When I did I philosophy degree I preferred the older stuff like Berkley, Hume, Locke and such.
However, one of the modern books I really did enjoy was Kendall Walton's 'Mimesis as Make-Believe'. It outlines a theory of the arts. That all artistic 'objects', including performance and storytelling, are props, which we use to make-believe. That with the combination of 'prop' and the already existing experience of the make-believer, an object of art (whatever form it takes) can produce truths and create a complete game-world.
This idea then carries over into our talk about art and fiction. That when I say 'Donald Duck has a blue hat' it is impossible that it is true because Donald Duck doesn't actually exist but that it is real in the game. So when I say 'Donald Duck has a blue hat', I am actually saying 'Donald Duck has a blue hat (in the game)'.
He also uses this theory to explain the paradox of why we feel emotions from fiction, how can a film scare us or a still painting move us? He says that these are quasi-emotions. That in a scary film we are scared in the game, that although we did react emotionally, that emotion is only fear in the game and can be broken by being out the game (like if the cinema is too noisy).
This last part I disagree with, I think it is possible to have a fear in the game that transcends the game and becomes real fear (and the same about humour, sadness, triumph and the many other emotions fiction and art can provoke).
I also feel it would be interesting to translate the theory to religion, so when the priest says 'he is risen' and the congregation say 'he is risen indeed' - they are actually saying 'he is risen (in the game)', 'he is risen indeed (in the game)'... but that's just me.
Anyway, it's an interesting book and accessibly written and is one of the few big theories I am aware of when I am writing my fiction.
