M-m-meaning! Let's define, is it 'meaning' or 'Meaning', or if there's any at all...

[HerenIstarion]

Again, as before current poll embodies mark 12_30 idea, in itself born in Canonicity Wars (post #579)

'Plain entertainment' entry is my own contribution. Following Fordim's Slapdown Poll's last entry (the book is cool), I suppose there may be such interpretations too.

So, kindly share your views

[Lyta_Underhill]

You forgot to include an entry for "meaning as the output of a schizophrenic monkey typing random phrases on an ancient manual typewriter as part of a larger experiment to prove that meaning does not, in fact, exist!"

Certainly meaning can change, even from moment to moment, and this would speak to the interaction of the source with the reader, editor, etc. etc. And perhaps one version of perceived "meaning" can also be the result of incomplete information, another the result of too much and conflicting information. The 'meaning' derived from a reader of "Lord of the Rings" in the 1960's will be different from the 'meaning' gleaned from one steeped in HoME as supplement to the original work as it stood at first. And certainly, opinions can change, so too, can 'meaning.' I am particularly fond of the signature quote of davem's for that reason as well:

'The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water & breeds reptiles of the mind'...William Blake

Watch out for those reptiles! They bite and write and speak, walk and talk! I also have a saying that sounds to most people naive when I tell them, but which seems true to me the more I think about it, and that is: "Everything is true." Most people believe that I am a sucker and easily fooled after I say that, and one even offered me some land in Florida...but that's beside the point. I think everything has meaning, even those things that eventually prove false or irrelevant; but they, in their turn, have referential meaning to the culture or mind that produced them. Otherwise we wouldn't have remembered cultural phenomena of 'eras' and 'mindsets,' the paranoia of 'Cold War philosophies,' mass UFO-sightings, popular cults, etc. etc...am I showing my crackpot nature a little too much here? The point of my seemingly meaningless ramble is that meaning is where it is found, and it is everywhere. Maybe 'significance' is also being intertwined here with 'meaning.'

I think I'll stop now so that the coffee can reach my brain!

Cheers!
Lyta

[mark12_30]

I gotta review some threads! I think I know what I think, but I'd better check.

Thanks, H-I! After all that discussion, it will be interesting to see who absorbed what and who came to what conclusions. If any were reached, that is.

[Celuien]

My vote is for author/reader collaboration, but I'm at work now, so explanations will be later...

[Kitanna]

I think most of them can hold the meaning. (except for maybe the ones about consenus). That is why I cast my vote in for all of the above.

[the guy who be short]

What's a "real" meaning anyway? Aren't all meanings as valid as one another...?

[Firefoot]

You know what the inherent problem in this question is? It's that if you vote at all, you are expressing your (the Reader's) opinion on where the meaning is found. So no matter which choice you pick, you are also picking choice B by default because even if you vote for the author's intention, that's still the Reader's individual opinion.

[HerenIstarion]

Hard question, TGWBS, hard. (Or do I hear hint of dissappointement here?)

Sure, you've noticed - I've put commas round 'real meaning' up there.

In this case, though, 'real meaning' is what 'real meaning' is for you. And you too. And hey there, don't sidewalk like this, it means you too!

There is no means (heh) of pinning aforesaid 'real meaning' by its tail (in case it has any), for the very diversity of personal opinion. In matters as such, luckily, democracy haven't won and 'majority says so, true be it' is not yet the issue.

The 'real meaning' behind this poll issue (as far as I may answer for mark, who's the author) is curiosity - who thinks what and why (presumably, we already know that, or may make educated guesses about it, following longuish discussions in numerous C-threads, enchantment-breadking topics and ART Slapdowns) but: A. list is extended here (so to imclude as many shades of definition as possible) B. it is fun to see it all expressed in numbers. C. Another angle of 'for the fun of it' - presumably, we'll see some interesing clashes (hush, I won't tell names)

If I missed anything, mark will stand in for me. I have to go - got to sharpen my teeth before coming back here tomorrow


EDIT: yes, Firefoot, but it does not matter that much, as we all are readers, and are placed in similar positions. Besides, the poll tries to find out how you read the book, and if in finding that out we asked for 'reader's opinion', it does not follow the reader who's opinion we inquired upon, when reading, gave preference to it over something else. Where the preferences lie, is what the poll is after. Again, mark may add something
END OF EDIT

[Firefoot]

H-I - Yes, I know, and I've been thinking about the question in a more serious manner. I just haven't quite decided on my vote yet, and in the meantime... I couldn't resist. I'll let you all know when I decide what I think for real.

[wilwarin538]

I think the 'meaning' of any book is just what influenced the reader or how it made the reader feel. An author can write a book with a certain 'meaning' in mind but the readers might interpret the 'meaning' deferently.

For example:

The author could write the following sentance: Johnny killed Bob and then went to jail.

The auther's 'meaning' in writing that sentance: Killing is bad.

Reader #1's 'meaning' after reading the sentance(am I spelling that right?): COOL!!!

Reader #2's: I'm sure he had a good reason.

Reader #3's: Obviously he didn't do a good job of hiding the evidence.

I know, that is a terrible example. But I'm sure you get my point. A story can have many 'real meanings' to it. Am I way of track with the 'meaning' to this question???

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Sure, you've noticed - I've put commas round 'real meaning' up there.

Psst. HI. Those punctuation marks are called apostrophes when one is used ('. . .') ; quotation marks when two are used (". . ."). The commas look like this: , , , ,.

Also, you are as tricksome as Fordim, using 'real' to demark 'meaning.'

[alatar]

Though I've commented in the various canonicity threads, don't think that I've actually ever voted, and so will have to leave this poll unvoted too - for some consistancy in my life .

Meaning or meaning, presumably meaning implied or explicit significance or worthwhile or important quality, the answer is going to involve the reader/observer somewhere. What exactly is the significance of Tolkien's works? What makes them rise above the noise?

Even when I can get my brain to stay with one point of view for a moment and to agree on a meaning, this still is only temporary as it encompasses what I'm feeling/thinking/experiencing at that minute in time. In brief, it's all relative.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by H-I

In this case, though, 'real meaning' is what 'real meaning' is for you.

But in that case, why is The Author's Intent a category? Because if we want to say that the Author dictates the meaning of the text then the 'real meaning' to us as readers is irrelevant, as there can only be one 'real meaning'.

As you have seen before, I do like to pick holes and am now picking on the opposite side to where I picked before, so you may feel free not to rise to the bait.

First of all, before I say how we can search for it, I want to know what this meaning actually is. Is there a meaning to LotR at all? Does it have a message or (more acceptable to our modern tastes than didactic messages) a theme? If I knew what the meaning was, then I might be able to say where it was that I found it.

I want to vote all of the above, but I have to have my two penn'orth first. The idea that the meaning could be found in Mainstream or even 'Downs reader consensus is scary! That doesn't allow for rejecting or challenging mainstream opinion, and is a little bit stagnant and restrictive. If this was where meaning was to be found then I should want to shake things up a bit and say something outrageous. Though I can't deny that for some readers, this is exactly where they will find their meaning! It could be directed by fellow forum members, and by a need to 'belong' by saying the right thing, or it could go wider than this. Having spent several days at lectures, I have seen the level of following that certain critics attract and am suspicious that they could get away with saying just about anything for some readers. That's the old cynic in me speaking, and I'm very protective of that little voice.

That it does not even have to have a meaning is also true - many people read LotR just because it's enjoyable, and I like to dip in now and then just to enjoy the shape and sound of the words, to be taken along for the ride. What's the saying? "Man cannot live on bread alone"? I don't like to ruin the books by always just analysing them in a schoolroom manner. This way of reading is actually very close to finding a 'divine truth' as it leaves the reader open to experiencing the joy of the text. Though that gets close to davem's baggage idea.

I'll stick with 'all of the above' for now and refuse to get off the fence.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Bb

Those punctuation marks are called apostrophes

Indeed... who would have thought? They really look the same, just those 'trophy' thingies are commas who won something, on account of being placed on top as they are...

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But in that case, why is The Author's Intent a category? Because if we want to say that the Author dictates the meaning of the text then the 'real meaning' to us as readers is irrelevant, as there can only be one 'real meaning' ... so you may feel free not to rise to the bait

This forum is full of sophists! How could I resist, what with my teeth already sharpened and all?

Authorial Intent is a category, cause, though Author may dictate the meaning, it is the freedom of the Reader to land an ear to said dictation. In which case, it is a consequence of a deliberate and conscious choice on behalf of the Reader, and therefore, falls under the same rules as others.

Of course, Reader who made such a choice (or any other choice) may feel the Truth on his/her side, yet it is unprovable that it is indeed so.

See my vote up there. It is the Truth (for me, and yes, with capital T), but unless you (him, her, them, the bird, the plane and the Superman) freely make the same choice, you won't share it with me. Whatever arguments I may put forward, there always may be found counter arguments, and we'll have a draw, i.e., will go on brandishing flags with big T's embroidered in golden thread on them, or leave it at that and have each his/her own.

We may alter our opinions, of course, but than it will mean the shift of choice, and, consequently, the shift of 'real meaning' (i.e. what it means to me/you/them personally)

I may seem pouring water on Reader's Opinion supporters mill again, but: above was about the Reader's choice concerning his/her approach before the start of actual Reading, not the attitude during the Reading itself.

Feel the Force, young Padawan, see if it is Light or Dark way you feel it, that is your preliminary choice, and than act upon it

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If I knew what the meaning was, then I might be able to say where it was that I found it

Vote for the new poll: what is the meaning. But be afraid, be very afraid of Aiwendil seeing it. I won't tell you why, you'll know when (if) he replies...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

You missed out 'To find the true meaning, one must read them in the original languages'. Unless you've read the Golden Book of Tavrobel in Quenya or the Red Book of Westmarch in Westron, the meaning will be clouded by Tolkien's translations.

[Celuien]

Okay, ready to try this out...

First and foremost, I feel that a story's meaning comes from the author's intent. As I'm pretty sure I've seen stated in other threads, the author ultimately has ownership of any story as its creator. Expanding on Wilwarin's example, with an author kind enough to provide commentary:

"Johnny killed Bob and then went to jail" is a pivotal statement in my novel Kiss the Moonbeams Off My Elbow. In the context of Johnny's struggle against society's injustices as represented by Bob's character, Johnny's sentence is unfair and perpetuates the endless cycle of cruelty Bob embodied.

Once this statement has been made, it's pretty hard for a reader to argue that the real meaning of Bob's death was to show that Johnny was a ruthless criminal who deserved to go to jail for Bob's murder. The author told us exactly what was meant in the situation, even if the reader disagrees. But what if the statement had been something a little different?

All novels must have enigmas, even crime thrillers, and Johnny is one of them. His state of mind when he killed Bob is certainly a mystery, and it was a mystery to me when I wrote it. I suppose he was meant to behave as he did; yet I cannot find a good explanation for my choice to write that passage as I did.

Or maybe there are other books in the series that contradict each other as to Johnny's motivation. In any of those cases, the reader's collaboration with the author fills in the blanks and becomes part of the meaning of the story. When there is ambiguity, I think there is room for extra interpretation.

Furthermore, I think that any story derives extra personal meaning from how we react to it. It may not be the real meaning if there are statements from the author that contradict it, but it is a meaning, nevertheless that has value to the individual reader. In the case of the LOTR, I think that we have additional permission to look for our own meanings in the story due to the author's dislike of allegory and preference for applicability. By bringing the word applicability into play, I think we're invited to look for how the story relates to our experiences and into collaboration with the author. But there are limits within the rules of Middle Earth. A theoretical reader can't choose to interpret Sauron as Tolkien's great hero because of sympathizing with his lust for power and plans for complete world domination. That flies in the face of the author's intentions. But it is entirely legitimate to debate whether or not Sauron had a chance at redemption.

So I suppose my position boils down to giving the author the last word, especially when there's a clearly stated intention, but also giving the reader space to interpret and react to the story. I hope it's not too contradictory.

EDIT: I almost voted for "all of the above" but I don't think I can give the reader the last word for the real meaning of a story. If the question were simply meaning, then I would have chosen that option. Any reaction can be meaning if significant to the reader, but I'm not sure that I can give all of them equal weight (as in the bizarre examples above).

[Firefoot]

We-ell, I think I've decided where I'm at. I voted, anyway, so here's what I think.

Note: After writing the following, I'm starting to think that there's a difference between what a book means, and what it means to an individual person. If there is, I'm definitely zig-zagging across that line all over the place. In fact, this whole thing is rather garbled and zig-zags across most of the choices - think of it what you will.

The meaning of anything, book or otherwise, is ultimately up to the person who experiences it. One of the things I dislike about literature classes is that oftentimes I am told what I am supposed to get out of it, what it is supposed to mean. No one can dictate how I feel about a certain thing. I can certainly be influenced or guided into a deeper understanding of a book, but ultimately what it means to me is very subjective. Beauty in the eye of the beholder, and all that.

It's the reason that if you ask ten different people who their favorite character is, or what their favorite chapter was, you'll probably end up with ten different answers. No one will perceive the same piece of literature in the same way, because of their worldview or personal experiences. What LotR means to me is very different than what LotR means to, say, my brother.

That isn't to say that the word of the author is to be totally ignored. If it says in the text, "Hobbits are between two and four feet tall," I can't just decide that Hobbits are six feet tall. Within the text, the author's word is final, but it comes to the reader to interpret said text, so long as it is within the bounds of being reasonable. It is not up to the reader to decide that Orcs are meant to be an allegorical reference to aliens from outer space. The reader's repsonsibility is reasonable interpretation within the author's intent.

Books are a different kind of art. Just like some people can look at a painting and say "That's beautiful!" and others will say, "Eh," people do the same things with books. You can't force a book to have meaning to someone. This is also why I don't think there can be an objective meaning, because no two people will take the same thing out of a book. A single standard is too rigid and uncompromising, whether it is dictated by the author or a group of readers. What a book says is objective; what it means is not.

Moving on, where LotR takes its meaning for me is in those glimpses of Truth, those eucatastrophic moments. It's what separates LotR from other books and keeps me coming back to read it over and over. The things that Tolkien has said in his Letters and elsewhere have certainly deepened my appreciation and understanding of the book. What LotR means to me comes from what I "get out of it," which is enjoyment and, more valued, those glimpses of Truth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Could I have another category please?

The individual reader's interpretation, as guided by authorial intent and the opinions of others.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by SpM

Could I have another category please?

The individual reader's interpretation, as guided by authorial intent and the opinions of others

I suppose it (at least, roughly) falls under

The Reader's collaboration with both the Author's intent and the opinions of others

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Hmm, the real 'meaning' - like the answer to the life, the Universe, and Everything?

It does not have to have a 'meaning' at all, the books are entertaining, and that's sufficient.

Why should we give any less credit to a book if we just find it enjoyable and not a source of divine wisdom? Can't entertainment itself be a 'meaning' of a novel? I'm not sure how people understand this 'Meaning' vs. 'meaning' thing. I think we all have to answer the question, what is the meaning of LotR, before we can start looking where to find it. Surely LotR doesn't tell how to solve food crisis or prevent WWIII (World War, not Werewolf) but if I want to find a 'meaning' from LotR, I usually find it through its entertainingness. The 'meaning' of LotR may change as you get older and get new experiences, though.

To me an entertaining book means a story that provokes different emotions. Feeling for the characters, for example, can make you more compassionate and dicover a new perpective to some small mundane things. It makes you think and feel, and that's the key.

Reading a really impresive book may make you grow as a person - or then it is a nice way to spend time. I think both options are equally fine.

My answer to the poll would be a mixture of "the Reader's collaboration with both the Author's intent and the opinions of others" and "it does not have to have a 'meaning' at all, the books are entertaining, and that's sufficient".

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I suppose it (at least, roughly) falls under

Quote:
The Reader's collaboration with both the Author's intent and the opinions of others

It's the word "collaboration" that I have a problem with.

[the guy who be short]

I don't think there is a real meaning, no more than there's a real shade of green. I'm sure everybody accepts that LotR can have more than one meaning, and I don't classify any of these as more "real" than any other. If we were discussing preferred meanings, I'd vote for the experience of the reader. As it is, I'll just vote for the fun option. It is awfully good fun...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

But some meanings mean more and are more meaningful than other meanings, which are actually nonsense. So I see what you're saying TGWBS, but you must realise that sometimes there is a completely wrong answer.

But maybe never a right one.

EDIT: Ok, I noticed the inverted commas around meaning in that option and now understand that it means *cough* an overriding central meaning. Right, that's ok. Not meaning *cough* that it has no meaning.

I feel comfortable voting that way now.

[the guy who be short]

Entertainment is meaningful, or entertainment can carry a meaning?

And with regard to more meaningful meanings - depends on your position. Obviously the author's meaning would mean more to Tolkien than to us, etc.

Sigh, if only we could tick multiple boxes... (I'm sure VBulletin would allow such a task, I think I've sen it on other forums).

[Lalwendë]

I like how some people have been asking whether the fact that the books are simply entertaining should not be enough. Because if LotR was not entertaining then I doubt that so many of us would have read (and re-read) it. Maybe we could have a thread/poll sometime on what makes it such fun to read?

Art does not need to have a deep meaning to be wonderful. If I think of films, one of my favourites is Kill Bill, which has very little meaning (beyond don't cross blondes who are skilled assassins ); it is simply highly entertaining and the only real 'depth' comes from the layering of references and the action/dialogue. I doubt that Tarantino meant for us to find anything profound in it. Another good example might be Monty Python. I would say that the only 'meaning' it has is to get us to think "isn't life absurd?" - it's lack of meaning is it's meaning - yet it is still Art, and it is entertaining.

But then where would we place something which is entertaining but is 'cheap'?

It's too early, my head hurts...

[Lyta_Underhill]

Art does not need to have a deep meaning to be wonderful. If I think of films, one of my favourites is Kill Bill, which has very little meaning (beyond don't cross blondes who are skilled assassins ); it is simply highly entertaining and the only real 'depth' comes from the layering of references and the action/dialogue. I doubt that Tarantino meant for us to find anything profound in it.

Aw, fiddlesticks! You mean I wasn't supposed to find anything profound in Kill Bill? Too late! So many people focused on the surface theme of revenge that the underlying theme of redemption, restraint and proper use of power at the end seems to have gotten lost! Probably due to the fact that she went ahead and killed Bill anyway! Sorry, I must be the only one who found parts of Kill Bill profound. Even if Tarantino didn't mean it! Sorry for the digression, but I figure it illustrates some point about 'meaning.'

Cheers!
Lyta

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I voted for the one about reader's interpretation collaborating with athor's intent. For me, that about sums it up.

About the entertainment thing, I think that if the only purpose of LOTR was merely to be entertaining, I doubt I would have read LOTR as many times as I have and here is why: There are so many layers, so many characters and themes to consider at once. If the book was written to just be entertaining would it have wound up being such a deep, powerful, and moving story? Of course, that's what I get out of it. The next reader might see it totally differently. That's just one reader's interpretation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find a lot of meaning in LOTR, and for me, it is more than just an entertaining story. I think Tolkien meant it to be more than just a simple novel...but who knows. He's certainly not around to ask. So we don't really know the true author's intent of what we should get out of the book. But because of the themes and style and events and characters, we can get a pretty good idea what he might have meant, what messages he wanted to convey.

So I think that "meaning" is a fairly flexible term. I walked away from LOTR with messages of hope and friendship and courage in my mind. Someone else may have left with ideas about fate and destiny. Another person might have seen it as about the dark road society is taking. Certainly Tolkien put all those elements and more in there. But the reader is free to choose which themes, which meanings to carry away with them.

[Thinlómien]

A glimpse of divine truth, of course...

[The Saucepan Man]

I don't really like the word "opinion", since it implies too much in the way of conscious control on the part of the reader but, for me, such "meaning" as there is can only exist within the mind of each individual reader. So that's the option that I have plumped for. An uninterpreted text is meaningless.

The reader's interpretation is, of course, influenced by authorial intent, the views of others and a multitude of other factors. But it is not a collaboration.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

But it is not a collaboration.

Says you.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

An uninterpreted text is meaningless? Scandalous, my dear Saucepan!

If no-one ever saw a particular flower before it wilted and died, it would have been just as beautiful as it would have been if someone had seen it. The viewer has nothing to do with the beauty of the flower. Now, you may argue that such a flower is of less meaning but surely not that it is of no meaning.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

If no-one ever saw a particular flower before it wilted and died, it would have been just as beautiful as it would have been if someone had seen it.

Would it? Beauty is a subjective quality. It is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. The flower would not have been beautiful (save in our imagining of it). It would merely have existed.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

So the Earth was not beautiful until it was inhabited by intelligent life? (I think we're still on-topic )

[the guy who be short]

There was nobody to find it beautiful.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think a book can be meaningful even if there's no-one to offer a spin on it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Would it? Beauty is a subjective quality. It is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. The flower would not have been beautiful (save in our imagining of it). It would merely have existed.

Meister Eckhart said something along the lines of 'If we could see even a flower as it has its being in God this would be a greater thing than the whole world'.

Maybe we're not the only observers or 'judges'. Where does our concept of 'beauty' arise, & why do we find some things 'beautiful' & others 'ugly'?

Doesn't seem to have much 'evolutionary' value as far as I can see. Maybe the 'beauty' we see in a flower is a pointer to, or memory of, something else......

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Doesn't seem to have much 'evolutionary' value as far as I can see. Maybe the 'beauty' we see in a flower is a pointer to, or memory of, something else......

I prefer the more metaphysical explanation, but this does have a basis in science. To feel repelled by something is entirely natural and it is even displayed by babies. This has a biological basis in that we are steered away from those things which are bad for us e.g. slime, rotten meat, bodily waste. It also means that we can find certain creatures repulsive, e.g. snakes, spiders, scorpions, as we have an instinct that they are dangerous. Likewise, we have the instinct to be attracted by beauty in many forms e.g. the roundness of fruits, bright colours, and yes, flowers.

The odd thing is that in the natural world, in which we are just another creature, certain species exploit this. Some fruits smell repellant - to avoid us eating them, while others are attractive so that we may spread seeds if we pick and eat them, e.g. tomatoes (they grow in large numbers at sewage farms - sorry if anyone was having their tea ).

I suppose in my own way there, I have now reduced this discussion to something crude...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Maybe we're not the only observers or 'judges'.

I never said that we weren't. The author will obviously find meaning in his work, post-creation as it were, just as his readers will. But if the author is dead (or if he never existed ) and there is no-one to perceive his work, then it can have no meaning. Something can only have meaning if there is someone for it to mean something to. But I sense we are starting out down a familiar path ...

Where does our concept of 'beauty' arise, & why do we find some things 'beautiful' & others 'ugly'?

Doesn't seem to have much 'evolutionary' value as far as I can see. Maybe the 'beauty' we see in a flower is a pointer to, or memory of, something else......

As Lalwendë has pointed out, there is evolutionary value in perception of beauty, attraction, repulsion and the like. But here is not the place for a detailed discussion of the point. Although it might be interesting to consider why (rather than how) works like LotR have meaning to their readers.