Sorry but this sort of wheedling, wordsmiths equivocation gets on my wick.
"Emma Bovary died by suicide" is not truth or reality, it is a précis of an aspect of a work of fiction.
The book/story Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert exists, that is reality, that is true and that is as far as the reality of it goes.
Pro-literary or pro-filmic contextuality is just a device for coherent story telling, nothing more.
Saying "inter-subjective entities have a kind of reality of their own" is basically the kind of deliberate mental masturbation that literary theorist come up with so that they can spend years publishing books disagreeing with one another and not having to get a real job, or even write real books.
Baudrillard and Bloom were prime examples of this in the 80's and 90's much of their output was dedicated to stating how wrong the other was, but never really saying why, while Terry Eagleton stood ring side egging them on and writing books that took the piss out of both their arguments.
Taking inspiration from a work of literature is undeniably something that happens, but is nothing more than that, inspiration.
We as humans are bound by the limits of both our senses and our technology to define reality as that which can be directly or indirectly perceived, measured, observed and proven by quantifiable "real" evidence.
There well maybe other aspects of reality outside of that range of perception, but until they can be perceived they are in effect irrelevant to us and should be treated as such.
Even in some physicists wildest speculations upon the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics, the idea that some were in the vastness of the omni-verse/multiverse there is actually a world were Winnie the Pooh exists and lives in the 100 acre wood with his pals would boast such an almost infinite degree of improbability that the chance of such would be so negligible as to be to all intents and purposes impossible.
"Nothing unreal exists" though from a ridiculous source is a quote worth remembering, and had it been taken as common wisdom a few thousand years ago, we would have probably avoided no end of bloodshed, horror and inhumanity in the name of unperceived (therefore unreal) and yet honoured and blindly followed objects of wishful thinking.

Physics and orders of reality:

We may define First Order Reality as what we directly observe and experience. Second order Reality consists of the fundamental entities and causes of First Order Reality. Physics informs us of this Second Order Reality. But these entities and causes such as they are recognized are functions of our own sensors and analyzers. Therefore, we may imagine a Third Order Reality of which Second Order Reality is only a reflection. It may well be that there are Fourth and still Higher Order Realities which are for ever beyond even our conceptual perception. At the other end, we may consider a Zeroth Order Reality consisting of the pure creations of the human Mind which are powerful factors in human culture and interaction. All our mythology and poetry, fiction and even some history, and other creations of the human imagination, as well such abstract elements as justice and equality, freedom and honor, belong to Zeroth Order Reality.

[people.rit.edu]

Interesting. Reminds me of Alfred North Whitehead's worldview, although he doesn't bring it to bear on the here and now as directly as you have. He writes (in Modes of Thought):
"Again everything is something, which in its own way is real. When you refer to something as unreal, you are merely conceiving a type of reality to which that 'something' does not belong."