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...?

[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]

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.

[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