Q&A Question 2

Is the category of fiction as encompassing as Walton claims it to be?

Walton claims that works of fiction are representations whose function is to serve as props in games of make believe. Walton goes on to add that any work that serves the aforementioned function, however minor or peripheral it may be, is a work of fiction. This is an important distinction, as it leads to more important questions he does not address. If I were to write a philosophical treatise (perhaps about fiction), and I happen to use a hypothetical example for the purposes of my argument, is my work fiction or non-fiction? Under Searle's definition, it would seem that I had constructed a non-fictional work with some fictional aspects. But Walton's definition seems to suggest a different answer. By using that hypothetical situation, I have created a prop for a "game of make believe," where the reader must imagine my hypothetical situation which does not correspond to reality. Perhaps this is just an oversight on Walton's part, but I would not feel comfortable classifying every work as fiction that may contain or employ some fictional elements.