 Distinguishing the puzzles more precisely not only allows for greater conceptual clarity but also helps with reevaluating the previous work done on imaginative resistance, giving us the ability to distinguish real disagreements from pseudo-disagreements. We can reposition these accounts with respect to one another depending on which puzzles they are addressing. For instance, while Stephen Yablo (2002) focuses solely on the fictionality puzzle, Gregory Currie (2002), Currie and Ravenscroft (2002), Peter Goldie (2003), and Shaun Nichols (2006a) address merely the imaginative puzzle. Moran (1994) and Walton (1994) talk about all the puzzles except for the phenomenological puzzle. Gendler (2000) and Derek Matravers (2003) discuss both the imaginative and fictionality puzzle. Gendler (2000) has been criticized heavily for conflating the imaginative and fictionality puzzles; she acknowledges this problem and provides a revised version of her account (2006). 