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

[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.