when I read philosophy of fiction I really wonder whether people only read some basic "great books" style work plus like harry potter? every premise seems so obviously invalidated by so much writing out there
though I don't think this is that philosophers of fiction don't read fiction, it's the analytic philosophy disease of saying "we'll start with the simple cases," like epistemologists' obsession with tables--people don't realize that their theories need to account from Calvino from the beginning
I was reading one that did, but it was all "a contradiction is true in the Nonexistent Knight" and not the fun stuff like "How should we take the figleaf that the narrator of Baron in the Trees is making up the stuff he can't possibly know" and "what is up with the train in The Dinosaurs"
the Baron in the Trees problem isn't even particularly avant-garde, I am reading The Rotter's Club and it has the frame story of being narrated by the child of one of the characters who can't possibly know all that detail. does that mean that stuff isn't true in the story? of course not! IMO
I also like these papers sometimes because they give some highly implausible universal principle and immediately say "well it doesn't account for ABC & D" but it does show what is going on in all of literature .. like .. guys?
