Make-Believe: Kendall Walton locates the key to immersion in a behavior that we learn very early in life—earlier, arguably, than we learn to recognize the rigidity of the ontological boundary that separates story-worlds from physical reality. The comparison of fiction to games of make-believe is not a particularly new one; it is implicit to Coleridge’s characterization of the attitude of poetry readers as a “willing suspension of disbelief.” (Biographia Literaria, 169) (p: 105)
Walton’s project is more ambitious than defining fiction: the stated goal of his book Mimesis as Make-Believe is to develop a theory of representation and a phenomenology of art appreciation that make the term representation interchangeable with fiction, saying that "in order to understand paintings, plays, films, and novels, we must first look at dolls, hobbyhorses, toy trucks and teddy bears. . . . Indeed, I advocate regarding the activities [that give representational works of art their point] as games of make-believe themselves, and I shall argue that representational works function as props in such games, as dolls and teddy bears serve as props in children’s games." (11) (p: 106)
In 1997, when Walton revisits the phenomenology of art appreciation in “Spelunking, Simulation, and Slime,” he sharpens his analysis of the mechanics of involvement in a textual world by borrowing from psychology the concept of mental simulation. In its psychological use, the term mental simulation is associated with a recent debate concerning the strategies of common-sense reasoning, or “folk psychology.”An important aspect of this reasoning is the operations that enable us
to imagine the thoughts of others with sufficient accuracy to make efficient decisions in interpersonal relations. Simulation theory can thus be described as a form of counterfactual reasoning by which the subject places himself in another person’s mind ... [] ... Fiction has been hailed (and also decried) for its ability to foster understanding and even attachment for people we normally would condemn, despise, ignore, or never meet in the course of our lives. As we project ourselves into these characters, we may be led to envision actions that we would never face or approve of in real life. This idea is crucial to Walton’s appeal to simulation in support of his theory of mimesis as make-believe. (p: 110 - 111)
Mental simulation should therefore be kept distinct from retrospective and temporally free-floating acts of imagination, such as storymaking, daydreaming, and reminiscing. When we compose a narrative, especially a narrative based on memory, we usually try to represent “how things came to be what they are,” and the end is prefigured in the beginning. But when we read a narrative, even one in which the end is presented before the beginning, we adopt the outlook of the characters who are living the plot as their own destiny. Life is lived prospectively and told retrospectively, but its narrative replay is once again lived prospectively. Simulation is the reader’s mode of performance of a narrative script. (p: 113)
Walton’s project is more ambitious than defining fiction: the stated goal of his book Mimesis as Make-Believe is to develop a theory of representation and a phenomenology of art appreciation that make the term representation interchangeable with fiction, saying that "in order to understand paintings, plays, films, and novels, we must first look at dolls, hobbyhorses, toy trucks and teddy bears. . . . Indeed, I advocate regarding the activities [that give representational works of art their point] as games of make-believe themselves, and I shall argue that representational works function as props in such games, as dolls and teddy bears serve as props in children’s games." (11) (p: 106)
In 1997, when Walton revisits the phenomenology of art appreciation in “Spelunking, Simulation, and Slime,” he sharpens his analysis of the mechanics of involvement in a textual world by borrowing from psychology the concept of mental simulation. In its psychological use, the term mental simulation is associated with a recent debate concerning the strategies of common-sense reasoning, or “folk psychology.”An important aspect of this reasoning is the operations that enable us
to imagine the thoughts of others with sufficient accuracy to make efficient decisions in interpersonal relations. Simulation theory can thus be described as a form of counterfactual reasoning by which the subject places himself in another person’s mind ... [] ... Fiction has been hailed (and also decried) for its ability to foster understanding and even attachment for people we normally would condemn, despise, ignore, or never meet in the course of our lives. As we project ourselves into these characters, we may be led to envision actions that we would never face or approve of in real life. This idea is crucial to Walton’s appeal to simulation in support of his theory of mimesis as make-believe. (p: 110 - 111)
Mental simulation should therefore be kept distinct from retrospective and temporally free-floating acts of imagination, such as storymaking, daydreaming, and reminiscing. When we compose a narrative, especially a narrative based on memory, we usually try to represent “how things came to be what they are,” and the end is prefigured in the beginning. But when we read a narrative, even one in which the end is presented before the beginning, we adopt the outlook of the characters who are living the plot as their own destiny. Life is lived prospectively and told retrospectively, but its narrative replay is once again lived prospectively. Simulation is the reader’s mode of performance of a narrative script. (p: 113)
