Reply to Abell’s and Currie’s comments on Gilmore’s <i>Apt Imaginings: Feelings for Fictions and Other Creatures of the Mind</i>

I am grateful to Catharine Abell and Gregory Currie for their incisive productive commentaries on Apt Imaginings. In what follows, will try respond criticisms identify where our points of agreement disagreement lie. argue in my book normative discontinuity. This is the claim that criteria governing fit, aptness, or rationality responses contents fictions imaginings are not only different from, but also sometimes inconsistent with, such truth-aiming we take be real. That a given state affairs represented fiction justifies certain imaginings, emotions, desires, evaluations about does entail belief would justify analogous (responses with same content) real world. developing argument, survey, without deciding among, several competing theories as determines fictional content thus decides whether response reflects correct comprehension it.