The medieval philosophers had a much different conception of the universe than we do today, but may be able to help here. In the medieval world, existence was quantifiable. For instance the supreme being in the universe, God, had the most existence. Next came the other spiritual beings, demons and angels, followed by humans which were skating the edge of spiritual and physical existence. The merely physical was the lowest form of existence. This view seems backward to us today, but it is helpful in seeing how a fictional character or event could have existence of a sort. The fictional would have existence, merely a lower order of existence. It is easy to see how someone can have a truly emotional response to something that has a low order of existence just as people can have emotional responses to higher order existences (usually through the use of mind-altering drugs.)

So is this enough to counteract the proposition "We know that fictions are not real." Probably not. More proof is needed. Next we must look closely at a portion of the thought theory which skates the edge of the illusion theory. The main difference between the thought theory and the illusion theory is that in the thought theory no reference is made as to the existence of the characters. One merely entertains the thought of the fiction in the imagination and pays no attention to the existence or lack thereof of the fiction. Well this is certainly the leading theory amongst those philosophers who do not wish to be acting irrationally when they respond emotionally to fictions, it fails to explain certain aspects of how we refer to characters. If Hamlet is merely an thought entertained in my imagination, then the statement "Hamlet was poisoned," would refer only to the Hamlet in my imagination. Yet this statement seems to refer instead to the central existence of Hamlet, not merely my imagination of him.

Furthermore, when I reference Hamlet, I am not merely referencing my imagination of Hamlet, I am instead referencing a central Hamlet. One may see the play, or the movie, or read the play and entertain a thought of Hamlet in the imagination, but when that same person speaks of Hamlet, it is not the image in the imagination that is being referenced, but the character Hamlet. The same Hamlet whose father was murdered by his uncle, whose mother was poisoned by the same, who was injured by a poisoned sword, and who died of the poison after avenging his parent's murder. It is this Hamlet that the actors in the play or movie are a shadow of. The Hamlet in our imagination is merely a reference to the original Hamlet that existed in the mind of William Shakespeare.

To say that Hamlet does not exist would be the same as saying that Abraham Lincoln does not exist. Having seen Abraham Lincoln in historical plays, movies, and paintings, I have an image of him in my imagination. This image is itself a reference to the "real" Abraham Lincoln who, as everyone knows, was the president during the civil war, freed the slaves, and was shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth. Of John Wilkes Booth I have seen far less plays, movies, and paintings of, but I have an image in my head of him, which is a reference to the "real" John Wilkes Booth who shot Lincoln, broke his leg jumping from the balcony, was caught and hung. Simply because a character is merely held within the imagination does not in any way indicate that the character does not exist.

All people and characters have existence. Even real people are carried around in the heads of the people who have met them as an image that references the real person. How accurately my image of a person matches the real person is the real problem. Obviously, the image of a person I have met only briefly will be inherently incomplete. The saying, "First impressions are the most important" is correct, especially in light of the fact that, if one does not see the person again, the person will be filled out in the imagination using as a guide only what one knows of the person. From second hand accounts, we get only the basic details and must fill in the rest with imagination. This idea is actually a part of the thought theory, but serves the illusion theory just as well.

The difference between a second hand account of a real event and an account of a fictional one is merely nitpicking. The statements "George is stupid," and "Sam is brave" differ only in the fact that one exists and the other is a fictional character. From the information given, it is impossible to tell which one is fictional and which one is real, nor does it really matter. The mind of the reader has already filled in an image of each. Although the reader does not know which Sam and George I am referring to, a very basic image of each of them is created that points to the "real" ones, albeit a rather weak link. The reference of the reader is to "The George and Sam to which I am referring." It is easier to conceptualize by imagining a thread from the characters in the imagination through the characters in my imagination and ending at the actual person, in the case of the real one, or through the character as he existed in the mind of the original author to the character itself. This thread can go through several hops if, for instance, the reader is imagining a reference I have made to a character depicted in a movie which was itself a reference to the character as it existed in the mind of the screen writer, which was a reference to the character in the original book that the movie is based on. The character in the book is a reference to the character as he existed in the mind of the author which is a reference to the character himself. But what if the book was based on an actual event? Then the character in the mind of the author would be a reference to the actual person. If the character died many years ago, then the reference could be passed all the way back to that person by way of personal accounts and history, all other information being lost. For instance, although the picture in my mind of Pharaoh Seti I may be completely different than what the actual ruler of ancient Egypt looked and acted like, I am still referencing the actual person when I think of him.

We can therefore say that any character or person is, to the viewer, a reference to either the original person or the central character to which the author's imagination forms the main link. We can certainly say that the character exists in the author's mind, and is therefore real. How then can we say that we know fictions are not real? Fictions are as real as any story and are subject to the same limitations of belief. There are those who do not believe the lunar landings took place, and others who believe that "The Lord of the Rings" is a historical document. We "normal" people would consider these people to be at least slightly insane, but it does illustrate the point that simply believing that something is real does not mean that one will respond to this rendition emotionally.

Some have raised the objection to the illusion theory that if we believed the fiction to be real our reaction to the fiction would be more severe. For instance, in the movie "Alien" the belief that Ripley is real would cause us to storm the screen when she is being chased by the alien to warn her of the danger or fight the alien or do something. Obviously if a real person were in danger in such a way, we would react with a strong desire to do something about it. That we sit there and do nothing when a "real" person is in danger is proof that we do not actually believe that the person is real. To this I respond that when watching a movie, such as "Alien," we do react, but in kind with the source. Since the fictional world of "Alien" exists in the mind of the viewer (put there by the images on the screen) he or she must respond within the confines of that world. Most people (at least those people who would react emotionally to a movie such as "Alien") will project themselves into the world of "Alien" as they watch it. It is there that they can interact with the characters in the story and although it does not affect the course of the movie, it can affect how the movie plays out in the mind of the viewer.

However this argument is ultimately irrelevant. When one sees a historical play portraying Abraham Lincoln, the audience not tackling the actor playing John Wilkes Booth does not diminish the existence of Abraham Lincoln. It simply means that the audience does not connect emotionally to the portrayal of the character but to the person himself. Likewise, the audience does not storm the screen in defense of Sigourney Weaver, they sit and fear for the safety of Ripley. Sigourney Weaver is an actress who played a role in the movie Aliens. Ripley is an astronaut who, along with her fellow crew members aboard the space ship Nostromo, intercepts an SOS signal, investigates, and gets attacked by aliens. We do not respond emotionally to the actor, or necessarily, as the thought theory would say, the thought of a person in that situation. One responds to the character. One fears for Ripley because Ripley is in danger. As the thought theory states, one does entertain in the imagination the thought of a person, that thought being a reference to the character. When a character in a movie is being tortured, we do not wince because some actor is pretending to be in pain, we react because the character is being tortured. As such, we must conclude that the character is a separate entity from the actor who portrays him.

In saying this, we must also conclude that a character is in essence a person. A character may have goals, hopes, dreams, in fact everything that makes up a person may be included in a character. These characteristics may be quite separate from those of the actor portraying the character. The actor may be hoping to portray the character well, be hoping to make it big in hollywood, fear that success will lead to lack of privacy, and be tired from all the stress of acting this part all day. The character on the screen is feeling fear that the alien is going to bite her head off and lay eggs in her chest. Once again, it is the character's situation and not the actor's that we emotionally respond to.

This being the case, the theory I have presented may have more in common with the thought theory than the illusion theory. The illusion theory implies that a person sitting in a movie theater believes that there is a physical scary monster in front of him. This is obviously not the case or the person would jump up and run screaming from the theater. The fact that this is a rare occurrence (although not unheard of) would point to the rejection of the pure illusion theory. The picture of a monster projected onto the screen, however realistically is not enough to convince the vast majority of people that there is a physical monster in front of them. And yet there is a monster in front of them.

The monster that is in front of them exists. Everyone in the theater sees the same monster, and references that monster to the same being. When we refer to the alien in the movie "Alien" we are all thinking about the same creature, just as when we talk of Abraham Lincoln we are all referring to the same person. So why do the audience members not run screaming from their seats? This brings us back to the original idea of levels of existence. The monster exists in a world where space ships are capable of interstellar travel, and blood-thirsty aliens attack visitors to their planet. While these creatures and places exist on some level, that existence is separated from our own reality and to view it we use the medium of film. The imaginary world of Ripley and the Aliens maintains a tenuous grip on the real world while the audience is in part absorbed into that world. Unlike the illusion theory, the world, the monsters, and the characters actually do exist on a level partially between imagination and reality.

It has been said that we are the gods of our own imaginary world. While viewing a fiction, we allow references to things other than our own imaginings into this world. Often the foreign reference is difficult to control. For instance, while watching "Alien" the reference to the unstoppable alien menace enters the world of the viewer, creating fear. While the movie continues, the reference to the actual alien creature is broadened, filling in details of the alien's appearance, and any characteristics possible. After the movie has completed it is possible for the viewer to adjust his imaginary world to once again not contain aliens, or allow himself a way of defeating them. However, while the movie is playing the person has very little control over the events and characteristics of the aliens. In this way a person, who during the movie was scared to move and terrified of the hideous aliens, may exit the theater and envision himself bravely killing the aliens with his bare hands. Likewise, the entire audience of a movie in which everyone dies exits the theater as the soul survivor.

If a person's emotional reaction to a fiction relied only on entertaining a thought, than that thought would be easily manipulated in the mind of the viewer during the movie. Hamlet could easily live if he were merely the thought of a tragic prince. However, he is Hamlet and Hamlet has died by being wounded by a poisoned sword. Nothing we imagine can change the fact that Hamlet is going to die in any rendition of the play. Dying in this manner is a part of the character hamlet, just as being shot in the head is a part of the person Abraham Lincoln. We can imagine a world in which Abraham Lincoln had not been shot, and we can imagine a world in which Hamlet was not wounded, but those are inherently false worlds. Abraham Lincoln surviving to old age did not really happen. Hamlet did not really live to old age either. An Abraham Lincoln that did survive must be a different person than the one for whom all our references point. Likewise a surviving Hamlet is not the character to whom we are referring when we speak of Shakespeare's Hamlet. If the fate of Hamlet cannot be changed, then Hamlet is more than a mere entertained thought. He is a person whose fate we care about. Likewise we fear for Ripley because she is a person that we care about. Movies with bad acting, bad characters, or a bad plot do not succeed in making us care about the characters' fate. Unless we like the character, we can easily wish for their demise, not caring about the character's fate. In Battlefield Earth, (One of the worst movies ever made) one hopes that the humans and the aliens will wipe each other out and end the stupidity of the whole thing. Even there, we react with annoyance to the characters themselves as well as the actors, producers, director, and anyone within a 5 mile radius of the place where the movie was made for not torching the set when they had the chance.

In conclusion, it seems obvious that we respond to fictions pretty much the same as we do with real things. Unless forced, the thought that the characters do not exist is not typically thought of when watching a movie or reading a novel. In fact, doing so is counter-productive and counter-intuitive. Characters have a separate identity and a separate existence from the actors who portray them. They are not flesh and blood real, yet they have flesh and blood (in the case of horror movies, they tend to have a lot of blood.) The portrayal of them in books and movies is merely a reference to the "real" character. The closest this reference comes to the real character is in the mind of the character's creator, but even that is merely the first reference. The monsters are real. They're not hiding under your bed or in your closet and they're not coming to get you, but they have an existence all their own. It just depends on how you define real. Real can mean either "not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent" or "having objective independent existence." For me, I'll take the later definition.