This article scrutinizes some of T. Parsons' arguments in favor of assuming Meinongian
fictional objects. Parsons justifies his Meinongian approach by showing with respect to carefully
chosen example sentences that the special paraphrases commonly used in order to circumvent the
assumption of non-existent objects are not always adequate. In particular, he explores a Fregean
approach that amounts to conceiving of fictional objects as intensional objects and rejects it. The
present author reanalyzes Parsons' examples on the basis of Frege's original distinctions. He shows
that an adequate account of fictional objects requires neither their interpretation as intensional objects
nor the assumption of non-existing objects.