I grew up on Star Wars, Catholicism, Marvel and DC comic books, games of the Commodre 64, and all kinds of horror films.

Of course I grew up on other things as well, but they largely influenced how I see the world. Later on I added things like classical music, dance music, Sherlock Holmes, survival horror video games, etc.

All the while I had friends who dabbled a little in what I was interested in and who also introduced me to things that I was unfamiliar with.

So here is the thing.

Do you think that the way you see the world is based on the fiction on which you were raised. Also do you think what is meaningful to you now is based on what was meaningful to you in the past. I guess what I am really trying to ask is can you find a core of wisdom, which is manifested in apparently very different meaningful moments, each particular moment decipherable only if you 'speak' the language?

In other words, does the Christian woman from the country who reads Jane Austin find the same core of meaning as the Agnostic guy living in the city who plays survival horror because the meaning is common even if the delivery vessel is gender/genre/background specific?

So lastly, in other words, when someone says that I should see a particular episode of some tragic Japanese anime for its wisdom, is it likely that unless I am into anime, I can essentially get the same message, more easily, if not exclusively, through some harlem rennaisance novel, if I am so tuned and accustomed?

Do you guys understand what I am asking?

No, explain it some more.

It sounds like you are asking if it's possible to get the same feeling from two different (perhaps very different) things. The answer to that would be yes. If you're asking if such a thing is only understood by people of a particular background, such that anyone living in new york understands cyberpunk or only guys who haven't watched the butterfly effect will understand chrono trigger, then it depends on your meaning of understand. I would lean towards that being false.

I don't believe it takes different media to invoke the same feelings in people raised differently/from different environments, but there is probably going to be a gap where some people don't understand a given situation. If someone fully explains what they felt while watching the episode of futurama where fry's dog waits for him and then I watch that episode, I should be able to 99.9% understand how they felt that, but why they felt that would be less reliable of thing.

Thanks for your response and you are on the right track of what I am going for but I'll be more precise.

Is it possible that there is some bit of wisdom like life is about taking risks against who you are now to become who you should always be. Then this bit of wisdom is encoded in the form of fictional meaning and this meaning is delivered by some media form to a receiver.

Now the form may be a Jane Austin novel or it may be an episode of Japanese anime.

Now someone who hasn't been raised or never really encountered Jane Austin could read the novel, and maybe even recognize the message but that's it. Then this same person lets say who is all about anime, could watch an episode of anime, but rather than simply recognize the meaning, they realize it. The reason for this is because the person has a modal mindset that is in resonance with the signal delivery mechanism or the source event, but ultimately the core of the message is still the same.

Then there would be people who think that all meaning is in Jane Austin and say, "you have to read this" and then they look down on anime. There would also be people who were just the opposite, glorify anime and look down on Jane Austin, but in both cases ultimately what these people didn't realize is that what made these works in particular seem great to them was not the works themselves had exclusively original meaning, but rather that the works had collective common meaning wherein the particular mode of delivery was in harmony with their own individual mindset.

Does this explain my question any better?

we are the sum of what we believe. our experience is limited to what we know, and thats the shade of glass we view the world with. the human mind constantly compares what our senses experience with what we know. who is to say which view is correct? to each of us our view is the truth, and its only through a collective view that the world is defined in average.

in my experience i have re-read some books and found entirely new meanings that i dont remember experiencing. this is because our view of the world changed in between so we interpretate what we experience differently this time around. its the same as with art. two people can walk away from it with entirely different meanings.

therefore everyone's view is different, and they may not see the same as you do.

I think it depends on exactly what piece of art/literature/video game we are talking about.

For example, someone well-versed in Jane Austen's novels, the literary style she aspires to, and other contemporary written works of the time, I think, would get more out of one of her books than Joe Average. Better yet, someone who read it while it was contemporary might even have more of an appreciation for it than someone living in the 21st century. I've taken a class in literary criticism, which attempted to explain the relevance of a particular piece of literature, based on what else was going on at the time (literature, politics, society, etc), and it was hard for me to internalize that, as all those things are far removed from my daily experience.

To put it in video game terms, I believe it would be difficult for someone who just began playing video games a few years ago to understand the relevance of Final Fantasy VII. Set against the framework of the industry at the time, it was groundbreaking. But to look at it from the modern day, having removed the rose-colored nostagia goggles (or in my case, never having played it back then), it's really difficult to understand exactly why the praise continues unabated to this day. In my estimation, it's clichéd, uninvolving, pretty damn ugly, and a tad boring. Of course, that's because I've played a fair share of RPGs that came out in the years after that were graphically superior and a bit more subtle, as well as written/translated a bit less woodenly (is that even a word?).


So, I think I see what you are driving at...our worldview (weltanschauung) DOES affect our appreciation for and enjoyment of any creative work, even though two works may have similar themes.

Readers of Ayn Rand's books might have more of an appreciation for BioShock than Madden, as an example, and players of BioShock (who internalized its meaning/message) might have more of an appreciation for Ayn Rand's writings than those of Tom Clancy, as another example. Themes might be universal, but some familiarity with similar works (even in different mediums) might cause those same themes to resonate more heavily.

I appreciate the comments so far.

One reason that caused me to ask this question is because I was in the bookstore a couple months ago and I saw all the horror, fantasy, sci-fi, and suspense books there. It reminded me of old friends of mine that I used to hang out with between 10 and 15 years ago. I thought about how I could go to them and ask them about one of these authors and they would probably know a lot about them or at least be familiar (Stephen King, Clive Barker, Neil Gaiman, etc.). I wondered if I was missing out. I wondered if they were in tune with some bit of collective wisdom that I was not. I sit here listening to music from Return of the Jedi. So I bought a book from that section. It's OK. Mildly enjoyable and entertaining, but if it is a representative of what those other books were, then I don't see myself as missing out. I assume that they will always have a perspective that I don't have and vice-versa, and that's OK. I just want to confirm that while they get meaning from these particular books, I can move on with the understanding that these books were not meant for me.

I say you should read Neil Gaiman.
Especially Good Omens, which was co-authored by him (the other guy was Terry Pratchett).

Yeah, (Bo), you probably just picked a bad author/book. Not all sci-fi/fantasy/horror paperbacks are created equal.


If you want to read some GOOD Stephen King, I'd say try his non-horror/psychological horror stuff. Meaning, don't read Cujo, Christine, Firestarter, etc. I think you'd get something out of The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, Dolores Claiborne, or Gerald's Game (my personal fave), as these are really more character studies than anything else. Either that, or read Different Seasons, which contains the short stories that Apt Pupil, Stand by Me, and The Shawshank Redemption were based on. Again, not horror, but well-written character-driven dramas.


For sci-fi stuff, I'd say try some of the "cyberpunk" stuff. I'd recommend William Gibson, either for his newer stuff (Pattern Recognition is supposed to be good, and not sci-fi so much as a meditation on the current technology-focused world) or the stuff he was recognized for (especially Neuromancer).

I don't read fantasy stuff myself, so no recommendations there.


Oh, and keep in mind, I'm not like your friends from 10-15 years ago, meaning, that section of the bookstore is not a place I frequent, and those books are not what I choose to read consistently. I dabble in those genres very lightly, but when I do, I have a fair idea of what is actually good (ie-engages your brain), and what is potboiler "let's keep the shelves full" trash that is not worth reading.


On a different topic, I also highly recommend anything by Douglas Coupland, especially Generation X, Microserfs, and Girlfriend in a Coma. And if you've not read any Palahniuk, I'd recommend him as well (both authors tend to comment very subtly on the current human condition).

But to both of you, might I not be able to get the core of the wisdom that all these authors are presenting by sticking with the meaning that I DO patron: video games like Shadow Hearts, philosophy discussion groups, small black box type theatre, my own absurd self reflections, the TV show ER, books on physics, looking at pictures of city skylines, contemporary art at the Hirshorn Museum, the Star Wars saga, music of the Why Store, etc., etc.

Do I really need to encounter these particular authors or books. Maybe to me, these authors and books add little more than details at the heavy cost of time, whereas for you they are my version of Shadow Hearts, philosophy discussion groups, etc. (i.e. the prime meaningful delivery system of wisdom)?

The way I see it, you should read things that you like.

If you start reading or seeing something and you just can't identify with it, want to stop reading/watching/seeing the thing or in another form doesn't like it, just go try something else.

Things that you do like, though, sure, it'd be great to find some "core of wisdom" in them. But here's the thing: you can't think that you should always look for a "core of wisdom". Some writers even purposely write things without "cores of wisdom".

"Prime meaningful delivery system of wisdom"? Honestly?
Really honestly? Just using that expression makes you sound like you have your head stuck right up your ass, man.
[spoiler]Or, to put it differently, you shouldn't be looking for gosh darn wisdom in gosh darn Star Wars or videogames ¬¬[/spoiler]

You're kidding right? What, I should be reading to entertain me? How droll.

I am double posting as last nights buzzed (yet surprisingly cordial) response is likely to relegate this topic to futility without me having the chance to clarify that I agree with the Gnasher's bit of wisdom that one should read things they like.

It makes sense.

However, I addressed the idea that the act of reading was droll when it was intended for the purpose to entertain. I specifically used this word because I feel that many people myself included use entertainment as a way of making themselves feel happy. Books, movies, music, video games, etc., etc..

But I also wanted to suggest a meaning further ascribed to "entertain" which is to divert. That is my main concern.

It is this diversion that plagues me for you see my purpose in life has never been about simply living to be happy but rather about seeking to understand the meaning of existence ultimately.

But now, I am fully agnostic. So I am looking to see if there is wisdom that exists in a book that I haven't read, or in a movie that I haven't seen, or in a song that I haven't heard. But the only wisdom I NOW seek is that which gets me somewhere.

I am learning to accept that life is simply what you make of it and that you will never understand the meaning of existence ultimately.

I am struggling to accept that all you CAN make of life is to be entertained. If life is merely a diversion from death than I am not sure it is worth its parchment.

I left the definition of entertainment open on purpose.

Have you ever wondered if searching for an ultimate meaning of existence is in itself your personal form of entertainment?


This I personally agree with, but hey – if you believe you're making the most out of your life when you're trying to reach an ultimate meaning of existence, then go ahead and do it.

[spoiler]By the way, I used to be like this, too. I searched for meaning in stuff. But after you learn to see the issue from a thousand different viewpoints, you start getting tired of it. You choose the viewpoint you like best and stick to that one.[/spoiler]

@The Gnasher

When did you use the word "entertainment" (i.e to leave it open on purpose). I used the word "entertain" and "entertainment" in past posts but I don't think you did?

Yes, I do believe my search for meaning is entertainment for me. I don't mind enjoying the entertainment in the sense that it is fun but I would reject this entertainment in the sense that it is a diversion if that is what it actually is.

In other words, if you have reached the realization that the search for meaning is nothing more than a diversion you can no longer be entertained by the search by either definition.

Therefore I

[spoiler]'got nothing to do then to hypnotize you'[/spoiler]

Well I didn't use the word but I was talking about it. So much that you realized and pointed it out.

Also, we usually think entertainment has to do with diversion because that's what our lovely media does, it calls diversion 'entertainment'. I'm not talking about that.

In my view to be entertained is to enjoy – you can have happiness in entertainment, even if it's a very specific happiness.
As far as I think, sex is entertainment (as well as a pretty interesting biological mechanism).