Response to Q&A #4 (Question 1)

Response to Q&A #4 (Question 1)

Q- “Is the process of interpreting works of fiction an automatic, implicit process, or rather, is it something that we can control?”

In his attempt at providing an answer to the so-called “paradox of fiction, Kendall Walton describes a process of pretending which takes place, in which the viewer chooses to participate the this game of pretend. At least, I previously though that Walton believed that viewer must willingly decide that they want to participate. This was until I read this excerpt from the IEP:

“Such games rely on what Walton calls “constituent principles” (e.g., that whenever there is a glob of mud in a certain orange crate, it is make-believedly true that there is a pie in the oven) which are accepted or understood to be operating. However, these principles need not be explicit, deliberate, or even public”

This lead me to question whether Walton viewed the process of participation in the make-believe game as occurring automatically, or whether the viewer was always aware of its occurrence. I find this distinction to be important because I think Walton’s “pretend theory” would be significantly flawed if he did not label this process as being able to occur implicitly and automatically.

This process of pretending would have to be an implicit cognitive process (i.e. occurring without the individual’s awareness) because, if it were not, it would easily be proved false. For example, if a person consciously decides to not take part in this game of make believe, they will still be effected emotionally. Making the conscious decision to play-along with a fictitious event has no barring as to whether that event will be able to effect them emotionally. Accordingly, the only way in which Walton’s theory could be plausible would be for him to define this process of make believe as an implicit cognitive process.