’s Theory of Fictions, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd.

    (Referred to in §2. Bentham’s theory of fictions and paraphrase was a strong influence on twentieth-century logical analysis.)

  • Parsons, T. (1980) Nonexistent Objects, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    (Referred to in §3. A sophisticated defence and development of Meinong’s theory. Technical in parts.)

  • Quine, W.V. (1953) ‘On What There Is’, in From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    (Referred to in §2. Classic statement of the logical criterion of ontological commitment.)

  • Rorty, R. (1982) ‘Is There a Problem About Fictional Discourse?’, in Consequences of Pragmatism, Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    (Referred to in §3. Dismisses the whole approach of analytic philosophy to fictional entities.)

  • Russell, B. (1956) Logic and Knowledge, ed. R.C. Marsh, London: Allen & Unwin.

    (Includes ‘On Denoting’ and ‘The Philosophy of Logical Atomism’, where Russell develops and applies his Theory of Descriptions and conception of logical fictions. See §2.)

  • Walton, K.L. (1990) Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    (Referred to in §2. Presents an eliminative theory of fictional entities, in terms of ‘games of make-believe’.)

  • Wolterstorff, N. (1980) Works and Worlds of Art, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    (Referred to in §3. At times difficult; but a powerful case for fictional characters as eternal kinds.)

Print
Citing this article:
Lamarque, Peter. Bibliography. Fictional entities, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-M021-1. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/fictional-entities/v-1/bibliography/fictional-entities-bib.
Copyright © 1998-2024 Routledge.

Related Articles