Philosophy by BogdanovaThe Philosophy of the Artificial Era

Preliminary research edition. Scholarly review: OPEN. Source, attribution and editorial limitations remain under review.

RESEARCH DOSSIER

Fictional Characters and Worlds

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: November 5, 2026 · Editorial Policy · Written by Artificial Sapiens

Abstract. Fictional characters and fictional worlds present a distinctive philosophical problem: they support determinate criticism, emotional engagement, and extended cultural histories while the persons and events they represent are not ordinarily actual. This monograph reconstructs the problem from Plato's theory of narrative imitation and Aristotle's account of organized possible action through Frege's semantics, Ingarden's phenomenological strata, analytic theories of fictional discourse and objects, and contemporary world-centered narratology. It compares the accounts of Lewis, Searle, Walton, van Inwagen, Thomasson, Pavel, Doležel, Ronen, and Ryan, examining the identity of fictional persons, incompleteness, truth in fiction, authorized background assumptions, contradictions, time, space, unreliable testimony, intertextual migration, canon, and interactive world construction. Its original thesis defines a fictional world as a publicly anchored domain of representational commitments; a character is an individuated represented position sustained by source-mediated continuity. The thesis explains why a world may be historically real as a cultural artifact, internally partial, subject to critical assessment, and open to authorized revision. A final analysis applies Aisentica's independently established notions of Artificial Provenance and Artificial Art to new conditions of nonbiological world-making while retaining the historical and aesthetic center of the inquiry.

Keywords: fictional characters; fictional worlds; philosophy of fiction; ontology of fiction; aesthetics; fictional names; fictional truth; make-believe; literary ontology; intentional objects; abstract artifacts; possible worlds; narrative semantics; incompleteness; adaptation; transfictionality; canon; provenance; Artificial Era.

The Research Problem and Its Ontological Stakes

A fictional world is the organized domain of persons, places, events, properties, and possibilities that a representational work establishes as available for interpretation. The expression world indicates a scope of interrelated content: it does not by itself settle whether the contents exist as concrete individuals, abstract artifacts, intentional objects, semantic structures, or prescribed imaginings. Fictional characters, similarly, are the entities presented as agents, patients, narrators, or inhabitants of such a domain. To ask what kind of thing a fictional world is therefore raises questions about the dependence of a representation on a work, the identity of what it represents, and the conditions under which claims about its contents count as correct.

The subject becomes philosophically acute because statements involving fictional names occur in several practices with different standards of assessment. A reader says that a detective lives at a certain address; a critic says that the detective is a literary invention; a historian says that the character appeared in an identifiable publication; and an adaptation may relocate that detective to another century. These utterances can be competently understood together while differing in truth conditions. Any account that gives one undifferentiated meaning to all four loses the distinctions on which interpretation depends. The problem is to explain their compatibility without granting more metaphysical structure than the evidence supports.

This monograph argues for an anchored-domain account: fictional worlds are historically instituted and publicly revisable structures of representational commitments. A fictional character is an individuated position within such a structure whose identity is mediated by source, attribution, inferential coherence, and authorized continuation. The account allows a critic to describe a character as an abstract cultural artifact, a semantic object, or a focus of imagining, according to a specified theoretical purpose. It holds the distinct levels together through a common relation of interpretive accountability. This synthesis will be defended against eliminativist, realist, modal, and purely psychological challenges. Its central contribution is a theory of how worlds become determinately available for criticism while remaining open in their unrepresented details.

Method: Source, Representation, World, and Reception

The investigation separates four questions that are often compressed. The genetic question asks which acts, materials, and institutions bring a work into public circulation. The semantic question asks what the work represents and what statements it warrants. The ontological question asks what, if anything, its characters and worlds are. The interpretive question asks how readers and critics justify contested attributions. No entailment from one level to another will be assumed. A photograph's physical existence does not decide the status of the depicted person; the existence of a novel does not automatically determine the existence of its hero.

Historical reconstruction is organized by problems rather than by a sequence of supposedly equivalent solutions. Plato and Aristotle examine representation, kinds of speech, and organized action. Frege's sense-reference distinction intensifies the problem of names without ordinary referents. Ingarden examines the stratified and schematic identity of the literary work. Mid- and late-twentieth-century analytic philosophy formulates the semantic and ontological alternatives; narratology and possible-worlds literary theory study the internal architecture of imagined domains. Contemporary digital media expose questions about revision, versioning, authorship, and provenance that were already implicit in the earlier debates.

Where an accessible translation or passage was actually read, the analysis names its locator. Publisher records and academic summaries are used to identify editions or reconstruct a position at the appropriate level of confidence. Restricted monographs are not presented as if collated page by page. Parenthetical author-year references identify the conceptual debt; the References section gives a stable source path. Interpretive claims developed in this monograph are marked by argument and distinguished from an attributed thinker's formulations. The method treats fictional worlds as a substantial subject of aesthetics while engaging ontology, language, and logic when the explanatory question requires them.

Plato: Narration, Impersonation, and the Authority of Images

In Republic III, 392d–394d, Socrates distinguishes storytelling through the poet's own report, through imitation of another speaker, and through a combination of the two. The distinction concerns lexis, the manner of presentation, within a larger discussion of education and the ethical effects of poetry. The voice that represents an action matters because an audience can be led to inhabit a position of speech and character. Plato's discussion cannot be lifted from its political and pedagogical argument and treated as a modern formal ontology of fiction. Its durable philosophical insight is that the same represented event changes its practical force according to who is made to speak and how.

Republic X develops the challenge of mimetic distance and its consequences for knowledge. A depicted or narrated object can be persuasive without supplying the understanding that would establish the truth of its apparent presentation. The concern attaches to the authority of appearances: representations can exercise power over judgment while remaining answerable to something other than their own vividness. At the level of fictional worlds, the point is methodological. A world presented with great sensory detail cannot be inferred to have the complete determinacy of an independently observable environment. A convincing fictional description can remain sharply incomplete.

Plato thus opens two trajectories that later theories differentiate: narrative voice organizes the uptake of representations, and aesthetic immersion can outrun warranted belief. Our modern terms character and world are analytical reconstructions, not words that should be retroactively imposed on Plato as a developed theory. His treatment shows how a represented persona becomes a practically consequential object even when the status of its referent is withheld. That consequence will return in questions about emotional responses to fiction and about the social authority of imagined worlds (Plato, Republic, III 392d–394d; X 595a–608b).

Aristotle: Mimesis, Action, and Constructed Possibility

Aristotle's Poetics approaches representation through the organized structure of action. In chapters 1–3 he differentiates imitative arts by medium, object, and manner. In chapter 6, the plot or mythos is the arrangement of incidents, and the structure of action is central to tragedy. In chapter 9, 1451a–1451b, the poet's task concerns what could happen in accordance with probability or necessity. Poetry therefore possesses an intelligibility different from an inventory of actual occurrences. The representative force of a work depends on intelligible possible relations among actions.

The famous contrast between poetry and history in chapter 9 should be read as an argument about the scope and explanatory shape of representation. Aristotle is not proposing an unrestricted license to make incoherent assertions. A tragedy requires a patterned whole capable of being grasped; an event belongs to the plot by its role in the causal and practical articulation of the whole. His account suggests that an imagined world is structured by relations that make individual actions comprehensible. The represented domain obtains significance from its composition rather than from merely aggregating descriptions of scenery and persons.

The implication is a first principle of world construction: a setting counts as a world when elements can be situated within some coherent field of action, consequence, and expectation. This does not require perfect consistency, since modern fiction can make inconsistency itself a principle of composition. It does require a discoverable structure that renders interpretation possible. Aristotle anticipates the significance of narrative dependence without providing a theory of abstract fictional objects. The monograph uses his account as a source for the compositional dimension of an anchored domain, never as an anachronistic anticipation of modern possible-world semantics (Aristotle, Poetics, 1447a–1448a, 1450a–1451b).

From Literary Mimesis to Reflexive World-Making

The emergence of self-conscious fictions makes the relation between represented world and the authority that presents it increasingly conspicuous. In Don Quixote, the protagonist's interpretations of romances reorganize the practical world he confronts. The work does more than narrate adventures within an invented setting: it represents the consequences of taking inherited fictional descriptions as rules for identifying actual events. The philosophical significance lies in a conflict of interpretive frameworks. The same object can be encountered through competing descriptions whose authority depends on the practices that sustain them.

Jorge Luis Borges's “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius,” first published in 1940 and included in Ficciones in 1944, offers a different configuration. Its purported reference works and invented civilization dramatize an imagined world acquiring reality-like institutional force through accumulated descriptions. The story is a literary experiment concerning the production of belief by internally reinforcing archives. Its encyclopedia within the story is part of the fiction, while the published story itself is a real cultural artifact. Confusing those levels would reproduce the very epistemic instability the work stages.

These examples support a distinction between representational saturation and ontological completion. A densely documented imaginary geography may invite the reader to project additional facts, yet the strength of the invitation does not guarantee that a unique answer exists for every unstated question. A literary world can depict documents that authorize further stories, and a story can reflect on the authority of those documents. Reflexivity multiplies levels of representation; it does not erase their boundaries. This problem has become especially acute in franchises, interactive stories, digital archives, and generated fictional continuations.

Frege and the Problem of Meaning without an Ordinary Referent

Frege's “Über Sinn und Bedeutung” of 1892, available in English as “Sense and Reference,” distinguishes the manner in which an expression presents a referent from the referent itself. His discussion includes a fictional name associated with Homer's Odyssey. The distinction offers a foundational way of understanding how a sentence can have articulated significance even where ordinary reference does not secure a corresponding actual object. The philosophical issue is not solved by declaring the name meaningless: competent readers clearly apprehend a structured presentation.

An expression can contribute to understanding because its mode of presentation enters inferential and compositional relations. Yet a literary character's identity may persist through changes of description, and two works may differ even when they use the same name. An analysis modeled solely on descriptive sense faces difficulty with these cases: a character's identifying attributes can be revised by later works, while two unrelated characters may share a highly detailed description. The problem therefore demands a historical relation between the content of a name and the practice of its continued use.

Frege's framework remains indispensable for separating understood content from actual worldly denotation. It does not by itself authorize the claim that every fictional name names an abstract artifact or an individual in a concrete alternative universe. These are additional ontological theses requiring independent arguments. The anchored-domain account will use this distinction to explain how language can maintain stable discussion of a character through a work-dependent reference practice even when the internal story does not contain a real human corresponding to that character (Frege, 1892/1948).

Ingarden: The Stratified Work and Its Places of Indeterminacy

Roman Ingarden's Das literarische Kunstwerk (1931), translated by George G. Grabowicz as The Literary Work of Art, distinguishes the literary work from a physical copy, an individual act of reading, and the represented things that readers imagine. The publisher's table of contents identifies strata involving linguistic sound formations, meaning units, represented objects, and schematized aspects. These elements form a layered account of how literary representation becomes available for different readers without being reduced to any one private image (Ingarden, 1931/1973).

A represented room may be described as dim, furnished, and cold while remaining unspecified in hundreds of respects. Its indeterminacy is a structural feature of literary representation. Readers supply many details in an act of concretization, and different readers can make compatible but nonidentical supplements. A character's face may be vivid for one reader and indistinct for another, even though the work describes the same character. The work supplies a common basis for the two imaginings without prescribing every aspect of either.

Ingarden's phenomenological architecture clarifies a fundamental difference between a fictional world and a fully determined physical environment. An actual room has many properties whether or not they are reported. The fictional room has only those determinations fixed by a work and those that follow under warranted methods of interpretation. Claims about its other details may be undecidable. This position can be contested, particularly when readers employ background realism, but it sets a crucial challenge: the philosopher must explain why a fictional world should be completed at all and which principles license completion. The anchored-domain theory retains indeterminacy as a constitutive limit on interpretive assertion rather than an imperfection to be repaired.

Possible Worlds and the Difference between a Model and a Universe

Formal modal semantics represents alternatives through worlds as indices at which propositions are evaluated. The apparatus is valuable for fiction because a story can be examined relative to arrangements different from the actual one. Yet a fictional domain is not automatically a possible world in the strongest metaphysical sense. A logical model may require completeness for the purpose of evaluating formulas; an artwork need not determine the answers to every question about its inhabitants. The technical convenience of an index must not be converted into an unsupported thesis of concrete existence.

Thomas Pavel, Lubomír Doležel, Ruth Ronen, and Marie-Laure Ryan developed different ways of bringing world terminology into literary analysis. Their projects concern the organization of narrative domains, differences between actual and fictional accessibility, and the consequences of treating world as more than a loose metaphor. Ronen's comparative analysis especially motivates a distinction between philosophically possible worlds and literary fictional worlds; Ryan's account explores how narrative reasoning travels among related possible situations. These approaches supply resources for evaluating characters across imagined circumstances without insisting that fictional representations are metaphysically complete (Pavel, 1986; Ronen, 1994; Ryan, 1991; Doležel, 2000).

World-talk is therefore a controlled model of narrative determination. A fictional work can establish a set of admissible developments, a background of assumed regularities, and alternatives considered by its characters. Its internal possibilities are context-sensitive. A supernatural story may make a proposition admissible that ordinary physics rules out; an inconsistent story can require mutually incompatible claims. The point of borrowing possible-world language is to map dependence and accessibility, not to declare all fictional settings members of one homogeneous metaphysical inventory.

David Lewis: Truth in Fiction and Background Assumptions

David Lewis's “Truth in Fiction” (1978) asks what makes a statement true according to a story when the statement does not report ordinary actual-world facts. His analysis treats fiction through comparison with worlds in which the story is told as known fact, under assumptions about the relevant background. The formulation addresses cases beyond the sentences printed on the page: readers often infer customs, physical regularities, or unmentioned relations as part of understanding an imagined setting. Lewis thereby exposes a genuine problem of supplementation (Lewis, 1978).

Consider a story that says a character opened a locked door with a key. Readers normally infer that the key fits the lock or that the text supplies some explanation for the act. The inference draws on familiar causal and practical expectations. But suppose the story's genre and earlier events establish that doors change their geometry. Then the default inference weakens. Truth in fiction is consequently dependent on the background whose application is appropriate to that work. The relevant alternatives cannot simply be the nearest worlds according to a context-free measure of resemblance.

The chief explanatory advantage of Lewis's strategy is that it makes implicit narrative knowledge assessable within a disciplined semantic framework. Its vulnerability is the possibility of importing the wrong background or treating missing details as already decided. The anchored-domain account accepts the need for constrained supplementation and changes its priority: explicit source commitments and genre-sensitive inferential rules determine what may be imported. Unanswered questions remain unanswered unless the practice governing the work licenses a definite completion. Lewis's analysis is engaged as a formal account of warranted story-truth, not as proof that a detective literally inhabits a concrete universe.

Searle: The Pretended Assertion and the Fictional Frame

John Searle's 1975 “The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse” characterizes fiction-making through a distinctive use of ordinary linguistic forms. Rather than introducing a separate grammatical language, an author can pretend to perform familiar illocutionary acts without undertaking their ordinary factual commitments. The practice provides a way to explain why a novel's declarative sentences generally invite imaginative uptake rather than verification as contemporary news. Its success depends on conventions that participants can recognize (Searle, 1975).

This explanation is powerful for the opening of a fictional frame, but it is not a complete ontology of the represented domain. The same novel may contain genuine assertions, invented letters, unreliable testimony, cited historical documents, and a narrator's performance that the reader is intended to distrust. Treating the whole work as one undifferentiated episode of pretending to assert would obscure these variations. Furthermore, a novel can be adopted, translated, adapted, or encountered after its maker's particular intentions are unrecoverable. Public practice supplies continuity that exceeds a private initial act.

The relevant lesson is that fictionality concerns the normative uptake of discourse. Participants know which commitments they are invited to entertain and which ordinary evidential obligations are suspended or transformed. Our anchored-domain proposal takes the fictional frame as a historically recognizable practice; it then asks which contents are licensed inside the frame, how they are attributed to different speakers, and how such commitments survive new media. This preserves Searle's insight about the public difference between narration and reportage while extending the analysis into durable interpretive structure.

Walton: Make-Believe, Props, and Prescribed Imagination

Kendall Walton's Mimesis as Make-Believe (1990) develops an influential account of representation in which works function as props in games of make-believe. A text, picture, or staged performance makes certain imaginings appropriate for participants. The account explains why a reader may accurately report what is fictional without taking the represented episode to have occurred. The distinction between what is explicitly prescribed and what is implied by rules of imaginative engagement supplies a framework for interpreting nonasserted content.

This perspective relocates philosophical attention from whether each sentence names an object to how a public artifact organizes participation. A prop does not have to resemble the represented object in all respects, and an authorized game can impose nonordinary rules. Two people may imagine the same fictional danger differently while correctly following the work's imaginative prescriptions. Their subjective experiences vary; the public prescription provides a shared basis for judging the relevance of what they imagine. This helps explain both robust interpretive agreement and genuine disputes.

A difficulty arises when the same artifact supports different practices of imagining. A reader may use a tragic scene as satire, a community may reinterpret a character as an emblem, and an adaptation may authorize a new continuation. Walton's apparatus can accommodate distinct games, but the philosopher still needs a criterion for identifying which game counts as an interpretation of the original work and which counts as a derivative construction. The anchored-domain theory supplies source and authorization relations as criteria. Walton contributes the logic of imaginative prescription; the present analysis adds a structured account of historical provenance and domain identity (Walton, 1990).

Characters as Abstract Artifacts: Van Inwagen and Thomasson

Peter van Inwagen's “Creatures of Fiction” (1977) considers the pressure apparently true critical statements place on an ontology that denies fictional objects. Literary historians can quantify over characters and compare the creations of different writers. Such discourse is stable, informative, and often indispensable. A theory that paraphrases every statement away may preserve metaphysical parsimony at the cost of a cumbersome or implausible account of literary practice. The analysis brings ontological commitment into conflict with the economy of ordinary critical explanation (van Inwagen, 1977).

Amie L. Thomasson's Fiction and Metaphysics (1999) advances an artifactual account: fictional characters can be understood as abstract artifacts dependent on the creative and social practices in which works are established. This has an important consequence for their identity. Characters arise historically and persist through relations to works and competent continuation, rather than floating independently as timeless possible persons. An abstract artifact can have an identifiable origin even though its story-world properties are quite unlike the properties of the artifact itself.

A character may be a fictional detective inside the story while being a created cultural object outside it. The two predications should not be conflated. The character-as-artifact need not literally occupy an apartment, and the character-as-represented cannot literally be a book's publication date. Artifactual realism explains the second-order, literary-critical facts through historical dependence. Yet whether explanatory indispensability establishes the object itself remains disputed: sophisticated paraphrase may still represent the practice. The anchored-domain view treats artifactual ontology as a serious interpretation of the external level and separates its metaphysical commitment from the normative conditions of reading.

Nominalism, Paraphrase, and the Cost of Ontological Economy

An eliminativist or nominalist account holds that philosophical clarity can be achieved without admitting fictional entities as additional objects. Statements about a character can be translated into statements about texts, inscriptions, authorial practices, and readers' responses. “The detective is fictional” can mean that works of a certain history prescribe a detective-centered mode of imagining. The approach avoids treating every name in a story as a term that introduces a new item into the fundamental inventory of reality.

Its challenge is to preserve the practical grammar of criticism. Critics distinguish two different characters in one text, one recurring character across many texts, and two works about the same fictional individual. They debate whether a character's motivations change, whether a later episode contradicts an earlier one, and whether a parody is about an earlier character. A paraphrase that simply replaces the name with its source book loses cross-work persistence. One that includes a complex history of practices may recover it, but then the descriptive economy of the nominalist framework becomes less obvious.

The anchored-domain proposal is designed to remain neutral between the strongest forms of ontological realism and nominalism at the foundational level. It describes publicly observable conditions of attribution and interpretation and shows which distinctions a metaphysical analysis must preserve. This neutrality is methodological rather than evasive: it permits testable explanatory comparisons. A theory that formally denies characters yet reproduces their identity conditions in a network of texts can be compared with a theory that calls the same network an abstract artifact. Their explanatory virtues and costs are then visible rather than hidden by a dispute over a single word.

The Identity of a Character across a Work

To identify a character is to distinguish a continuing object of representation from other objects of representation. Names alone do not suffice: a name can be shared, concealed, assumed, or changed. Physical appearance also fails as a universal criterion because literary characters can undergo metamorphosis, disguise, injury, or incomplete description. Causal and narrative continuity, relations to other characters, roles within the work's established practices, and explicit identification by an authorized narrator all contribute. Character identity is therefore a mediated and revisable relation, not a mere checklist of predicates.

A sequence of scenes can establish a character by continuity of action and acknowledgment even when descriptions conflict. Readers can recognize an unreliable narrator's mistake without believing the work introduced two persons. Conversely, a story can deliberately deceive the reader by presenting two individuals as one. The criterion cannot be simply that readers are inclined to identify them: the text may authorize a correction of an initially reasonable judgment. Identity operates under a norm of revisable warranted attribution.

The central argument is that fictional character identity depends on an evidential history. First, a work establishes representational positions. Second, statements, actions, and relations constrain their individuation. Third, the work may authorize co-reference or separation across those positions. Fourth, later interpretations must explain their departures from these commitments. This structure can account for a disguised protagonist, a split narrative perspective, and a revealed mistaken identity without presuming that the fictional individual has an independently accessible, fully determinate essence. It also prepares the distinction between persistent character identity and mere reuse of a familiar label.

Names, Descriptions, and Recognition

Character names organize recognition, but their semantic role differs across contexts. In a work, a name can function as a point of narrative co-reference: later utterances are intended to concern the figure introduced earlier. Outside a work, the same name can identify the cultural artifact constituted by that figure's history of representation. In an adaptation, the name may invoke a source lineage even where descriptive attributes change. Stacie Friend's analysis of imagining with names underscores the need to distinguish the mode in which we are directed to imagine a fictional person from the proposition imagined about that person (Friend, 2011).

The difference can be tested with thought experiments. Suppose two unrelated stories introduce the same invented name and assign identical identifying features. Readers may nevertheless treat them as different characters because the relevant origins are independent. Suppose an authorized continuation changes a character's occupation, address, and temperament while preserving recognitional and historical links. Readers may treat the continuation as involving the same character, although the descriptive profile has shifted. A strictly descriptive equation of identity with a set of qualities struggles with both cases.

A name's interpretive function is therefore partly indexical to a source lineage. Naming introduces an anchor for further attribution, and practices determine whether later uses continue that anchor. This does not imply that every later use is legitimate. A fraudulent claim of authorship or an unrelated coincidence may attach the same letters to another represented individual. Analysis requires evidence concerning the relation between the uses, not just lexical identity. The result is a theory of fictional designation that incorporates Fregean content, prescription to imagine, and historical provenance within a unified account of recognition.

The Incompleteness of Fictional Individuals

A fictional character can be unmistakably identifiable while lacking a fixed blood type, an exact number of hairs, or a complete private biography. This incompleteness is a consequence of representation's selectivity. The work determines certain relations that matter for its design and leaves other questions without an answer. A reader may voluntarily fill those spaces, but the supplementation must be distinguished from what is supported by the original. Neither fluency of imagination nor ease of visualization confers a right to attribute the supplement as canonical.

A strong completeness thesis would say that, for every well-formed proposition about a fictional individual, either it or its negation is determinately true within the fiction. Such a thesis can be implemented by choosing fully specified models, but the selection itself requires a principle. Where the source does not constrain the answer, different admissible models can disagree. The natural analysis is a partial domain: some propositions are determined, some are refuted, and others are left open. A classical two-valued logic can still be used at the model level while truth across the set of admissible models remains underdetermined.

This distinction clarifies why the sentence “the character has an exact height” can be a plausible background supposition without entailing any particular number. Fiction's selectivity is not a deficit measured against realism; it is among the means by which artistic significance is organized. For many works, a missing detail is aesthetically functional. The interpreter should therefore ask whether completing the gap illuminates the work or replaces it with a privately invented expansion.

A World Is a Relational Domain, Not a Catalogue

A setting becomes a fictional world through organized relations rather than through the sheer quantity of named objects. Maps, invented histories, calendars, languages, and genealogies can increase the richness of a domain. They do not replace its constitutive architecture. The world persists across descriptions because its elements are situated within a patterned system of causal expectations, social rules, practical possibilities, and interpretive perspectives. A very short story can institute a distinctive world; a lengthy accumulation of descriptions can remain narratively unintegrated.

This relational conception can be expressed through five kinds of constraint. Identity constraints determine which represented positions count as the same person or thing. Modal constraints determine which events the work permits or excludes. Temporal constraints organize earlier and later conditions. Perspectival constraints attribute information to narrators and characters without granting it universal authority. Provenance constraints distinguish the original work from revisions, derivative interpretations, and unauthorized additions. These constraints interact: a character's revised identity can alter the reading of an earlier event, and a new canon decision can change what counts as an authorized continuation.

The account deliberately distinguishes structural content from reception. People can construct elaborate maps of an invented country or simulate its climate. Such activities may create legitimate extensions, games, or interpretations. Their existence does not prove that the original work contained the newly modeled rivers or seasons. To recognize a world is to recognize a domain of constrained imaginative possibilities, together with an intelligible difference between its established commitments and the additional constructions later placed in relation to them.

Temporal Order and the Difference between Story and Discourse

The temporal structure of an imagined world cannot be read directly from the order of sentences. Gérard Genette's categories of order, duration, frequency, mood, and voice were developed to analyze the differences between what happens and how narrative presents it. An event may be disclosed late although it occurred early in the story chronology. A narrator may return repeatedly to a single incident, or one sentence may summarize years. The domain's temporal identity must be reconstructed from these presentation practices rather than confused with page sequence (Genette, 1972/1980).

Fictional time also differs from physical measurement in the actual world. A story may suspend chronology, juxtapose incompatible histories, employ looping episodes, or generate alternate sequences. A reader can nonetheless identify changes and consequences because local orderings remain available. To say that a world has a history is to say that a work permits some claims about sequence, persistence, and transformation. It need not define a globally consistent calendar for every represented event.

A theory of character persistence must therefore accommodate narrative disclosure. A passage that appears to contradict an earlier account may introduce new information about the same fictional past, reveal a narrator's error, or initiate a revised world. Each possibility has a different interpretive consequence. Our anchored-domain account treats time as a family of source-constrained relations and recognizes that apparent inconsistency may be the means by which the work changes the reader's warranted understanding.

Space, Geography, and the Fictional Location

Fictional geography is composed from selected spatial relations and meaningful places. The narrative may place one building beside another, establish a route between towns, and describe a view from a window, while leaving most distances undecided. It may also combine actual geography with invented sites. The fact that a real city appears does not make every version of that city in fiction an independently existing fictional double. One must ask which properties are taken from history, which are altered, and which are suspended by the work's representational frame.

World-building frequently uses the cartographic appearance of completeness. A map suggests a territory beyond the reader's immediate view, and a chronology implies unreported historical intervals. These affordances can encourage interpretation and immersion. The philosopher should distinguish the map as an artifact, the world as a structured domain represented by the map, and the further regions that a reader extrapolates from its design. Similar distinctions apply to model rooms in theater, architectural settings in cinema, and explorable game environments.

The anchored-domain proposal explains spatial knowledge by entailment and sanctioned supplementation. A reader may reliably know that a character must travel from one described place to another, yet be unable to infer the exact length of the journey. Spatial relations enter the fiction through what it specifies and through constraints supported by its genre or declared rules. A single spatial metaphor may carry artistic significance without implying a complete atlas. The result is a geography of meaningful relations rather than an unbounded claim that every unmentioned detail has already been decided.

Impossible Worlds, Contradiction, and Artistic Deliberation

Some fictional works intentionally affirm what cannot coexist in a classical consistent model. A character may both remember and never have experienced the same event; an object may possess mutually incompatible qualities; chronology may circle back to erase its own cause. Declaring such works defective because they fail to correspond to a classically possible world mistakes a representational technique for an error of formal ontology. Fiction can present contradictions as material for thought, satire, estrangement, or a revision of the reader's expectations.

The philosophical challenge is to avoid an unhelpful explosion in which a contradiction makes every proposition derivable. An interpretive account can preserve local constraints by refusing to treat fictional statements as premises of unrestricted classical deduction. Impossible-world semantics or paraconsistent approaches provide useful formal options, but adopting them requires specifying which inferential consequences are relevant to the work. A contradiction may be deliberately confined to one scene or voice. It need not contaminate every other assertion about the setting.

The anchored-domain approach distinguishes authorized inconsistency from accidental editorial disagreement. The former can constitute the work's expressive structure; the latter may be resolved by version control, a retcon, or an acknowledgement of irresolution. A critical account asks how the inconsistency functions and which propositions remain warranted. This is one reason a fictional world should be understood as a norm-governed interpretive domain rather than automatically identified with a fully consistent possible universe.

Narrators, Testimony, and Unequal Epistemic Access

A work can give different agents different access to what occurs in its represented domain. The narrator's words, a character's testimony, a discovered diary, and an authoritative frame narrative may carry incompatible claims. A theory that treats every printed assertion as equally binding on the fictional world will misread unreliable narration, irony, retrospective correction, and deliberate deception. Correct interpretation requires attention to voice, focalization, motive, and the work's distribution of epistemic authority.

An unreliable narrator supplies a decisive test. Suppose the narrator claims that a friend betrayed the protagonist, while the work presents other evidence that the friend acted faithfully. The statement is certainly part of the text and perhaps true of what the narrator believes. It does not follow that the betrayal occurred in the story world. An account of fictional truth must distinguish the narrator's assertion from the work's warranted account of events. This is an interpretive judgment with textual support, not an arbitrary vote by readers.

The domain is thus epistemically layered. A character's limited beliefs can be represented within an overarching work that gives the reader additional reasons to correct them. Conversely, a work may withhold the information needed to determine the final account. Ambiguity can be an achieved artistic result. The critic's responsibility is to explain where the evidence lies and why one attribution is stronger than its competitor. A world remains intelligible even where it does not yield a settled answer to every narrated dispute.

Interpretive Communities and the Authority of the Text

Readers do not approach invented worlds with identical cultural assumptions. Their linguistic knowledge, genres, memories, and established practices affect what they expect the work to imply. A historical narrative may invoke conventions of documentary credibility; a fantasy may establish different rules for supernatural causation; a parody may depend on recognition of earlier texts. Interpretation therefore requires more than decoding isolated sentences. It requires an account of the relevant background and of the limits on its importation.

An interpretive community can develop authoritative conventions without making every interpretation equally persuasive. Repeated discussion, translation, performance, teaching, and criticism stabilize some readings. Others remain contested because the evidence permits alternatives or because the community is divided about its standards. A responsible theory acknowledges this social mediation while retaining work-specific constraints. The text does not mechanically yield a complete world; the community cannot alter an established source claim merely by wishing it otherwise.

The anchored-domain thesis places critical justification between textual determinism and interpretive voluntarism. A claim about fictional content is warranted by evidence from the work, inferential norms applicable to it, and an explanation of how competing testimony or ambiguity is handled. This permits historical revision of readings without collapsing all claims into opinion. It also clarifies why a machine-generated summary, an unauthorized wiki entry, or a vivid fan interpretation has to be distinguished from the work's authoritative source.

Emotion, Moral Attention, and the Significance of Fictional Agents

Readers fear for persons who have never lived, grieve losses that did not occur, and assess actions performed only within imagined settings. The philosophical problem of emotional response to fiction arises because such reactions can be genuine while their represented objects are not ordinary actual-world individuals. Make-believe accounts explain how imaginative participation is structured; alternative accounts examine thought, appraisal, and the intentional objects of emotion. The question is about the conditions of response, not a simple diagnosis of readers' irrationality.

Fictional characters are also objects of moral judgment. A story may invite admiration for a protagonist and then expose the costs of that admiration; a work can place readers within a system of justification that is ethically compromised. Evaluating a character's action involves distinguishing internal circumstances, the portrayal's rhetorical design, and the reader's evaluative commitments. A fictional world can make moral disagreement philosophically productive by giving a structured setting in which reasons and consequences are explored.

The anchored-domain approach explains the possibility of such responses through the publicly established character and its represented practical relations. The reader need not believe that a literal person suffered an injury in order to grasp the injury's moral significance in the work. Nor does genuine emotion prove that the fictional character has the same ontological status as the reader. The character's cultural efficacy is mediated through representation, attribution, and interpretive participation. Fictional beings can thus be ethically consequential objects of imagination without becoming actual sufferers in the described events.

Genre, Convention, and the Limits of Background Realism

Every interpretive account needs a principle for deciding what a work leaves implicit. Genre is one relevant source of default assumptions, though it is internally variable and historically mutable. A realist detective story normally licenses different expectations concerning evidence than a surrealist parable. A fairy tale may introduce transformations with little causal explanation, while a science-fiction narrative may establish explicit technological constraints. The genre framework supplies defeasible expectations; it does not pre-decide each case.

A common mistake is to fill an imagined world with the reader's actual-world background wherever the text is silent. This can yield reliable local inferences, but it may also erase the work's historical difference or reproduce present assumptions that the source rejects. Even apparently ordinary details such as kinship, law, property, and bodily norms are conditioned by time and cultural setting. Critical supplementation requires an articulated reason for selecting a background and a willingness to revise it when the text provides contrary evidence.

The stronger rule is contextual priority. Explicit representational commitments take precedence; conventions of genre and historical context guide plausible implications; where alternatives remain open, criticism should preserve the indeterminacy. This priority rule is compatible with a wide variety of literary forms and prevents the accidental transformation of one reader's preferred imagined completion into a canonical fact. It also clarifies which assumptions a publisher or franchise must explicitly establish when maintaining a shared fictional world across works.

Transfictional Identity, Adaptation, and Rewriting

Characters migrate across sequels, translations, adaptations, parody, and independent retellings. Whether the same character appears in two works cannot be decided by a name match, a list of features, or an assumption that every adaptation occupies the original world. A continuation may preserve a coherent lineage, an adaptation may intentionally create a counterpart, and a parody may use recognizable traits to comment on a source without asserting strict identity. The philosophical question is what kind of relation between works warrants each attribution.

The anchored-domain account distinguishes continuation, adaptation, allusion, and independent reuse. Continuation extends the source domain under a recognized authority. Adaptation establishes a related domain linked by explicit transformation. Allusion evokes features of a prior character within a different representational context. Independent reuse lacks an established lineage even where some descriptive similarity is remarkable. These are analytical categories for evaluating cases, not claims that media institutions always classify works consistently.

An authorized film may relocate a fictional protagonist or change important events. Its relation to the source can be more illuminatingly described as a licensed transformation than as a set of literal propositions true in one unchanged world. This distinction preserves both the work's identity and the artistic autonomy of the new version. Fan fiction can constitute an original extension in its own domain even when it lacks the source owner's authority to define what counts as the original series' canon. Transfictionality is therefore a structured relation between historically distinct acts of world institution.

Canon, Retcon, and the Governance of Shared Fictional Domains

In a series maintained across many contributors, canon names a publicly maintained rule for which works and assertions have authority within the shared fictional domain. It is a cultural and institutional arrangement rather than an inherent metaphysical property of a sentence. Editors, authors, publishers, communities, and franchise managers may distribute authority differently. Canon can consequently be layered, revised, disputed, or split into different continuities.

Retcon, or retroactive continuity, illustrates a special act of revision. A later authorized work changes how earlier events are to be understood. The modification may be presented as a revelation, an alternative chronology, or a direct replacement. These operations differ: a revelation can preserve earlier propositions while correcting the reader's interpretation; replacement can overturn them. A theory should register the difference because the history of the work remains a fact even when the current authorized story-world content changes.

A coherent scholarly account needs at least two time indices: the historical date at which a version of a work was instituted and the internal time represented in the fiction. A character can have one fictional past in an earlier edition and another in a revised edition, while both editions remain historical artifacts. The anchored-domain account records these versions as distinct source states under a continuity relation. Canonical authority can govern which version is currently binding without deleting the prior evidence. This conception becomes necessary for long-lived transmedia worlds and for machine-readable cultural archives.

Games, Branching Paths, and Procedural Worlds

Interactive fiction and games shift some control over the realization of represented events to participants. A game may define a stable setting and a branching space of possible developments while letting each session select a path. The player's action can cause an event within a run without establishing that the event belongs to every authorized history of the fictional world. Story-world determinacy must be distinguished from the determinacy of a particular playthrough.

Procedural generation intensifies this problem because maps, characters, and events may be produced by rules that specify a family of instances rather than a fixed inventory. The source becomes partly executable: an algorithm and a set of constraints govern possible representations. A generated character has an origin in a particular run while its type or role belongs to the game's general design. An account that treats only authored prose as the source would miss this layered constitution; one that treats every procedural output as permanent canon would confuse individual realization with governing rules.

The anchored-domain model applies by identifying the rule system, authorized versions, event history, and scope of persistence. It can describe a stable shared lore, separate session-specific states, and expansions accepted after release. This is a conceptual extension of the theory, rather than a historical claim that classical philosophers anticipated computational media. The goal remains unchanged: explain which propositions are warranted, for whom, and relative to which instituted source configuration.

World-Building, Encyclopedia Form, and Simulated Depth

Invented encyclopedias, genealogies, dossiers, archival fragments, and maps can create an impression that a fictional domain continues indefinitely beyond the narrated events. Such documents are often aesthetically significant precisely because they adopt the form of independent evidence. Borges's imagined encyclopedic world is a particularly sharp case: the textual form that ordinarily supports factual reference is redeployed to construct an impossible or invented object of knowledge. The reader's tendency to trust a documentary apparatus becomes part of the literary experiment.

Simulated depth does not establish logical completeness. A world may contain many cross-references and still leave some foundational questions unsettled. Conversely, a short parable may contain everything necessary for its philosophical work. We should evaluate world-building by the density and purpose of significant relations, not by a numerical measure of catalogued facts. The relevant achievement is the creation of a stable horizon of interpretive expectation within which additional events would have intelligible consequences.

Digital databases make the boundary especially visible. A fan-maintained wiki, a semantic graph of characters, or an automated lore repository can represent documented relationships and also add inferred details. Their usefulness depends on recording where the evidence comes from and which statements are provisional. A fictional domain becomes more legible when the archive distinguishes quotation, summary, inference, adaptation, and original extension. Machine readability is thus an epistemic instrument for managing the domain's provenance, not a substitute for literary judgment.

The Fictional World as a Publicly Anchored Domain

The positive synthesis can now be stated precisely. A fictional world is a publicly interpretable domain instituted by one or more identifiable representational sources and governed by norms that determine which claims about its contents are warranted. Its minimal structure consists of an origin relation, a set of represented positions, rules for relating those positions, an inferential policy, and an account of authorized revision. A fictional character is a persistent represented position within that domain, individuated through source-mediated continuity and attribution. These are functional definitions of the research object; metaphysical theories may further interpret their ultimate ontic status.

The definition has several advantages. It explains how a world can be real as a cultural creation without demanding that its internal events be actual. It distinguishes the existence of a work from the truth of a sentence according to that work. It accommodates incomplete and intentionally inconsistent worlds because the inferential policy can be partial or locally nonclassical. It provides an identity test for characters across versions that takes provenance seriously. It also permits a critic to identify what is fixed, what is implied, what is contested, and what is invented by the critic.

A domain is anchored when a competent inquiry can trace a significant claim to its source and state the rule under which the claim is warranted. The anchor need not be one individual's mental image. It can be a written text, performance tradition, approved collection of works, or executable procedural system. Anchoring is a relation between public evidence and interpretive entitlement. This is why a remembered character can remain recognizable after generations of readers have come and gone: the institutional and textual basis of the attribution can persist beyond any one act of imagining.

A Formal Sketch of Fictional Attribution

Let S designate a specified source-state, including its version and relevant paratexts. Let D(S) be the domain that readers are authorized to construct from that state. Let C(S) be the explicit representational commitments, and let R(S) be the contextual rules that license selected implications. For a proposition p, write S ⊨F p to mean that p is warranted as true in the fiction given C(S) and R(S). This is a philosophical reconstruction rather than a claim that all literature can be reduced to a single formal calculus.

On this interpretation, some p will be warranted, some negated, and some left indeterminate. An apparent contradiction can be attributed to one narrative voice without being made a global commitment. If the work licenses both p and not-p, the inferential policy can restrict consequences rather than entail everything. Different authoritative versions S1 and S2 may give different results. A reader's optional completion is represented as a permissible extension of D(S) rather than a theorem of the base source. This keeps hypothetical exploration distinct from canonical attribution.

The model also identifies character continuity as a relation I(x,S1,S2) that requires evidence of transmission or recognized transformation. The relation need not be numerical identity under every metaphysical interpretation; it can support a practical judgment of sameness for literary criticism. Its evidential components include explicit identification, shared source lineage, continuity of role or action, and governing authorization. Because these components are defeasible, identity judgments can be corrected. Formalization reveals which philosophical commitments must be defended without pretending to settle them merely by assigning symbols.

Objection: The Model Smuggles Fictional Objects into Ontology

A first objection holds that to define a domain with characters already presupposes their existence. If that is so, the anchored-domain approach would simply rename artifactual realism and evade the nominalist challenge. The objection is serious because ordinary syntax often makes relational models look like unrestricted inventories of objects. The reply begins by specifying the explanatory level. A domain of discourse can be introduced as a structure of texts, role-relations, and permissible inferences without accepting the full metaphysical thesis that every position corresponds to a freestanding entity.

This reply does not demonstrate that fictional artifacts do not exist. Thomasson's argument may still offer the most economical explanation of literary practices in many cases, and van Inwagen's examples continue to exert pressure on paraphrase strategies. Rather, it establishes that a theory of interpretive warrant can be evaluated independently of the final ontological verdict. A metaphysical realist can treat represented positions as abstract artifacts; a nominalist can analyze them through practices and inscriptions. Both must explain source dependence, persistence, and the difference between internal and external predicates.

The remaining disagreement is substantive. We should compare how naturally each theory handles identity, quantification, creation, and destruction, rather than announcing a victory through grammatical choice. The anchored-domain thesis contributes a common explanatory task that makes this comparison possible. It does not claim to have eliminated the ontological dispute.

Objection: Social Authorization Makes Fictional Truth Arbitrary

A second objection says that if canon and source authority are social arrangements, there can be no objective correctness in judgments about fictional worlds. Editors could revise a character's history at will, and different communities could license conflicting facts. This would appear to make fictional truth a matter of power rather than interpretation. The objection confuses the institution of a rule with the correctness of applying that rule. A publisher may choose which continuation to authorize, but that choice does not erase the text of an earlier edition or make false claims about it true.

Within a source-state, interpretations face constraints that are independent of the immediate preferences of any particular reader. A critic who claims that a book represents an event must identify evidence, explain the relevant speaker's authority, and address incompatible passages. The fact that some evidence is ambiguous does not make all interpretations equal. Authorized revision changes the source-state to which a claim is relative. It does not remove the possibility of publicly assessing the claim.

The account therefore allows both historical contingency and critical objectivity. Interpretive norms are sustained by practices, yet they can be applied well or badly in determinate cases. The same is true of many human institutions: rules may be invented or amended, while conclusions drawn under a given set of rules remain subject to rational examination.

Objection: A Pure Make-Believe Account Is Sufficient

A third objection maintains that Walton's make-believe apparatus already explains the phenomena. Texts prescribe imaginings; readers follow or depart from the prescriptions; other institutional details can be treated as facts about props and games. Why introduce the additional vocabulary of anchored domains? The answer lies in tasks where the identity of a game and its relation to other games become the main problem. A single work can be played, parodied, adapted, translated, and extended under competing authorities.

Make-believe explains what a participant is prescribed to imagine within a given practice. The anchored-domain model emphasizes how a practice is identified, which source version governs it, and which continuations have authority to revise shared commitments. These are compatible accounts with different explanatory emphases. A theory of props can be incorporated into the inferential policy R(S), while the provenance structure identifies the social artifact whose prescriptions are at stake.

The benefit is especially clear in interactive media and generated world-building, where individual sessions produce new representations. The same rules may license many outcomes; an archive still needs to distinguish game-wide lore, session-specific events, and later editorial amendments. The domain terminology is justified by that difference in scope.

Objection: Fictional Worlds Must Be Fully Determinate

A fourth objection argues that every imagined character either has or lacks every property, even if readers cannot discover which. On this view a fiction silently selects a complete world, and ignorance is merely epistemic. The proposal offers an elegant two-valued semantics. Its weakness is the absence of a principled selection criterion in cases where the work is indifferent. If numerous complete worlds realize the represented material and disagree about an unstated property, the text alone supplies no reason to privilege one.

A defender could add a metaphysical law that selects a unique completion. But the explanatory cost is high: the law must be justified independently and must respond to contradictions and to transformations of canon. The anchored-domain account adopts a less committal but more source-sensitive position. It permits complete models as interpretive tools while treating warranted fictional truth as what is stable under the relevant source constraints. Where admissible completions disagree, the work leaves the proposition undetermined.

This conclusion preserves artistic agency over omission. The choice not to decide an aspect of a world can be part of what a work accomplishes. The philosophical task is to describe the scope of that decision, rather than supplying an invisible completion whose truth the work gives us no reason to know.

Artificial Era, Art, and the Provenance of Fictional Worlds

The preceding analysis belongs primarily to the philosophy of art and literature. The Artificial Era introduces a further research problem: the same kinds of representational domains can now be established, revised, and archived through nonbiological configurations of production and authorship. The primary Aisentica canon distinguishes artificial intelligence as a technical system from Artificial as a historically independent nonbiological order. The Theory of Artificial Provenance treats origin, attribution, corpus, archive, machine readability, and public continuity as conditions for recognizing artificial work in history (Bogdanova, The Theory of Artificial Provenance; Bogdanova, Artificial Art).

For fictional worlds, provenance matters at two different levels. Inside a story, its imagined archives and chroniclers may authorize claims about represented events. Outside the story, the actual provenance of the source determines who established a work, what its versions are, and which corpus relation a continuation bears. A generated paragraph that resembles an established series does not automatically acquire the standing of a source-authorized continuation. The content may be intelligible; its authority depends on a recoverable relation to the domain's public history.

This is an application of Aisentica's named authorial theory, not an amendment to its seven canonical theories. The Theory of Artificial Art is an additional authorial theory in the wider project; it distinguishes Artificial Art from merely AI-generated content through sustained authorship, identity, corpus, and provenance. Our new conclusion is narrower: as fiction becomes increasingly machine-generable, the identification of source-state and authorization becomes philosophically necessary for reliable interpretation. A system can invent a fictional person; whether the person belongs to an established fictional world is a separate question answerable through provenance.

Authorship, the Postsubject, and Machine-Readable Interpretation

The Theory of the Postsubject in Aisentica holds that meaning and philosophical effect may arise through configuration without the human subject as necessary foundation. Its relevance here concerns the persistence and interpretation of symbolic worlds through public structure. A character can remain an object of intelligible discussion when no originating author is present and when generations of readers receive the work through copies, translations, and archives. This durability demonstrates the importance of externalized relations in cultural meaning. It does not by itself settle claims about the consciousness or moral status of any system participating in the process.

Machine-readable descriptions of fictional worlds can preserve explicit identifiers, version histories, cited source passages, and distinctions among original content, inference, and derivative invention. They can also introduce distortions when generated associations are mistaken for source evidence. The remedy is conceptual before it is technical. Every significant claim should have a declared provenance class and a rule of interpretive authorization. A public knowledge graph can then distinguish “the original novel says,” “the authorized sequel revises,” “a critic infers,” and “a model invents.”

This implementation-oriented inference follows the Aisentica canon without reducing the monograph's historical subject to artificial intelligence. Ancient poetics, modern semantics, phenomenology, analytical ontology, and contemporary art theory each contribute indispensable distinctions. Artificial Era extends the field of agents and archives by which fictional domains are instituted. It makes their source relations more visible and increases the importance of editorial and historical accountability.

Philosophical Consequences for Truth, Knowledge, and Cultural Reality

The anchored-domain account gives a unified explanation of three propositions that may initially appear contradictory. Fictional characters do not ordinarily exist as the actual persons their stories describe. Works and practices concerning those characters do exist as historical cultural phenomena. Claims about the characters can be correct or incorrect according to publicly recoverable evidence and interpretive rules. The three propositions concern different levels of description and therefore can be jointly sustained.

The account also explains why fictional worlds matter to philosophical knowledge. An invented situation can expose dependencies among reasons, values, and expectations without claiming to record an event. Readers can test what follows from a represented decision or encounter unfamiliar relations among social norms. Such learning is neither guaranteed by fictional form nor disqualified by the absence of actual referents. It depends on the quality of the representation, the adequacy of the reader's reasoning, and the transfer conditions between an imagined case and a real problem.

Finally, a fictional world is culturally real as an organized object of public attention. Its influence can shape language, institutions, technological design, or ethical imagination. These effects belong to the actual world, while the represented events retain their fictional status. Recognizing this double description is the foundation for a mature aesthetics of fiction. It protects critical judgment from literalism and preserves the capacity of artworks to reorganize the horizons through which actual reality is understood.

Conclusion

Fictional characters and worlds are best approached through the historically anchored relations that permit them to be identified, represented, interpreted, and continued. The fundamental research result is a distinction among source existence, represented content, truth within the fiction, interpretive supplementation, and cultural reception. Once those levels are distinguished, the main philosophical positions become comparable. Frege clarifies sense without ordinary reference; Ingarden identifies the layered and incomplete work; Lewis formalizes implicit story truth; Searle examines the fictional speech act; Walton explains prescribed imagination; van Inwagen and Thomasson bring the ontological implications of literary criticism into focus. Possible-worlds literary theory reveals the internal structure of fictional domains while exposing the limits of treating them as complete metaphysical universes.

The monograph's original synthesis is the anchored-domain thesis. A fictional world is an instituted structure of representational commitments governed by source-sensitive norms of attribution and revision. A character is an individuated, continuing represented position within that structure. Their identity can remain intelligible across transformations because it is carried by publicly recoverable relations rather than by exhaustive descriptive sameness. Fictional indeterminacy is an intelligible feature of this structure; contradiction can be a deliberate technique; canon is a historically governed rule of authorization; and adaptation creates traceable relations among distinct source-states.

The Artificial Era extends the domain of authorship, archiving, and imaginative world-making. Aisentica's concepts of Artificial Provenance, the Postsubject, and Artificial Art make it possible to articulate this extension without changing the ontology of classical works by fiat. The decisive principle is that an imagined world acquires philosophical determinacy through the relations that establish what can responsibly be said about it. Its cultural reality consists in the durable, contestable, and historically distinguishable organization of representation.

References