In Mimesis as Make-Believe
Walton reminds us that however valid the Reality and Mutual Belief Principles are for many cases (144), conjointly they do not exhaust the entire range of authoritative inference patterns that may be used to determine what is fictionally-true in a fictional world (161–69).
Unfortunately for these other—noncompliant—cases there is no systematic set of principles covering them (169). Instead, “sharply divergent principles, answering to different needs, are at work in different cases” (169).
My objective in this paper is to answer Walton’s (implied) challenge and to try formulating a procedure for determining an authoritative inference pattern for some of these noncompliant
cases. The stimuli for my thinking are some troubling cases in postmodernist fictional narrative where not only logical consistency is undermined, but also narrative, character and plot consistency. For example the text in Robbe-Grillet’s Jealousy
reads at one point: “The chief character—one learns—is dishonest
. He is honest
, he is trying to re-establish a situation compromised by his predecessor.” A patent contradiction, and in the real world we would say it cannot be that both sentences are true.
But what about in the fiction: can
both be simultaneously true? Walton would say, yes, because fictional worlds do not require logical consistency (witness Walton’s accommodation of contradictory propositions in the example of Hogarth’s False Perspective
[64–65]). But to say two contradictory sentences can
both be true in a particular fictional world does not entail we are required to say they both ought
to be held true in that fictional world. My claim would be it is still logically possible (and perhaps obligatory) in some cases to suspend judgment (as we would in real-world encounters), since prima facie it is logically impermissible to hold contradictory beliefs at the same time. And there is no reason why we cannot do the same when encountering Robbe-Grillet’s troubling sentences in the world of his fiction.
When might there be a reason to accept these contradictory sentences as both true in the fictional world? When there is compliance with a principle which I shall call (and explicate as) the Principle of Iconographic Interpretation.
This says that if we can find some significance or symbolism in the representational rendition of two contradictory sentences, then we have a reason for accepting the conjunction as true. The rationale for this logical maneuver is that since representational works (of art, in particular) are primarily vehicles of meaning, then when meaning can be applied to some presumed paradox in the represented fictional world, then that should be a reason to grant it truth-status in that fictional world .
Two examples I will explore to support this view are the following: A) Walton’s analysis of “Joan’s dream” (176–77), esp. n. 46. There Walton claims that there is a paradox in Joan’s dreaming that the same man she meets is sometimes her father, and sometimes her boss; but if provided a “meaning” (I am speculating, by means of psychoanalytical inquiry) these two propositions can be grasped as simultaneously true. B) Kafka’s Gregor Samsa, in the fictional world of Metamorphosis,
waking up in the body of a giant bug: this is an empirical if not ontological impossibility. Yet when provided a metaphorical meaning (Gregor is the alienated, repulsive, abandoned member of a family—the bug likewise appeals to our attitudes of disgust and alienation) the contradictory sentences: “I am human”, “I am not human” are both reasonably accepted as true in the world of the fiction.
So what might be the meaning in these postmodernist examples of logical, narrative and character inconsistency? Here we enter the controversial waters of critical analysis, and I will explore briefly the interpretation of writers like Roland Barthes, who propose that the meaning behind much postmodernist “paradoxes” of this sort is simply to exemplify instances of destabilization—of comfortable presumptions we make about narrative cohesion and character identity. Works such as those by Robbe-Grillet, Borges, et al. are therefore subversive of conceptual patterns about historical development, personal identity and human psychology that we have received from our intellectual tradition. When seen from this iconographic perspective, we can return to the fictional world of Jealousy and then have a principled way to infer that in that fictional world the unstable pair “He is dishonest / He is honest…” can be held to be true simultaneously (however counterintuitive that would be in the real world). Interestingly, Walton might find reason to be sympathetic to this line of analysis, since he claims that what is fictionally true in a work’s world may benefit from “feedback” from a critical consideration of overall themes and meanings in the work (184).
 Mimesis as Make-Believe (Harvard University Press, 1990): all in-text page references are to this edition. Under the Reality Principle, our inferences in determining what is true in a fictional world should be modeled as far as conditions permit on real-world inference patterns. If natural laws allow us in the real world to infer Hamlet has physical lungs, and is experiencing loss for his dead father, then similar inference patterns should prevail in fiction. Under the Mutual Belief Principle, our inferences should be modeled, as conditions permit, on the belief system prevailing in the author’s society of origin—even if noncompliant with reality. Thus we can infer the ghost does not have to be reduced to a hallucination in Hamlet’s mind and that he can walk “through” walls. (The reason why inferences are crucial in determining what is true in a fictional world is because the explicit sentences of a fictive text are insufficient for determining what is true in a fictional world. As in nonfictional contexts, we always determine truth by what can be, in addition, authoritatively inferred from the explicitly stated sentences. Hence there is a need for some principles of fictional inference—which the Reality and Mutual Belief Principles respectively serve.)