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

Lalwendë · 08-18-2005, 02:44 AM

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...

View Poll Results: The 'real meaning' of the Lord of the Rings is to be found in:
The Author's intent	2	7.14%
The Reader's individual opinion	6	21.43%
Mainstream Reader consensus	0	0%
The BarrowDowns Book Forum consensus	2	7.14%
A Glimpse of Divine Truth	1	3.57%
The Reader's collaboration with both the Author's intent and the opinions of others	4	14.29%
Divine Truth glimpsed by the individual Reader guided by the Author's intent	3	10.71%
It does not have to have a 'meaning' at all, the books are entertaining, and that's sufficient	5	17.86%
All of the above may be true up to an extent	5	17.86%
Current poll does not cover all possible options at all, we need another, refined one [if you choose this answer, please list other possible options in the thread. Thank you]	0	0%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

08-18-2005, 02:44 AM	#11
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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... __________________ Gordon's alive!