Full Idea
Discourse about fictional characters leads to a breakdown of elementary logic. We accept P or ¬P if the relevant story says so, but P∨¬P will not be true if the relevant story says nothing either way, and P∧¬P is true if the story is inconsistent.
Gist of Idea
Fictional characters wreck elementary logic, as they have contradictions and no excluded middle
Source
David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.5)
Book Reference
Bostock,David: 'Intermediate Logic' [OUP 1997], p.357
A Reaction
I really like this. Does one need to invent a completely new logic for fictional characters? Or must their logic be intuitionist, or paraconsistent, or both?