Graham Priest’s book is a treasure-trove, with many interesting things to discuss, but in these remarks, I want to address two main questions. The first concerns what properties and relations Priest’s non-existent objects should have simpliciter. The second is the question of whether Priest’s framework needs dialetheism—should the framework only be attractive to those who accept true contradictions? In these remarks I plan to grant, for the sake of discussion at least, that there are non-existent objects. I take it that the question of whether there really are things that don’t exist is one that is to be settled once we see how well the rival theories do—and so developing a theory of non-existent objects seems to me an important preliminary to the judgement of whether there are, after all, such things.