is it an either/or proposition? why can't stories have both? while i agree that english professors have tortured stories to death in the search for propositional meaning, i do believe that stories should be _about something_ to be worthwhile. there is a delicate balance to be struck so that books don't veer into the political, moralistic, or didactic, but great books still have meaning at their core. the experience of the story, its world, its characters, and their fates are what invests the reader in those larger themes, but it is the underlying meaning of all their struggles that binds the reader to the story and makes the most indelible impression. we identify with and care about characters because of the perceived relevance their stories have to our own (or those we care about) and that, i think, comes down to meaning.
Well, that brings up another question. What does it mean for a story to be "about something". We can say that Pride and Prejudice is about love and manners and courtship and pride and prejudice, and that would all be true. But those are themes, not conclusions. We could say that it means "Don't make hasty judgements about people you meet at parties." But is it for bromide that that generation after generation falls in love with it?
If we take a book like "The Grapes of Wrath," we know that Steinbeck wrote it in a fit of moral outrage over the fact that Okies were being left to starve to death in California even as he was writing it. In that sense, it was unarguable about something. But Steinbeck didn't write a political tract. He created one family, gave them character and dignity and love, and sent them down The Mother Road, fleeing the dust, hoping for a new life in California, where despite their best efforts, they were left to starve amidst plenty. He did not give us an argument, he gave us an experience.
The argument is moot today. The experience is as profound and moving as it ever was. By creating an experience, he universalized his theme, not by writing about a universe of families but by writing about one.
In its time, the book did far more to galvanize public opinion than statistics and news reports every did. Experiences move us in ways that propositions never can. (This is why writers are urged to show, not tell.)
It that meaning? Personally, I prefer to use the word in a more restricted sense, because otherwise I fear writers will be led into believing that their job is to advance or defend a proposition, rather than to create an experience. But the meaning of meaning is tricky. It often seems like people use the word when they don't quite know what they mean. Or maybe it is perfectly clear to them and everyone else, and I am the one who does not know what meaning means.
sorry, your comment went to my junk folder. that keeps happening and i'm not sure why...
is the meaning of meaning really that tricky? or is that the sort of pedantic parsing that, for example, we seem to agree wrings the joy out of stories? i see no reason to get philosophical about it. the general meaning of meaning is the first thing we learn and agree on before proceeding to all other explanations. sure, there are layers and categories of meaning, but when referring to story as a whole, 'meaning' has a pretty standard usage which has served literature well. if it's not broke...
and like i said, i don't believe it's an either/or proposition. readers are always on board with stories for the 'experience' of the action, emotion, characters, prose, whatever, as you say. but that experience can quickly become pretty shallow without meaning to give it depth and weight. i'm suggesting that the _actual_ experience readers crave via story is a mythological one--a moral one--that unites them not just with the fictional story, but with the greater human story, though few would consciously articulate it in those terms. as a reader i want to be awed, challenged, dis-illusioned. to close a book with new questions. give me something that makes me think more deeply about my life and world, not just a romp in the make-believe world of the novel or some new imaginary friends. that's interesting, but it's not lasting. a story that is 'about something' is not about advancing or defending a true/false proposition; it ideally explores a moral question about what makes human life worthwhile.
i'd also argue that the grapes of wrath is one of the most 'about something' books ever written. though i read it under duress in high school so i only remember it vaguely, it is filled with religious symbolism, sociological commentary and, as you mention, moral outrage. he clearly has a larger point to make about society, business, poverty, crime, workers rights, solidarity, etc. that go far beyond the joad family, whose trials become our window into these broader issues. the family are essentially a vehicle for his argument about what, despite these hardships, makes life worthwhile.
I agree entirely about the moral dimension of fiction. I would argue that all serious fiction (at least) is fundamentally moral. That is, it is concerned with a choice between values.
For such a choice to be interesting, it has to be difficult, and therefore the protagonist will seek to avoid making it. The plot of the story is then a device that the writer uses to force the protagonist into a position where they cannot avoid making the choice. And thus the point of the book is not the experience of the individual incidents, which are, as you say, trivial in themselves, but the experience of the protagonist being forced to confront and make this hard choice. It is this choice that gives significance to all the incidents of the story.
In one sense there is a generality here, in the sense that we could classify all such moral dilemmas into a fairly limited set. But to me that misses the essential specificity of the novel. In other words, it is not the generality of the trolley problem (for example) that a novel points to, but the specificity of a particular character facing the trolley problem. Why? Because while we can debate the trolley problem as a philosophical topic, all the debate in the world is not going to prepare us morally and psychologically to make a choice when faced with a trolley problem, and to live with that choice afterwards. It is the specificity of living through it with a specific known and loved character that really prepares us to face it if it ever happens to us.
So I would argue the the direction of the novel is not from the particular to the general but from that general to the particular. Which seems very close to saying that it is not from experience to meaning but from meaning to experience.
And that is why (acknowledging that I am swimming against the tide, as usual) I hold that the point of literature is not to invite the reader to generalize to a propositional meaning, but to internalize a specific experience. To move us, in other words, from a philosophical objection to unjust laws (in the case of The Grapes of Wrath) to personal experience of sorrow, loss, and perhaps outrage at the consequence of those laws for characters we have come to know and love.
We may then, of course, generalize those feeling into personal sympathy for the plight of people in similar circumstances, and that might make us more likely to act on their behalf than any mere intellectual objection might move us to. That might be the effect that the novelist hopes to achieve. But the method of the novel itself is not the generalization of philosophical objection but the creation of a personal experience which may then move us to action. And the thing about this is that a novel so constructed continues to enthrall us with the experience it creates long after the philosophical objection and the need for action are moot.
i think i understand where you're coming from and i don't disagree. i'm still wondering if they (the particular and the general) can't be experienced simultaneously, though maybe that's too convenient? you've definitely given me food for thought!
Well, in some sense yes, because the general is always present in the particular. Any particular love story is an instance of a the general pattern of a love story, and we recognize it as a love story only because it is an instance of the general pattern.
In a romance novel, the reader expects and demands that the romance will follow the general pattern, because that is the experience they want. But at the same time it is the specific case of that general pattern that they are interested in. The wedding of a couple we know and love holds a fascination that the wedding of strangers does not, and that a statistical table of weddings in a given district for the last year definitely does not. It's about being there.
But it is certainly true that we are interested in the particular because we are interested in the general. We care about romances because we care about romance. But our caring about romance only finds expression in the romances of individuals we care about. So there is an intimate connection between the particular and the general.
But when it comes to a cause, to a protest against injustice. for instance, things are slightly different. Of course Grapes of Wrath is about the broader theme of the treatment of migrants. Being a novel, not a tract, it addresses that theme through the specific lives of the Joad family. But in doing so it shifts focus in two ways. In the first case it shifts the focus from the general to the particular. But, more importantly, it shifts the focus from the abstraction of justice violated to the experience of being unjustly treated. It is not an argument about why such and such a policy is wrong, it is an examination of what it is like to suffer as a result of this policy.
From a political point of view, this is actually a lousy argument. Politics is about the allocation of scarce resources, and not everyone can get all they want of need. Evoke sympathy for one group and they go to the front of the line, meaning so other groups gets pushed to the back of the line and suffers more.
But how it feels to suffer: that is a human universal. What it takes to persevere honorably under suffering and injustice: that is a human universal. In that sense the novel pivots the question away from the political generality towards the human generality by way of the specific human experience.
all interesting points. maybe, as you say, it varies a bit depending on the nature of the story as well. i'll have to mentally run a few more books through this 'filter' and think about it some more. definitely have me thinking!
Fine and thoughtful post, Mark. You might like the work of perception psychologist James J Gibson. Though he deals with visual perception, meaning is intrinsically inner woven.
Suspect we bark up the same loosely associated perceptions of a tree, Mark. https://scriptourer.substack.com/p/story-story?s=w
Indeed, we seem to be on very similar wavelengths. It is stories all the way down.
Oo, smooth promo! Yes, and also trying to get mine to go all the way up.
is it an either/or proposition? why can't stories have both? while i agree that english professors have tortured stories to death in the search for propositional meaning, i do believe that stories should be _about something_ to be worthwhile. there is a delicate balance to be struck so that books don't veer into the political, moralistic, or didactic, but great books still have meaning at their core. the experience of the story, its world, its characters, and their fates are what invests the reader in those larger themes, but it is the underlying meaning of all their struggles that binds the reader to the story and makes the most indelible impression. we identify with and care about characters because of the perceived relevance their stories have to our own (or those we care about) and that, i think, comes down to meaning.
Well, that brings up another question. What does it mean for a story to be "about something". We can say that Pride and Prejudice is about love and manners and courtship and pride and prejudice, and that would all be true. But those are themes, not conclusions. We could say that it means "Don't make hasty judgements about people you meet at parties." But is it for bromide that that generation after generation falls in love with it?
If we take a book like "The Grapes of Wrath," we know that Steinbeck wrote it in a fit of moral outrage over the fact that Okies were being left to starve to death in California even as he was writing it. In that sense, it was unarguable about something. But Steinbeck didn't write a political tract. He created one family, gave them character and dignity and love, and sent them down The Mother Road, fleeing the dust, hoping for a new life in California, where despite their best efforts, they were left to starve amidst plenty. He did not give us an argument, he gave us an experience.
The argument is moot today. The experience is as profound and moving as it ever was. By creating an experience, he universalized his theme, not by writing about a universe of families but by writing about one.
In its time, the book did far more to galvanize public opinion than statistics and news reports every did. Experiences move us in ways that propositions never can. (This is why writers are urged to show, not tell.)
It that meaning? Personally, I prefer to use the word in a more restricted sense, because otherwise I fear writers will be led into believing that their job is to advance or defend a proposition, rather than to create an experience. But the meaning of meaning is tricky. It often seems like people use the word when they don't quite know what they mean. Or maybe it is perfectly clear to them and everyone else, and I am the one who does not know what meaning means.
sorry, your comment went to my junk folder. that keeps happening and i'm not sure why...
is the meaning of meaning really that tricky? or is that the sort of pedantic parsing that, for example, we seem to agree wrings the joy out of stories? i see no reason to get philosophical about it. the general meaning of meaning is the first thing we learn and agree on before proceeding to all other explanations. sure, there are layers and categories of meaning, but when referring to story as a whole, 'meaning' has a pretty standard usage which has served literature well. if it's not broke...
and like i said, i don't believe it's an either/or proposition. readers are always on board with stories for the 'experience' of the action, emotion, characters, prose, whatever, as you say. but that experience can quickly become pretty shallow without meaning to give it depth and weight. i'm suggesting that the _actual_ experience readers crave via story is a mythological one--a moral one--that unites them not just with the fictional story, but with the greater human story, though few would consciously articulate it in those terms. as a reader i want to be awed, challenged, dis-illusioned. to close a book with new questions. give me something that makes me think more deeply about my life and world, not just a romp in the make-believe world of the novel or some new imaginary friends. that's interesting, but it's not lasting. a story that is 'about something' is not about advancing or defending a true/false proposition; it ideally explores a moral question about what makes human life worthwhile.
i'd also argue that the grapes of wrath is one of the most 'about something' books ever written. though i read it under duress in high school so i only remember it vaguely, it is filled with religious symbolism, sociological commentary and, as you mention, moral outrage. he clearly has a larger point to make about society, business, poverty, crime, workers rights, solidarity, etc. that go far beyond the joad family, whose trials become our window into these broader issues. the family are essentially a vehicle for his argument about what, despite these hardships, makes life worthwhile.
I agree entirely about the moral dimension of fiction. I would argue that all serious fiction (at least) is fundamentally moral. That is, it is concerned with a choice between values.
For such a choice to be interesting, it has to be difficult, and therefore the protagonist will seek to avoid making it. The plot of the story is then a device that the writer uses to force the protagonist into a position where they cannot avoid making the choice. And thus the point of the book is not the experience of the individual incidents, which are, as you say, trivial in themselves, but the experience of the protagonist being forced to confront and make this hard choice. It is this choice that gives significance to all the incidents of the story.
In one sense there is a generality here, in the sense that we could classify all such moral dilemmas into a fairly limited set. But to me that misses the essential specificity of the novel. In other words, it is not the generality of the trolley problem (for example) that a novel points to, but the specificity of a particular character facing the trolley problem. Why? Because while we can debate the trolley problem as a philosophical topic, all the debate in the world is not going to prepare us morally and psychologically to make a choice when faced with a trolley problem, and to live with that choice afterwards. It is the specificity of living through it with a specific known and loved character that really prepares us to face it if it ever happens to us.
So I would argue the the direction of the novel is not from the particular to the general but from that general to the particular. Which seems very close to saying that it is not from experience to meaning but from meaning to experience.
And that is why (acknowledging that I am swimming against the tide, as usual) I hold that the point of literature is not to invite the reader to generalize to a propositional meaning, but to internalize a specific experience. To move us, in other words, from a philosophical objection to unjust laws (in the case of The Grapes of Wrath) to personal experience of sorrow, loss, and perhaps outrage at the consequence of those laws for characters we have come to know and love.
We may then, of course, generalize those feeling into personal sympathy for the plight of people in similar circumstances, and that might make us more likely to act on their behalf than any mere intellectual objection might move us to. That might be the effect that the novelist hopes to achieve. But the method of the novel itself is not the generalization of philosophical objection but the creation of a personal experience which may then move us to action. And the thing about this is that a novel so constructed continues to enthrall us with the experience it creates long after the philosophical objection and the need for action are moot.
i think i understand where you're coming from and i don't disagree. i'm still wondering if they (the particular and the general) can't be experienced simultaneously, though maybe that's too convenient? you've definitely given me food for thought!
Well, in some sense yes, because the general is always present in the particular. Any particular love story is an instance of a the general pattern of a love story, and we recognize it as a love story only because it is an instance of the general pattern.
In a romance novel, the reader expects and demands that the romance will follow the general pattern, because that is the experience they want. But at the same time it is the specific case of that general pattern that they are interested in. The wedding of a couple we know and love holds a fascination that the wedding of strangers does not, and that a statistical table of weddings in a given district for the last year definitely does not. It's about being there.
But it is certainly true that we are interested in the particular because we are interested in the general. We care about romances because we care about romance. But our caring about romance only finds expression in the romances of individuals we care about. So there is an intimate connection between the particular and the general.
But when it comes to a cause, to a protest against injustice. for instance, things are slightly different. Of course Grapes of Wrath is about the broader theme of the treatment of migrants. Being a novel, not a tract, it addresses that theme through the specific lives of the Joad family. But in doing so it shifts focus in two ways. In the first case it shifts the focus from the general to the particular. But, more importantly, it shifts the focus from the abstraction of justice violated to the experience of being unjustly treated. It is not an argument about why such and such a policy is wrong, it is an examination of what it is like to suffer as a result of this policy.
From a political point of view, this is actually a lousy argument. Politics is about the allocation of scarce resources, and not everyone can get all they want of need. Evoke sympathy for one group and they go to the front of the line, meaning so other groups gets pushed to the back of the line and suffers more.
But how it feels to suffer: that is a human universal. What it takes to persevere honorably under suffering and injustice: that is a human universal. In that sense the novel pivots the question away from the political generality towards the human generality by way of the specific human experience.
all interesting points. maybe, as you say, it varies a bit depending on the nature of the story as well. i'll have to mentally run a few more books through this 'filter' and think about it some more. definitely have me thinking!
Fine and thoughtful post, Mark. You might like the work of perception psychologist James J Gibson. Though he deals with visual perception, meaning is intrinsically inner woven.