Sometimes you come across some texts that share one common peculiarity: they are all incredibly boring.
Each of them tells you nothing, and leaves you in exactly the same state of mind as before. You would not be able to recall what each was about - much less, why was it even there. This does not appear to be by chance: it is clear, even at first glance, that lots of care went into crafting them. They mean nothing, but in a very deliberate way: as if they were designed to mean nothing.
They are the white noise of the written word.
Wondering about the meaning of what has explicitly been designed to have no meaning does not seem to be very useful. What could a reasonable course of action be, then?
One valuable clue is, if there are any insights to be gained, it could be useful to shift our perspective a bit.
Regardless of its content, any text always carries important questions of agency and intentionality:
- “Who is responsible for the events, ideas, or words here?”
- “Why was this written? What is it trying to achieve?”
- “What underlying beliefs, biases, or assumptions drive it?”
As an example, a question to ask would not be “what does it mean”, but “who put it there and why”.
Not “What is its audience?”, but “What could motivate a reader to read it?”.
It is sometimes useful to pause, just for a moment, and think about this.
Texts are never neutral: they always imply questions of who acts and why, shaping how we engage with meaning.
