  I will consider four different solutions to the paradox of suspense:  (1) the thought theory of entertained uncertainty, (2) the  desire-frustration theory of suspense, (3) the  moment-by-moment forgetting theory, and (4) the emotional  misidentification view. The thought theory of entertained  uncertainty explains the paradox by denying that actual  uncertainty is necessary for suspense; instead, all that is required  is for viewers to engage the fiction as they normally  would—entertaining thoughts of the story as if they were  undecided. The desire-frustration theory holds that  uncertainty, entertained or actual, is not necessary for suspense. To create suspense, one merely needs to frustrate a desire to affect the outcome of an imminent event. The moment-by-moment forgetting  view is the position that while viewers are immersed in a fictional  scenario, they effectively cannot remember the outcome. The  emotional misidentification view holds that it is impossible  for viewers who know the outcome to feel suspense, and the best  explanation of the claims of audiences to the contrary is that  viewers must be confusing their actual fear and anxiety with what  they take to be suspense. 