 She claims that imaginative failure results from “the contingent incomprehensibility of the relevant proposition” because one cannot think of a context that would make the proposition we are prompted to imagine true (2005: 608). The account has been criticized for disregarding what Weatherson calls the “That’s all” clause that is implicitly embedded in works that trigger resistance (Weatherson 2004: 20). Of course, the addition of the life of slavery into the context may affect resistance reactions, but the whole issue is that there is no such elaborate context supplied by the author. As long as no such context is implied or explicitly stated, we should assume that there is nothing more to the Giselda story other than that Giselda did the right thing by killing her baby just because she was a girl. The question posed by the phenomenon of imaginative resistance is why we experience imagining Giselda in the way that we do given that we know that it is just fiction. (See Nanay 2010, for an explanation of imaginative resistance as involving another type of incomprehensibility. According to Nanay, resistance arises because the narrator appears to the imaginer to be violating a maxim akin to Grice’s Cooperative Principle. This turns the imaginer’s attention away from the fiction and towards its author, hence producing the doubling of the narrator effect discussed by Gendler (Nanay 2010: 591).) 