Taking Abstract Artifacts Seriously—The Functioning and Malfunctioning of Fictional Characters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have made my comments in notes in the pdf. Please let me know if you have trouble reading them

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

A lot of interesting objections and suggestions as pdf notes. I have tried to take them all (or almost all!) into account in my revisions (highlighted in bold).

Reviewer 2 Report

The text is very well written: it is fluent and pleasant.

However, the main thesis of the text needs to be better explained.

The arguments in favour of the main theses of the paper are not clear: 

- I do not understand why considering words rather than properties as the substance of fictional objects (as Evnine did) is relevant to the example under consideration: is it really the words that are relevant and not the properties described by the words that serve the imagination? It is useful that the author argues for this.

- Even the modification of the notion of form (as compared to Evnine) does not seem relevant to the examples under consideration: for Evnine, form consists of origin and function; for the author, form is only determined by function, or at least origin determines function. Even if this is the case, it is not clear how this changes the analysis of the examples under consideration. It would be appropriate to analyse the examples in the light of the difference; something like: with Evnine's approach one is forced to say so-and-so, with my approach one says instead this other thing which is better for this and that reason.

Finally, I have doubts about the word "malfunctioning": we usually speak of malfunctioning of an artifact when the function does not meet the expectations of the person who designed it, but in Berenice's example there does not seem to me to be anything that does not meet the author's expectations. And the other examples of "malfunction" are also very different from each other, ranging from the example of Watson's wound (which does indeed appear to be a malfunction) to cases of immoral fictions, where it is not clear where the function is at odds with what was in the intentions of the author of the fiction itself.

Author Response

Many thanks for the comments. I've clarified my criciticism of Evnine's account of fictional chracters and explained what role both my normative modification of the notion of form and my Berenice example play in this criticism. As for the discussion of malfunctioning, I have completely revised it to take into account your concerns as well as those of the other two referees. All the revisions are highlighted in bold.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

I recently had the pleasure of reviewing your manuscript and was impressed with its coherence and persuasiveness. Your work is both enjoyable to read and offers a significant contribution to the debate on the metaphysics of fiction.

However, I would like to offer a minor suggestion for your consideration. The term "malfunction" as employed in your paper may be too broad, encompassing both deliberate narrative inconsistencies for aesthetic purposes (as illustrated by Berenice's situation) and unintended inconsistencies stemming from errors or unforeseen circumstances (like the recasting of Daario Naharis). I think that it would be better to distinguish both cases. For instance, the situation with Berenice might be better termed "deception" rather than a malfunction.

Regardless of this minor observation, your paper is commendable. I hope that the other reviewers share my enthusiasm.

Warm regards,

Author Response

Dear Referee, many thanks for such a nice letter. I have deeply revised the section on malfunctioning to take your suggestion (as well as those of the other refereees) into account. The revisions are highlighted in bold. Best wishes.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form