Fictional Genesis

Walton declares in his essay that fiction need not be an artifact of human creation. Fiction is merely any object which serves as a prop in a game of make believe. He gives an example of cracks in a cave wall that miraculously spell of the beginning of a story as fiction. Indeed, this particular hypothetical would fit his definition, as it might serve as a prop to someone who decides to use it in a game of make believe. What if the inscription on the rock had spelled out something corresponding to reality? For instance, had the rocks spelled out "Istanbul is the capital of Turkey...", would we consider it a naturally occurring work of non-fiction? The limits of both Walton's and my ridiculous hypothetical aside, it is an important point to consider. While Walton would like to maintain that anything can serve as a prop for make-believe and thus be rendered fiction, it is slightly more difficult to conceive of a work being non-fiction that was naturally occurring as well.

Balance of Fiction

In his essay, Searle acknowledges that works of fiction may contain non-fictional elements. Although he does not address it, it would seem to follow that the converse of this claim would be true as well; that works of non-fiction may contain fictional elements (such as metaphors or hypothetical scenarios.) If we take these premises to be true, then it is reasonable to assume that a work of fiction is comprised of mostly pretend assertions while a work of non-fiction is comprised of mostly real assertions. In the unlikely event that a work was produced with equal parts assertion and pretend assertion, what would the work be classified as? For example, Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear is half fictional thriller and half argumentative assertions against Global Warming. All specific measurements of the work aside, it provides at least a basis for consideration of a work that might be evenly divided between fictional and non-fictional discourse.

Is Searle's definition of fiction adequate enough to effectively delineate the category?

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.