I just finished reading that article, it was pretty interesting. It's ironic to me that on the one hand, his ideas get close to how my headmates reconstruct fictive history, but at the same time he also dismisses asking questions about the world of the text that the text has no answer as an 'incorrect' way to interact with fiction.

Then again it looks like it was written in the 90's and not with fictives taken into count. After all, whether or not Sherlock Holmes has a mole on his left shoulder is completely irrelevant information for most people, but for a fictive who is Sherlock's significant other, that information may actually be very significant and from their own personal history they may actually have an answer to the question.

By the way, the colon in https:// is missing, which breaks the url

--janusz