the book of life essay

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, the book of life.

Now streaming on:

“The Book of Life” bedazzles your eyes and buoys your spirits as it treads upon themes most commonly associated with the macabre universe of Tim Burton . But instead of being gaga for ghoulishness, this Mexican fiesta of animated splendor is packed with visual delights far more sunny than sinister as they burst forth as if flung from an over-packed piñata.

A collaboration between fledgling Reel FX Creative Studios and 20th Century Fox, “The Book of Life” is a rare cartoon feature that doesn’t just deserve to be seen in 3-D, but practically demands it. Complementing the eye candy is a quirkily eclectic soundtrack, including catchy new songs by award-winning score writer Gustavo Santaolalla and Paul Williams of “The Rainbow Connection” fame, and a wide-ranging voice cast. If you always wanted to hear opera great Placido Domingo sing “Cielto Lindo” and its “ay-yai-yai-yai” refrain as if it were Verdi, here is your chance.

That said, the basics of this fantastical fable, whose ingenious puppet-like character designs draw upon the familiar wooden folk-art figures associated with the annual celebration of The Day of the Dead, are somewhat overly familiar despite all the rich cultural references that spice up the proceedings.

There is the ever-popular love triangle in the form of three childhood amigos. Our main hero, the tender-hearted Manola ( Diego Luna , whose boyish vocals are a constant source of plaintive pleasure), comes from a long line of legendary bullfighters and is skilled in the ring himself. But his true calling is that of a guitar-strumming troubadour. The boastful Joaquin ( Channing Tatum , who taps into his abundant reserve of amusing swagger) is a man of action, a mucho-macho mustachioed bandit-rustler with a broad chest crammed with medals.

They both pursue Maria, the smart and headstrong daughter of the general who runs their village of San Angel. She has all the usual attributes of the typical empowered animated female lead – a bookworm with martial-arts fighting skills and all that -- but is lucky enough to be blessed with the vivacious vocal spark of Avatar’s Zoe Saladana.

The Book of Life’s multi-tiered plot also involves dueling married deities who reign over separate domains in the afterlife and decide to make a wager. La Muerte (well-known telenovela star Kate del Castillo ), who oversees the cheery Land of the Remembered and believes in the decency of mortals, bets that sensitive soul Manolo will win Maria’s hand. Xiabalba ( Ron Perlman , a pet actor of the film’s producer, Guillermo del Toro), a devious sort who rules the dour Land of the Forgotten, backs the vain Joaquin.

Xiabalba fools Manolo into entering The Land of the Remembered to seek Maria, when it turns out she has only fallen into a “Sleeping Beauty”-style slumber. In order to return to The Land of the Living himself, Manolo must undergo a series of challenges involving his colorful ancestors. Meanwhile, San Angel is being threatened by the fearsome bandit Chakal (whose metallic monster form feels like a del Toro invention) and his gang of nasty thieves.

A three-way romance, multiple worlds, numerous feats, combative gods, a monstrous foe – all these layers make for a rather dense confection. But first-time feature director and co-writer Jorge R. Gutierrez (co-creator of Nickelodeon’s “El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera”) smartly tames his somewhat unwieldy story by cleverly having a modern-day museum guide ( Christina Applegate ) transfix a group of rowdy school kids by relating the tale we are watching as if it were a fable of old.

Where this device comes in handiest is when the subject of death is broached and the children think Maria has really passed away. As one dismayed boy exclaims, “Maria died? What kind of story is this? We’re just kids.” Gutierrez thoughtfully deflects any parental concern about dealing with a potentially morbid subject with a refreshing directness that goes beyond such iconic animated tragedies as the deaths of Bambi’s mother and Simba’s father in “ The Lion King .” 

There is genius to be mined in the smaller details, something that Gutierrez excels at as he playfully mixes mythology both real and invented with pop-art touchstones. From a chorus of angelic singing nuns and hirsute town elders whose protruding snouts recall the hippie era’s Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers to pigs-gone-wild mayhem and a tipsy mariachi trio who slur their way through Rod Stewart’s “Do Ya Think I’m Sexy” and Biz Markie’s “I’m Just a Friend,” “The Book of Life” isn’t afraid to catch us off guard. When a forlorn Manolo, abandoned by the townsfolk after refusing to kill a bull in the ring, starts to wail Radiohead’s “Creep,” you could hear teen girls at my screening yelp in joyful recognition. 

But Guiterrez even goes a step beyond, as “The Book of Life” personifies the philosophy that drives The Day of the Dead and encourages a healthy way to celebrate those who are gone. As he puts it, “As long as you remember those who came before you, and as long as you tell their stories, cook their dishes, and sing their songs  … they’re with you. They live inside your heart.”

And this filmmaker’s heart definitely beats inside this impressive debut.

Susan Wloszczyna

Susan Wloszczyna spent much of her nearly thirty years at USA TODAY as a senior entertainment reporter. Now unchained from the grind of daily journalism, she is ready to view the world of movies with fresh eyes.

Now playing

Sweet Dreams

Matt zoller seitz.

Dusk for a Hitman

Robert daniels.

Brian Tallerico

Simon Abrams

Film Credits

The Book of Life (2014)

Rated PG mild action, rude humor, some thematic elements and brief scary images

Diego Luna as Manolo (voice)

Channing Tatum as Joaquin (voice)

Zoe Saldana as Maria (voice)

Christina Applegate as Mary Beth (voice)

Eugenio Derbez

Cheech Marin as Pancho Rodriguez (voice)

Gabriel Iglesias as Pepe Rodriguez (voice)

Ron Perlman as Xibalba (voice)

• Guillermo Del Toro
• Jorge R. Gutierrez

Latest blog posts

Retrospective: Oscar Micheaux and the Birth of Black Independent Cinema

Phil Lord and Chris Miller Made the Multiplex Safe for ‘The Fall Guy’

Initially Promising Dark Matter Sinks Under Weight of Prestige TV Bloat

Tomorrow There Will Be Fine Weather: A Preview of NYC's Upcoming Hiroshi Shimizu Retrospective

The Book of Life | Jorge R. Gutiérrez

Jorge R. Gutierrez wants to teach people about his heritage. He also wants to make colorful, energetic animated films to dazzle a wide audience. With The Book of Life , Gutierrez manages to scratch both itches at once. It’s his first credit as a director and his sixth as an animator; his comfort with the medium shows in each frame, but not nearly as much as his passion for the customs of Día de los Muertos, Mexico’s holiday of remembrance.

Gutierrez hasn’t simply made a movie that’s based around the Day of the Dead’s macabre, misunderstood iconography; rather, he’s made a movie that embraces its rituals and meanings, expounding on the lessons of the three-day festival while seizing every available opportunity to entertain young and old viewers alike. In a best-case scenario, you will walk away from the film in a state of informed delight, smarter than you were before you went in and all the happier for it. Now that’s a cultural experience.

Gutierrez structures The Book of Life as a story within a story. The film begins on a museum field trip, with a handful of delinquent students on a tour of the gallery’s hidden Mexico exhibit, and from there turns into a moral tale of love and loss. The principal narrative focuses on the dynamic trio of Joaquín (Channing Tatum), Manolo (Diego Luna), and Maria (Zoe Saldana), starting from the days of their youth and following them through to their adulthoods. It’s a love triangle complicated first by the boys’ friendship, and second by the machinations of La Muerta (Kate del Castillo) and Xibalba (Ron Perlman). She is the glowing embodiment of death, ruler of the Land of the Remembered, while he presides over the underworld, a dark place where the souls of the forgotten crumble away like so much ash.

In spite of its excesses, Gutierrez miraculously manages to wrap up all its various odds and ends neatly enough by the end.

They’re gods, and as gods will do, they place a wager on whether Maria will fall for Manolo or Joaquín. Trailers suggest that The Book of Life ’s plot kicks off when that “friendly” bet goes awry and sends Manolo to the realm of La Muerta. In truth, the film reserves its traipses through the afterlife for its final act, and spends the bulk of its time dealing with the travails of the living. Competition over Maria’s heart drives much of the proceedings, as well as constant threat of attack from roving bandits. While trying to balance all these moving parts, Gutierrez keeps the proceedings briskly zany with hyperactive humor.

If anything, it’s perhaps a bit too hyperactive, not to mention overstuffed. Even at 95 minutes, The Book of Life bursts with thematic through-lines: self-discovery, heroism, romance, challenging gender roles, living in the shadows of one’s ancestors, growing up, and so on and so forth. None of Gutierrez’s ideas are bad, per se; they’re just too many of them, with some threads inevitably less well-developed than others. Would the picture lose anything by dropping Manolo’s struggle with his family’s bullfighting dynasty? Does the movie change drastically if its male leads aren’t bosom buddies? Frankly, it all becomes exhausting after a while.

In spite of its excesses, Gutierrez miraculously manages to wrap up all its various odds and ends neatly enough by the end. Besides, you’ll be too enthralled by the film’s infectious sense of adventure to care about overflow in the first place. Gutierrez’s enchantingly spooky wood-carved aesthetic transcends the messy plot, and that’s true even before he guides us from this life to the next. Once we arrive in the Land of the Remembered, we are treated to an exhilaratingly realized place of perpetual celebration — but as the film makes clear, it’s only one leg of a broader, more personal journey. Just as Día de los Muertos gives its characters a chance to learn about themselves, their pasts, and one another, so too does Gutierrez’s film offer us the opportunity to engage with a tradition that’s not our own. Sure, The Book of Life could have been tighter and more coherent, but there’s no way it could be any more sincere.

• Blockbuster Beat
• by Andy Crump

You Might Also Like...

The Shepherdess and the Seven Songs — Pushpendra Singh

Memphis | Tim Sutton

New York Film Festival 2017 – Dispatch 2

The Bridges of Madison County | Clint Eastwood

Hereafter — Clint Eastwood

Two by Soderbergh: Full Circle and Command Z

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

(C) Copyright 2019 - Solo Pine Designs. All Rights Reserved. Designed & Developed by Solo Pine . | Privacy Policy

Privacy Overview

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

The Book of Life

• Manolo, a young man who is torn between fulfilling the expectations of his family and following his heart, embarks on an adventure that spans three fantastic worlds where he must face his greatest fears.
• From producer Guillermo del Toro and director Jorge Gutierrez comes an animated comedy with a unique visual style. THE BOOK OF LIFE is the journey of Manolo, a young man who is torn between fulfilling the expectations of his family and following his heart. Before choosing which path to follow, he embarks on an incredible adventure that spans three fantastical worlds where he must face his greatest fears. Rich with a fresh take on pop music favorites, THE BOOK OF LIFE encourages us to celebrate the past while looking forward to the future. — 20th Century Fox
• Mary Beth, a museum tour guide, takes a group of school detention students on a secret museum tour, telling them, with wooden figures, the story of a Mexican town called San Angel from the Book of Life, holding every story in the world. On the Day of the Dead, La Muerte, ruler of the Land of the Remembered, and Xibalba, ruler of the Land of the Forgotten, see Manolo Sánchez and Joaquín Mondragon competing over María Posada. They strike a wager: if María marries Manolo, Xibalba will no longer interfere in mortal affairs, but if she marries Joaquín, La Muerte and Xibalba will swap realms. However, Xibalba cheats by giving Joaquín his Medal of Everlasting Life, which grants the wearer invincibility.
• While visiting a museum, a group of five troubled youth, on detention, are won over by their tour guide, Mary Beth. Part of what wins them over is the story she tells from the Book of Life, which contains all the stories of the world, both true and made-up. The story she tells centers on the Day of the Dead in San Angel, Mexico - the center of the universe - of three childhood best friends, strong-willed María Posada, Joaquín Mondragon Jr., who likes to show he's a man by sporting a fake mustache without truly knowing what it means to be a man, and guitar-playing Manolo Sánchez, the offspring of the town's general, a deceased military hero and a bullfighter respectively. Even at this age, both Joaquín and Manolo are in love with María, each knowing he would like eventually to marry her. They are separated when María's father sends her to Europe for school to learn to be a lady. By the time María returns to San Angel as a young woman, Joaquín has become a military hero like his father, and Manolo has become a bullfighter like all his Sánchez ancestors, male and female. While Manolo showed his aptitude for bullfighting at a young age, his heart still remains music, singing and playing his guitar, and not with bullfighting. Each still pines for María as his wife. What they are unaware of is that two leaders of the afterlife, estranged wife and husband, La Muerte, ruler of the Land of the Remembered, and Xibalba, ruler of the Land of the Forgotten, long ago made a wager on which of the two will marry María, the outcome which will have a profound effect not only on María, Joaquín and Manolo's joint lives, but the course of San Angel, which is constantly under threat by evil Chakal, and the world. What La Muerte is further unaware of is that Xibalba is taking underhanded measures to win, which also affects María, Joaquín and Manolo's live and possible deaths. — Huggo
• A bus full of children arrives at a museum. They're a rowdy bunch that frighten the guards. A young woman named Mary Beth (voice of Christina Applegate) comes out and gets the kids to follow her as she tells them about the famous legends and myths of Mexican folklore. She leads them to the Book of Life, which holds the story of how the ways of their world were shaped. She opens a box of dolls that represent the characters of the story. As the story begins, Mary Beth says there were two gods - La Muerte (voice of Kate Del Castillo), ruler of the Land of the Remembered, where the spirits live on with their memories kept by their loved ones; and Xibalba (voice of Ron Perlman), ruler of the Land of the Forgotten, where the forgotten souls decay into oblivion. The two spirits watch over the town of San Angel and see three young children playing - Manolo (voice of Emil-Bastien Bouffard), Maria (voice of Genesis Ochoa), and Joaquin (voice of Elias Garza). Both boys are in love with Maria, but she does not wish to be claimed by anyone. Manolo comes from a family of bullfighters, but his real passion lies in music. Joaquin is more adventurous, hoping to avenge his father after he was killed by the sinister bandit Chakal (voice of Dan Navarro). Disguised as peasants, La Muerte and Xibalba go down to San Angel during a celebration of the Day of the Dead. Manolo and his father, Carlos Sanchez (voice of Hector Elizondo), remember his mother Carmen. La Muerte, as an old woman, asks Manolo for a piece of bread. He gladly gives her a whole loaf. Xibalba, as an old man, asks Joaquin for some, but he is more hesitant. Xibalba gives Joaquin a pin that is called the Pin of Everlasting Life, which is something Chakal is after as it can protect him from death. Xibalba then bets La Muerte that Maria will end up marrying Joaquin, while La Muerte bets on Manolo. The winner will be allowed to rule over the Land of the Remembered. The wager is set. Maria, a free and rebellious spirit, sets free a group of animals into the town after seeing a cute baby pig and fearing that he would be killed by the butcher, to the chagrin of her father General Posada (voice of Carlos Alazraqui). A wild boar comes into town and nearly gets Posada, but Manolo manages to lure the boar like a bullfighter with the red cape. He gets the boar to crash into a wall, but Posada, who was unable to see anything, thinks it was Joaquin that saved him, ignoring Manolo in favor of him. As punishment for her actions, Posada orders Maria to be sent to a private boarding school. She sadly leaves her two friends behind. Manolo gives her the baby pig that she wanted to save, which Manolo names Chuy. Maria gives him a guitar after his old one is broken. On it is an engraving that says "Always play from your heart." Over the years, Carlos mentors Manolo (now played by Diego Luna) into becoming a skilled bullfighter, while Joaquin (now voiced by Channing Tatum), with the help of the pin, manages to conquer many enemies and become the town hero. The day comes for Maria (now voiced by Zoe Saldana) to return home. A big celebration is held in town. Manolo and Joaquin see her and are captivated by her beauty. Manolo is set to fight a bull, but he has qualms over killing it. Although he is able to make it crash into the wall, he is told by Carlos to kill it, but he refuses. Everybody boos him, but Maria applauds him for his compassion. Somebody throws Manolo a guitar to his head, knocking him out. When he comes to, his father expresses his disappointment, saying he is not a real Sanchez. General Posada holds a party for Maria, where Joaquin suggests that Maria ought to be with him so that he can make her happy. This does not go over well with Maria, who tells him off and leaves. Meanwhile, Manolo gets his Mariachi band friends, the Rodriguez brothers (voices of Gabriel Iglesias, Cheech Marin, and Ricardo Sanchez), to help serenade her. The brothers play some tunes (like Biz Markie's "Just A Friend"), none of which impress Maria. Manolo serenades her with a song from his heart, which even moves all the townspeople. The brothers form a ladder to bring Manolo up to Maria's balcony so they may kiss, but she tells him it's not gonna be that easy. Joaquin proposes to Maria. Their marriage would keep San Angel safe from Chakal and his bandits. Manolo arrives and fights with Joaquin over Maria, which she thinks is foolish. Manolo later tells Maria to meet him at dawn. Fearing he will lose the wager, Xibalba turns his staff into a snake and sends it after Manolo. Maria follows a trail of candles to a tree where Manolo is. He professes his love to her, which she reciprocates. Then, the snake slithers into the area. Maria pushes Manolo out of the way, getting bitten by the snake. She dies instantly. Manolo screams in rage. He carries Maria's body back to San Angel, where both Joaquin and General Posada blame him for Maria's death. Manolo returns to the tree, mourning his love. Xibalba appears before him, and Manolo states that he will do anything to be with Maria again. Xibalba uses his staff to form a two-headed snake, which bites Manolo and kills him. Manolo's spirit goes down to the Land of the Remembered, looking like a skeleton. It is a remarkably wonderful looking place where the remembered spirits roam around. The captain of the land comes by and learns he is part of the Sanchez family. He escorts Manolo to meet them. He meets his famous ancestors, including Carmelo (Jorge R. Gutierrez), who never used capes to fight; Jorge (Placido Domingo), who fought with one arm and leg, and is a skilled singer; and Luis (Danny Trejo), Manolo's grandfather who is upset with Manolo for dying so soon. Manolo is taken to meet his mother Carmen (Ana de la Reguera). She is happy to see her son, but not happy that he is there so soon. With the help of his family, Manolo goes to La Muerte's castle, which is now run by Xibalba. He explains that the snake bite only put Maria to sleep, and Joaquin revived her with the pin. She is awake and learns that Manolo is dead. Angry over being cheated, Manolo vows to tell La Muerte what Xibalba did and to return to the human world. Manolo, Carmen, and Luis are told to travel to the Cave of Souls to make it to the Land of the Forgotten and meet with La Muerte. There, Manolo is thrown into a labyrinth where three large boulders roll around trying to crush him. Manolo evades all of them, to the surprise of the spirit guardian. The guardian takes a gigantic form and swings down a huge sword onto Manolo, which shatter upon hitting him. Realizing he is pure of heart, the guardian allows Manolo to pass on through The Sanchez's meet the Candle Maker (voice of Ice Cube), who oversees the lives of everybody in the living world. Manolo convinces him to take him through to the Land of the Forgotten to meet La Muerte. The Candle Maker agrees after seeing that Manolo's story has yet to be written, because he is writing it himself. In The Land of the Forgotten, Manolo, Carmen, and Luis see the lonely spirits decaying and withering away. They make it to Xibalba's castle to find La Muerte. Manolo tells her that Xibalba cheated, sending her into a rage. She summons him and angrily chastises him for betraying her again. Manolo then offers a wager himself. If he wins, Xibalba must let him return to the human world, and La Muerte adds that he may never interfere with the affairs of the living ever again. Otherwise, Xibalba may rule over both realms. The wager is set. Manolo is forced to face off against every bull that his family has ever fought. In the living world, Chakal and his bandits are making their way to San Angel, just as Maria and Joaquin are about to marry. Carlos charges toward Chakal, only to be killed. His spirit joins his family to watch Manolo fight. The bulls come together to form one giant bull. Instead of fighting it, Manolo sings it a song, apologizing for all the wrongs his family has brought to the bulls. Even as the giant bull nearly kills him, he keeps singing, bringing the bulls to peace, and surprising his family. La Muerte and Xibalba, impressed by Manolo's will, grant him his life back and send him to the living world just in time to fight back The three spirits decide, since it is the Day of the Dead, to have some fun by summoning all of Manolo's family to fight back against Chakal. Maria rounds up the whole town to fight back as well. Manolo and Joaquin make amends and decide to fight against Chakal together. Chakal grabs Maria and climbs the top of a tower. With the help of his forefathers, including a now proud Carlos, Manolo is sent up to the tower to face off Chakal. With Maria, they fight the bandit and knock him off the tower, also sending them falling as well, but they land safely. Chakal then lights up the bombs on his belt to take the whole town down with him. Manolo and Joaquin push Chakal beneath a bell and tie him up. Manolo knocks over a column to bring the bell down on him and Chakal. He tells Maria not to forget him. The bell traps them both as the bombs go off, killing Chakal, and supposedly Manolo. However, Manolo emerges safely, after Joaquin gave him the pin to stay alive. Joaquin now realizes that a true hero is selfless General Posada gives Manolo his blessing to marry Maria. The two are wed, with Manolo's family proud of their boy. Manolo and Maria then sing a song and dance with everybody. Xibalba apologizes to La Muerte for betraying her, telling her he loves her. They kiss. Back at the museum, Mary Beth ends the story as the children must leave. They leave excited after hearing the story. As the bus is set to depart, the kids wave goodbye to Mary Beth, who takes the form of La Muerte, to the joy of the kids. The security guard appears as Xibalba. They kiss again. The story ends, and the Candle Maker closes the Book of Life, reminding us all to write our own stories.

Contribute to this page

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More from this title

More to explore.

Recently viewed

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The Meaning of Life

Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms. Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and morality, they are straightforwardly construed as accounts of which final ends a person ought to realize in order to have a life that matters. Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only in the last 50 years or so that something approaching a distinct field on the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American philosophy, and it is only in the last 30 years that debate with real depth has appeared. Concomitant with the demise of positivism and of utilitarianism in the post-war era has been the rise of analytical enquiry into non-hedonistic conceptions of value, including conceptions of meaning in life, grounded on relatively uncontroversial (but not certain or universally shared) judgments of cases, often called “intuitions.” English-speaking philosophers can be expected to continue to find life's meaning of interest as they increasingly realize that it is a distinct topic that admits of rational enquiry to no less a degree than more familiar ethical categories such as well-being, virtuous character, and right action.

This survey critically discusses approaches to meaning in life that are prominent in contemporary Anglo-American philosophical literature. To provide context, sometimes it mentions other texts, e.g., in Continental philosophy or from before the 20 th century. However, the central aim is to acquaint the reader with recent analytic work on life's meaning and to pose questions about it that are currently worthy of consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people often pose one of two questions: “So, what is the meaning of life?” and “What are you talking about?” The literature can be divided in terms of which question it seeks to answer. This discussion starts off with works that address the latter, abstract question regarding the sense of talk of “life's meaning,” i.e., that aim to clarify what we are asking when we pose the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful. Afterward, it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question about the nature of meaning as a property. Some accounts of what make life meaningful provide particular ways to do so, e.g., by making certain achievements (James 2005), developing moral character (Thomas 2005), or learning from relationships with family members (Velleman 2005). However, most recent discussions of meaning in life are attempts to capture in a single principle all the variegated conditions that can confer meaning on life. This survey focuses heavily on the articulation and evaluation of these theories of what would make life meaningful. It concludes by examining nihilist views that the conditions necessary for meaning in life do not obtain for any of us, i.e., that all our lives are meaningless.

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

• 2.1 God-Centered Views
• 2.2 Soul-Centered Views

3.1 Subjectivism

3.2 objectivism, 4. nihilism, works cited, collections, books for the general reader, other internet resources, related entries.

One part of the field of life's meaning consists of the systematic attempt to clarify what people mean when they ask in virtue of what life has meaning. This section addresses different accounts of the sense of talk of “life's meaning” (and of “significance,” “importance,” and other synonyms). A large majority of those writing on life's meaning deem talk of it centrally to indicate a positive final value that an individual's life can exhibit. That is, comparatively few believe either that a meaningful life is a merely neutral quality, or that what is of key interest is the meaning of the human species or universe as a whole (for discussions focused on the latter, see Edwards 1972; Munitz 1986; Seachris 2009). Most in the field have ultimately wanted to know whether and how the existence of one of us over time has meaning, a certain property that is desirable for its own sake.

Beyond drawing the distinction between the life of an individual and that of a whole, there has been very little discussion of life as the logical bearer of meaning. For instance, is the individual's life best understood biologically, qua human being, or instead as the existence of a person that may or may not be human (Flanagan 1996)? And if an individual is loved from afar, can it logically affect the meaningfulness of her “life” (Brogaard and Smith 2005, 449)?

Returning to topics on which there is consensus, most writing on meaning believe that it comes in degrees such that some periods of life are more meaningful than others and that some lives as a whole are more meaningful than others (perhaps contra Britton 1969, 192). Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people's lives are less meaningful than others, or even meaningless, and still maintain that people have an equal moral status. Consider a consequentialist view according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life (cf. Railton 1984), or a Kantian view that says that people have an intrinsic worth in virtue of their capacity for autonomous choices, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity (Nozick 1974, ch. 3). On both views, morality could counsel an agent to help people with relatively meaningless lives, at least if the condition is not of their choosing.

Another uncontroversial element of the sense of “meaningfulness” is that it connotes a good that is conceptually distinct from happiness or rightness (something emphasized in Wolf 2010). First, to ask whether someone's life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is happy or pleasant. A life in an experience or virtual reality machine could conceivably be happy but very few take it to be a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness (Nozick 1974: 42–45). Indeed, many would say that talk of “meaning” by definition excludes the possibility of it coming from time spent in an experience machine (although there have been a small handful who disagree and contend that a meaningful life just is a pleasant life. Goetz 2012, in particular, bites many bullets.) Furthermore, one's life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one's happiness, e.g., by helping others at the expense of one's self-interest.

Second, asking whether a person's existence is significant is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there seem to be ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with morality, at least impartially conceived, for instance, making a scientific discovery.

Of course, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if (or even because) it were unhappy or immoral, particularly given Aristotelian conceptions of these disvalues. However, that is to posit a synthetic, substantive relationship between the concepts, and is far from indicating that speaking of “meaning in life” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding happiness or rightness, which is what I am denying here. My point is that the question of what makes a life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the question of what makes a life happy or moral, even if it turns out that the best answer to the question of meaning appeals to an answer to one of these other evaluative questions.

If talk about meaning in life is not by definition talk about happiness or rightness, then what is it about? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One answer is that a meaningful life is one that by definition has achieved choice-worthy purposes (Nielsen 1964) or involves satisfaction upon having done so (Hepburn 1965; Wohlgennant 1981). However, for such an analysis to clearly demarcate meaningfulness from happiness, it would be useful to modify it to indicate which purposes are germane to the former. On this score, some suggest that conceptual candidates for grounding meaning are purposes that not only have a positive value, but also render a life coherent (Markus 2003), make it intelligible (Thomson 2003, 8–13), or transcend animal nature (Levy 2005).

Now, it might be that a focus on any kind of purpose is too narrow for ruling out the logical possibility that meaning could inhere in certain actions, experiences, states, or relationships that have not been adopted as ends and willed and that perhaps even could not be, e.g., being an immortal offshoot of an unconscious, spiritual force that grounds the physical universe, as in Hinduism. In addition, the above purpose-based analyses exclude as not being about life's meaning some of the most widely read texts that purport to be about it, namely, Jean-Paul Sartre's (1948) existentialist account of meaning being constituted by whatever one chooses, and Richard Taylor's (1970, ch. 18) discussion of Sisyphus being able to acquire meaning in his life merely by having his strongest desires satisfied. These are prima facie accounts of meaning in life, but do not essentially involve the attainment of purposes that foster coherence, intelligibility or transcendence.

The latter problem also faces the alternative suggestion that talk of “life's meaning” is not necessarily about purposes, but is rather just a matter of referring to goods that are qualitatively superior, worthy of love and devotion, and appropriately awed (Taylor 1989, ch. 1). It is implausible to think that these criteria are satisfied by subjectivist appeals to whatever choices one ends up making or to whichever desires happen to be strongest for a given person.

Although relatively few have addressed the question of whether there exists a single, primary sense of “life's meaning,” the inability to find one so far might suggest that none exists. In that case, it could be that the field is united in virtue of addressing certain overlapping but not equivalent ideas that have family resemblances (Metz 2013, ch. 2). Perhaps when we speak of “meaning in life,” we have in mind one or more of these related ideas: certain conditions that are worthy of great pride or admiration, values that warrant devotion and love, qualities that make a life intelligible, or ends apart from base pleasure that are particularly choice-worthy. Another possibility is that talk of “meaning in life” fails to exhibit even this degree of unity, and is instead a grab-bag of heterogenous ideas (Mawson 2010; Oakley 2010).

As the field reflects more on the sense of “life's meaning,” it should not only try to ascertain in what respect it admits of unity, but also try to differentiate the concept of life's meaning from other, closely related ideas. For instance, the concept of a worthwhile life is probably not identical to that of a meaningful one (Baier 1997, ch. 5; Metz 2012). For instance, one would not be conceptually confused to claim that a meaningless life full of animal pleasures would be worth living. Furthermore, it seems that talk of a “meaningless life” does not simply connote the concept of an absurd (Nagel 1970; Feinberg 1980), unreasonable (Baier 1997, ch. 5), futile (Trisel 2002), or wasted (Kamm 2003, 210–14) life.

Fortunately the field does not need an extremely precise analysis of the concept of life's meaning (or definition of the phrase “life's meaning”) in order to make progress on the substantive question of what life's meaning is. Knowing that meaningfulness analytically concerns a variable and gradient final good in a person's life that is conceptually distinct from happiness, rightness, and worthwhileness provides a certain amount of common ground. The rest of this discussion addresses attempts to theoretically capture the nature of this good.

2. Supernaturalism

Most English speaking philosophers writing on meaning in life are trying to develop and evaluate theories, i.e., fundamental and general principles that are meant to capture all the particular ways that a life could obtain meaning. These theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, i.e., in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views that meaning in life must be constituted by a certain relationship with a spiritual realm. If God or a soul does not exist, or if they exist but one fails to have the right relationship with them, then supernaturalism—or the Western version of it (on which I focus)—entails that one's life is meaningless. In contrast, naturalist theories are views that meaning can obtain in a world as known solely by science. Here, although meaning could accrue from a divine realm, certain ways of living in a purely physical universe would be sufficient for it. Note that there is logical space for a non-naturalist theory that meaning is a function of abstract properties that are neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the Anglo-American literature (Williams 1999; Audi 2005).

Supernaturalist thinkers in the monotheistic tradition are usefully divided into those with God-centered views and soul-centered views. The former take some kind of connection with God (understood to be a spiritual person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful and who is the ground of the physical universe) to constitute meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance). The latter deem having a soul and putting it into a certain state to be what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Of course, many supernaturalists believe that certain relationships with God and a soul are jointly necessary and sufficient for a significant existence. However, the simpler view is common, and often arguments proffered for the more complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler view.

2.1 God-centered Views

The most widely held and influential God-based account of meaning in life is that one's existence is more significant, the better one fulfills a purpose God has assigned. The familiar idea is that God has a plan for the universe and that one's life is meaningful to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in the particular way God wants one to do so (Affolter 2007). Fulfilling God's purpose by choice is the sole source of meaning, with the existence of an afterlife not necessary for it (Brown 1971; Levine 1987; Cottingham 2003). If a person failed to do what God intends him to do with his life, then, on the current view, his life would be meaningless.

What I call “purpose theorists” differ over what it is about God's purpose that makes it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives. Some argue that God's purpose could be the sole source of invariant moral rules, where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical (Craig 1994; Cottingham 2003). However, Euthyphro problems arguably plague this rationale; God's purpose for us must be of a particular sort for our lives to obtain meaning by fulfilling it (as is often pointed out, serving as food for intergalactic travelers won't do), which suggests that there is a standard external to God's purpose that determines what the content of God's purpose ought to be (but see Cottingham 2005, ch. 3). In addition, some critics argue that a universally applicable and binding moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if the act of helping others is (Ellin 1995, 327).

Other purpose theorists contend that having been created by God for a reason would be the only way that our lives could avoid being contingent (Craig 1994; cf. Haber 1997). But it is unclear whether God's arbitrary will would avoid contingency, or whether his non-arbitrary will would avoid contingency anymore than a deterministic physical world. Furthermore, the literature is still unclear what contingency is and why it is a deep problem. Still other purpose theorists maintain that our lives would have meaning only insofar as they were intentionally fashioned by a creator, thereby obtaining meaning of the sort that an art-object has (Gordon 1983). Here, though, freely choosing to do any particular thing would not be necessary for meaning, and everyone's life would have an equal degree of meaning, which are both counterintuitive implications (see Trisel 2012 for additional criticisms). Are all these objections sound? Is there a promising reason for thinking that fulfilling God's (as opposed to any human's) purpose is what constitutes meaning in life?

Not only does each of these versions of the purpose theory have specific problems, but they all face this shared objection: if God assigned us a purpose, then God would degrade us and thereby undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose (Baier 1957, 118–20; Murphy 1982, 14–15; Singer 1996, 29). This objection goes back at least to Jean-Paul Sartre (1948, 45), and there are many replies to it in the literature that have yet to be assessed (e.g., Hepburn 1965, 271–73; Brown 1971, 20–21; Davis 1986, 155–56; Hanfling 1987, 45–46; Moreland 1987, 129; Walker 1989; Jacquette 2001, 20–21).

Robert Nozick presents a God-centered theory that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite (Nozick 1981, ch. 6, 1989, chs. 15–16; see also Cooper 2005). The basic idea is that for a finite condition to be meaningful, it must obtain its meaning from another condition that has meaning. So, if one's life is meaningful, it might be so in virtue of being married to a person, who is important. And, being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. And this work must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful finite conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something infinite, a being so all-encompassing that it need not (indeed, cannot) go beyond itself to obtain meaning from anything else. And that is God.

The standard objection to this rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition; perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, or obtain its meaning by being related to something beautiful, autonomous or otherwise valuable for its own sake but not meaningful (Thomson 2003, 25–26, 48).

The purpose- and infinity-based rationales are the two most common instances of God-centered theory in the literature, and the naturalist can point out that they arguably face a common problem: a purely physical world seems able to do the job for which God is purportedly necessary. Nature seems able to ground a universal morality and the sort of final value from which meaning might spring. And other God-based views seem to suffer from this same problem. For two examples, some claim that God must exist in order for there to be a just world, where a world in which the bad do well and the good fare poorly would render our lives senseless (Craig 1994; cf. Cottingham 2003, pt. 3), and others maintain that God's remembering all of us with love is alone what would confer significance on our lives (Hartshorne 1984). However, the naturalist will point out that an impersonal, Karmic-like force of nature conceivably could justly distribute penalties and rewards in the way a retributive personal judge would, and that actually living together in loving relationships would seem to confer much more meaning on life than a loving fond remembrance.

A second problem facing all God-based views is the existence of apparent counterexamples. If we think of the stereotypical lives of Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Pablo Picasso, they seem meaningful even if we suppose there is no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good spiritual person who is the ground of the physical world. Even religiously inclined philosophers find this hard to deny (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005), though some of them suggest that a supernatural realm is necessary for a “deep” or “ultimate” meaning (Nozick 1981, 618; Craig 1994, 42). What is the difference between a deep meaning and a shallow one? And why think a spiritual realm is necessary for the former?

At this point, the supernaturalist could usefully step back and reflect on what it might be about God that would make Him uniquely able to confer meaning in life, perhaps as follows from the perfect being theological tradition. For God to be solely responsible for any significance in our lives, God must have certain qualities that cannot be found in the natural world, these qualities must be qualitatively superior to any goods possible in a physical universe, and they must be what ground meaning in it. Here, the supernaturalist could argue that meaning depends on the existence of a perfect being, where perfection requires properties such as atemporality, simplicity, and immutability that are possible only in a spiritual realm (Metz 2013, chs. 6–7; cf. Morris 1992; contra Brown 1971 and Hartshorne 1996). Meaning might come from loving a perfect being or orienting one's life toward it in other ways such as imitating it or even fulfilling its purpose, perhaps a purpose tailor-made for each individual (as per Affolter 2007).

Although this might be a promising strategy for a God-centered theory, it faces a serious dilemma. On the one hand, in order for God to be the sole source of meaning, God must be utterly unlike us; for the more God were like us, the more reason there would be to think we could obtain meaning from ourselves, absent God. On the other hand, the more God is utterly unlike us, the less clear it is how we could obtain meaning by relating to Him. How can one love a being that cannot change? How can one imitate such a being? Could an immutable, atemporal, simple being even have purposes? Could it truly be a person? And why think an utterly perfect being is necessary for meaning? Why would not a very good but imperfect being confer some meaning?

2.2 Soul-centered Views

A soul-centered theory is the view that meaning in life comes from relating in a certain way to an immortal, spiritual substance that supervenes on one's body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. If one lacks a soul, or if one has a soul but relates to it in the wrong way, then one's life is meaningless. There are two prominent arguments for a soul-based perspective.

The first one is often expressed by laypeople and is suggested by the work of Leo Tolstoy (1884; see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Tolstoy argues that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that nothing is worth doing if nothing one does will make a permanent difference to the world, and that doing so requires having an immortal, spiritual self. Many of course question whether having an infinite effect is necessary for meaning (e.g., Schmidtz 2001; Audi 2005, 354–55). Others point out that one need not be immortal in order to have an infinite effect (Levine 1987, 462), for God's eternal remembrance of one's mortal existence would be sufficient for that.

The other major rationale for a soul-based theory of life's meaning is that a soul is necessary for perfect justice, which, in turn, is necessary for a meaningful life. Life seems nonsensical when the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer, at least supposing there is no other world in which these injustices will be rectified, whether by God or by Karma. Something like this argument can be found in the Biblical chapter Ecclesiastes , and it continues to be defended (Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, like the previous rationale, the inferential structure of this one seems weak; even if an afterlife were required for just outcomes, it is not obvious why an eternal afterlife should be thought necessary (Perrett 1986, 220).

Work has been done to try to make the inferences of these two arguments stronger, and the basic strategy has been to appeal to the value of perfection (Metz 2013, ch. 7). Perhaps the Tolstoian reason why one must live forever in order to make the relevant permanent difference is an agent-relative need for one to honor an infinite value, something qualitatively higher than the worth of, say, pleasure. And maybe the reason why immortality is required in order to mete out just deserts is that rewarding the virtuous requires satisfying their highest free and informed desires, one of which would be for eternal flourishing of some kind (Goetz 2012). While far from obviously sound, these arguments at least provide some reason for thinking that immortality is necessary to satisfy the major premise about what is required for meaning.

However, both arguments are still plagued by a problem facing the original versions; even if they show that meaning depends on immortality, they do not yet show that it depends on having a soul . By definition, if one has a soul, then one is immortal, but it is not clearly true that if one is immortal, then one has a soul. Perhaps being able to upload one's consciousness into an infinite succession of different bodies in an everlasting universe would count as an instance of immortality without a soul. Such a possibility would not require an individual to have an immortal spiritual substance (imagine that when in between bodies, the information constitutive of one's consciousness were temporarily stored in a computer). What reason is there to think that one must have a soul in particular for life to be significant?

The most promising reason seems to be one that takes us beyond the simple version of soul-centered theory to the more complex view that both God and a soul constitute meaning. The best justification for thinking that one must have a soul in order for one's life to be significant seems to be that significance comes from uniting with God in a spiritual realm such as Heaven, a view espoused by Thomas Aquinas, Leo Tolstoy (1884), and contemporary religious thinkers (e.g., Craig 1994). Another possibility is that meaning comes from honoring what is divine within oneself, i.e., a soul (Swenson 1949).

As with God-based views, naturalist critics offer counterexamples to the claim that a soul or immortality of any kind is necessary for meaning. Great works, whether they be moral, aesthetic, or intellectual, would seem to confer meaning on one's life regardless of whether one will live forever. Critics maintain that soul-centered theorists are seeking too high a standard for appraising the meaning of people's lives (Baier 1957, 124–29; Baier 1997, chs. 4–5; Trisel 2002; Trisel 2004). Appeals to a soul require perfection, whether it be, as above, a perfect object to honor, a perfectly just reward to enjoy, or a perfect being with which to commune. However, if indeed soul-centered theory ultimately relies on claims about meaning turning on perfection, such a view is attractive at least for being simple, and rival views have yet to specify in a principled and thoroughly defended way where to draw the line at less than perfection (perhaps a start is Metz 2013, ch. 8). What less than ideal amount of value is sufficient for a life to count as meaningful?

Critics of soul-based views maintain not merely that immortality is not necessary for meaning in life, but also that it is sufficient for a meaningless life. One influential argument is that an immortal life, whether spiritual or physical, could not avoid becoming boring, rendering life pointless (Williams 1973; Ellin 1995, 311–12; Belshaw 2005, 82–91; Smuts 2011). The most common reply is that immortality need not get boring (Fischer 1994; Wisnewski 2005; Bortolotti and Nagasawa 2009; Chappell 2009; Quigley and Harris 2009, 75–78). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom is truly sufficient for meaninglessness. Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be bored; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make.

Another argument that being immortal would be sufficient to make our lives insignificant is that persons who cannot die could not exhibit certain virtues (Nussbaum 1989; Kass 2001). For instance, they could not promote justice of any important sort, be benevolent to any significant degree, or exhibit courage of any kind that matters, since life and death issues would not be at stake. Critics reply that even if these virtues would not be possible, there are other virtues that could be. And of course it is not obvious that meaning-conferring justice, benevolence and courage would not be possible if we were immortal, perhaps if we were not always aware that we could not die or if our indestructible souls could still be harmed by virtue of intense pain, frustrated ends, and repetitive lives.

There are other, related arguments maintaining that awareness of immortality would have the effect of removing meaning from life, say, because our lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Lenman 1995; Kass 2001; James 2009) or because external rather than internal factors would then dictate their course (Wollheim 1984, 266). Note that the target here is belief in an eternal afterlife, and not immortality itself, and so I merely mention these rationales (for additional, revealing criticism, see Bortolotti 2010).

3. Naturalism

I now address views that even if there is no spiritual realm, meaning in life is possible, at least for many people. Among those who believe that a significant existence can be had in a purely physical world as known by science, there is debate about two things: the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings.

Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual's pro-attitudes such as desires, ends, and choices. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she believes it to be or seeks it out. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is (at least partly) mind-independent, i.e., is a real property that exists regardless of being the object of anyone's mental states. Here, something is meaningful (to some degree) in virtue of its intrinsic nature, independent of whether it is believed to be meaningful or sought.

There is logical space for an intersubjective theory according to which there are invariant standards of meaning for human beings that are constituted by what they would all agree upon from a certain communal standpoint (Darwall 1983, chs. 11–12). However, this orthogonal approach is not much of a player in the field and so I set it aside in what follows.

According to this view, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one's variable mental states. Common instances are views that one's life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, the more one achieves one's highly ranked goals, or the more one does what one believes to be really important (Trisel 2002; Hooker 2008; Alexis 2011). Lately, one influential subjectivist has maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something (Frankfurt 1982, 2002, 2004).

Subjectivism was dominant for much of the 20 th century when pragmatism, positivism, existentialism, noncognitivism, and Humeanism were quite influential (James 1900; Ayer 1947; Sartre 1948; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Hare 1972; Williams 1976; Klemke 1981). However, in the last quarter of the 20 th century, “reflective equilibrium” became a widely accepted argumentative procedure, whereby more controversial normative claims are justified by virtue of entailing and explaining less controversial normative claims that do not command universal acceptance. Such a method has been used to defend the existence of objective value, and, as a result, subjectivism about meaning has lost its dominance.

Those who continue to hold subjectivism often are suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Frankfurt 2002, 250; Trisel 2002, 73, 79, 2004, 378–79). Theorists are primarily moved to accept subjectivism because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are sure that value in general and meaning in particular exists, but do not see how it could be grounded in something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural, the non-natural, or the supernatural. In contrast to these possibilities, it appears straightforward to account for what is meaningful in terms of what people find meaningful or what people want out of life. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There are two other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism. One is that subjectivism is plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1982). If a person's life is significant insofar as she is true to herself or her deepest nature, then we have some reason to believe that meaning simply is a function of satisfying certain desires held by the individual or realizing certain ends of hers. Another argument is that meaning intuitively comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience (Frankfurt 1982). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective element involved, that is, because of the concentration and engrossment.

However, critics maintain that both of these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value both in realizing oneself and in losing oneself (Taylor 1992, esp. ch. 4). One is not really being true to oneself if one intentionally harms others (Dahl 1987, 12), successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one's head (Taylor 1992, 36), or, well, eats one's own excrement (Wielenberg 2005, 22), and one is also not losing oneself in a meaning-conferring way if one is consumed by these activities. There seem to be certain actions, relationships, states, and experiences that one ought to concentrate on or be engrossed in, if meaning is to accrue.

So says the objectivist, but many subjectivists also feel the pull of the point. Paralleling replies in the literature on well-being, subjectivists often respond by contending that no or very few individuals would desire to do such intuitively trivial things, at least after a certain idealized process of reflection (e.g., Griffin 1981). More promising, perhaps, is the attempt to ground value not in the responses of an individual valuer, but in those of a particular group (Brogaard and Smith 2005; Wong 2008). Would such an intersubjective move avoid the counterexamples? If so, would it do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

Objective naturalists believe that meaning is constituted (at least in part) by something physical independent of the mind about which we can have correct or incorrect beliefs. Obtaining the object of some variable pro-attitude is not sufficient for meaning, on this view. Instead, there are certain inherently worthwhile or finally valuable conditions that confer meaning for anyone, neither merely because they are wanted, chosen, or believed to be meaningful, nor because they somehow are grounded in God.

Morality and creativity are widely held instances of actions that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow (and the other counterexamples to subjectivism above) are not. Objectivism is thought to be the best explanation for these respective kinds of judgments: the former are actions that are meaningful regardless of whether any arbitrary agent (whether it be an individual,her society, or even God) judges them to be meaningful or seeks to engage in them, while the latter actions simply lack significance and cannot obtain it if someone believes them to have it or engages in them. To obtain meaning in one's life, one ought to pursue the former actions and avoid the latter ones. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the nature of value are again relevant here.

A “pure” objectivist thinks that being the object of a person's mental states plays no role in making that person's life meaningful. Relatively few objectivists are pure, so construed. That is, a large majority of them believe that a life is more meaningful not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of subjective ones such as cognition, affection, and emotion. Most commonly held is the hybrid view captured by Susan Wolf's pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 1997a, 211; see also Hepburn 1965; Kekes 1986, 2000; Wiggins 1988; Wolf 1997b, 2002, 2010; Dworkin 2000, ch. 6; Raz 2001, ch. 1; Schmidtz 2001; Starkey 2006; Mintoff 2008). This theory implies that no meaning accrues to one's life if one believes in, is satisfied by, or cares about a project that is not worthwhile, or if one takes up a worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, care about it or otherwise identify with it. Different versions of this theory will have different accounts of the appropriate mental states and of worthwhileness.

Pure objectivists deny that subjective attraction plays any constitutive role in conferring meaning on life. For instance, utilitarians with respect to meaning (as opposed to morality) are pure objectivists, for they claim that certain actions confer meaning on life regardless of the agent's reactions to them. On this view, the more one benefits others, the more meaningful one's life, regardless of whether one enjoys benefiting them, believes they should be aided, etc. (Singer 1993, ch. 12, 1995, chs. 10–11; Singer 1996, ch. 4). Midway between pure objectivism and the hybrid theory is the view that having certain propositional attitudes toward finally good activities would enhance the meaning of life without being necessary for it (Audi 2005, 344). For instance, might a Mother Teresa who is bored by her substantial charity work have a significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she were excited by it?

There have been several attempts to theoretically capture what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning. Some believe that they can all be captured as actions that are creative (Taylor 1987), while others maintain that they are exhibit rightness or virtue and perhaps also involve reward proportionate to morality (Kant 1791, pt. 2; cf. Pogge 1997). Most objectivists, however, deem these respective aesthetic and ethical theories to be too narrow, even if living a moral life is necessary for a meaningful one (Landau 2011). It seems to most in the field not only that creativity and morality are independent sources of meaning, but also that there are sources in addition to these two. For just a few examples, consider making an intellectual discovery, rearing children with love, playing music, and developing superior athletic ability.

So, in the literature one finds a variety of principles that aim to capture all these and other (apparent) objective grounds of meaning. One can read the perfectionist tradition as proffering objective theories of what a significant existence is, even if their proponents do not frequently use contemporary terminology to express this. Consider Aristotle's account of the good life for a human being as one that fulfills its natural purpose qua rational, Marx's vision of a distinctly human history characterized by less alienation and more autonomy, culture, and community, and Nietzsche's ideal of a being with a superlative degree of power, creativity, and complexity.

More recently, some have maintained that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that involve: transcending the limits of the self to connect with organic unity (Nozick 1981, ch. 6, 1989, chs. 15–16); realizing human excellence in oneself (Bond 1983, chs. 6, 8); maximally promoting non-hedonist goods such as friendship, beauty, and knowledge (Railton 1984); exercising or promoting rational nature in exceptional ways (Hurka 1993; Smith 1997, 179–221; Gewirth 1998, ch. 5); substantially improving the quality of life of people and animals (Singer 1993, ch. 12, 1995, chs. 10–11; Singer 1996, ch. 4); overcoming challenges that one recognizes to be important at one's stage of history (Dworkin 2000, ch. 6); constituting rewarding experiences in the life of the agent or the lives of others the agent affects (Audi 2005); making progress toward ends that in principle can never be completely realized because one's knowledge of them changes as one approaches them (Levy 2005); realizing goals that are transcendent for being long-lasting in duration and broad in scope (Mintoff 2008); or contouring intelligence toward fundamental conditions of human life (Metz 2013).

One major test of these theories is whether they capture all experiences, states, relationships, and actions that intuitively make life meaningful. The more counterexamples of apparently meaningful conditions that a principle entails lack meaning, the less justified the principle. There is as yet no convergence in the field on any one principle or even cluster as accounting for commonsensical judgments about meaning to an adequate, convincing degree. Indeed, some believe the search for such a principle to be pointless (Wolf 1997b, 12–13; Kekes 2000; Schmidtz 2001). Are these pluralists correct, or does the field have a good chance of discovering a single, basic property that grounds all the particular ways to acquire meaning in life?

Another important way to criticize these theories is more comprehensive: for all that has been said so far, the objective theories are aggregative or additive, objectionably reducing life to a “container” of meaningful conditions (Brännmark 2003, 330). As with the growth of “organic unity” views in the context of debates about intrinsic value, it is becoming common to think that life as a whole (or at least long stretches of it) can substantially affect its meaning apart from the amount of meaning in its parts.

For instance, a life that has lots of beneficent and otherwise intuitively meaning-conferring conditions but that is also extremely repetitive (à la the movie Groundhog Day ) is less than maximally meaningful (Taylor 1987). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2003, 210–14). And a life in which its meaningless parts cause its meaningful parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this causal pattern or being a “good life-story” (Velleman 1991; Fischer 2005).

Extreme versions of holism are also present in the literature. For example, some maintain that the only bearer of final value is life as a whole, which entails that there are strictly speaking no parts or segments of a life that can be meaningful in themselves (Tabensky 2003; Levinson 2004). For another example, some accept that both parts of a life and a life as a whole can be independent bearers of meaning, but maintain that the latter has something like a lexical priority over the former when it comes to what to pursue or otherwise to prize (Blumenfeld 2009).

What are the ultimate bearers of meaning? What are all the fundamentally different ways (if any) that holism can affect meaning? Are they all a function of narrativity, life-stories, and artistic self-expression (as per Kauppinen 2012), or are there holistic facets of life's meaning that are not a matter of such literary concepts? How much importance should they be accorded by an agent seeking meaning in her life?

So far, I have addressed theoretical accounts that have been naturally understood to be about what confers meaning on life, which obviously assumes that some lives are in fact meaningful. However, there are nihilistic perspectives that question this assumption. According to nihilism (or pessimism), what would make a life meaningful either cannot obtain or as a matter of fact simply never does.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether God exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither exists, then you are a nihilist, someone who denies that life has meaning. Albert Camus is famous for expressing this kind of perspective, suggesting that the lack of an afterlife and of a rational, divinely ordered universe undercuts the possibility of meaning (Camus 1955; cf. Ecclesiastes ).

Interestingly, the most common rationales for nihilism these days do not appeal to supernaturalism. The idea shared among many contemporary nihilists is that there is something inherent to the human condition that prevents meaning from arising, even granting that God exists. For instance, some nihilists make the Schopenhauerian claim that our lives lack meaning because we are invariably dissatisfied; either we have not yet obtained what we seek, or we have obtained it and are bored (Martin 1993). Critics tend to reply that at least a number of human lives do have the requisite amount of satisfaction required for meaning, supposing that some is (Blackburn 2001, 74–77).

Other nihilists claim that life would be meaningless if there were no invariant moral rules that could be fully justified—the world would be nonsensical if, in (allegedly) Dostoyevskian terms, “everything were permitted”—and that such rules cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, ch. 1). While a number of philosophers agree that a universally binding and warranted morality is necessary for meaning in life (Kant 1791; Tännsjö 1988; Jacquette 2001, ch. 1; Cottingham 2003, 2005, ch. 3), some do not (Margolis 1990; Ellin 1995, 325–27). Furthermore, contemporary rationalist and realist work in meta-ethics has led many to believe that such a moral system exists.

In the past 10 years, some interesting new defences of nihilism have arisen that merit careful consideration. According to one rationale, for our lives to matter, we must in a position to add value to the world, which we are not since the value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value must be infinity.

One way to question this argument is to suggest that even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly obtains merely by being the source of value. Consider that one does not merely want one's child to be reared with love, but wants to be the one who rears one's child with love. And this desire remains even knowing that others would have reared one's child with love in one's absence, so that one's actions are not increasing the goodness of the state of the universe relative to what it would have had without them. Similar remarks might apply to cases of meaning more generally (for additional, and technical, discussion of whether an infinite universe entails nihilism, see Almeida 2010; Vohánka and Vohánková n.d.).

Another fresh argument for nihilism is forthcoming from certain defenses of anti-natalism, the view that it is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so would be a harm to them. There are now a variety of rationales for anti-natalism, but most relevant to debates about whether life is meaningful is probably the following argument from David Benatar (2006, 18–59). According to him, the bads of existing (e.g., pains) are real disadvantages relative to not existing, while the goods of existing (pleasures) are not real advantages relative to not existing, since there is in the latter state no one to be deprived of them. If indeed the state of not existing is no worse than that of experiencing the benefits of existence, then, since existing invariably brings harm in its wake, existing is always a net harm compared to not existing. Although this argument is about goods such as pleasures in the first instance, it seems generalizable to non-experiential goods, including that of meaning in life.

The criticisms of Benatar that promise to cut most deep are those that question his rationale for the above judgments of good and bad. He maintains that these appraisals best explain, e.g., why it would be wrong for one to create someone whom one knows would suffer a torturous existence, and why it would not be wrong for one not to create someone whom one knows would enjoy a wonderful existence. The former would be wrong and the latter would not be wrong, for Benatar, because no pain in non-existence is better than pain in existence, and because no pleasure in non-existence is no worse than pleasure in existence. Critics usually grant the judgments of wrongness, but provide explanations of them that do not invoke Benatar's judgments of good and bad that apparently lead to anti-natalism (e.g., Boonin 2012; Weinberg 2012).

This survey closes by discussing the most well-known rationale for nihilism, namely, Thomas Nagel's (1986) invocation of the external standpoint that purportedly reveals our lives to be unimportant (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Benatar 2006, 60–92; cf. Dworkin 2000, ch. 6). According to Nagel, we are capable of comprehending the world from a variety of standpoints that are either internal or external. The most internal perspective would be a particular human being's desire at a given instant, with a somewhat less internal perspective being one's interests over a life-time, and an even less internal perspective being the interests of one's family or community. In contrast, the most external perspective, an encompassing standpoint utterly independent of one's particularity, would be, to use Henry Sidgwick's phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers the interests of all sentient beings at all times and in all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one's finite—and even downright puny—impact on the world, little of one's life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over an approximately 75 years just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of years and likely trillions of beings that are a part of space-time.

Very few accept the authority of the (most) external standpoint (Ellin 1995, 316–17; Blackburn 2001, 79–80; Schmidtz 2001) or the implications that Nagel believes it has for the meaning of our lives (Quinn 2000, 65–66; Singer 1993, 333–34; Wolf 1997b, 19–21). However, the field could use much more discussion of this rationale, given its persistence in human thought. It is plausible to think, with Nagel, that part of what it is to be a person is to be able to take up an external standpoint. However, what precisely is a standpoint? Must we invariably adopt one standpoint or the other, or is it possible not to take one up at all? Is there a reliable way to ascertain which standpoint is normatively more authoritative than others? These and the other questions posed in this survey still lack conclusive answers, another respect in which the field of life's meaning is tantalizingly open for substantial contributions.

• Affolter, J., 2007, “Human Nature as God's Purpose”, Religious Studies , 43: 443–55.
• Alexis., A., 2011, The Meaning of Life: A Modern Secular Answer to the Age-Old Fundamental Question , CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Almeida, M., 2010, “Two Challenges to Moral Nihilism”, The Monist , 93: 96–105.
• Audi, R., 2005, “Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 331–55.
• Ayer, A. J., 1947, “The Claims of Philosophy”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 219–32.
• Baier, K., 1957, “The Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 101–32.
• –––, 1997, Problems of Life and Death: A Humanist Perspective , Amherst: Prometheus Books.
• Barnes, H., 1967, An Existentialist Ethics , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Belshaw, C., 2005, 10 Good Questions about Life and Death , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Benatar, D., 2006, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Blackburn, S., 2001, Being Good , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Blumenfeld, D., 2009, “Living Life Over Again”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 79: 357–86.
• Bond, E. J., 1983, Reason and Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Boonin, D., 2012, “Better to Be”, South African Journal of Philosophy , 31: 10–25.
• Bortolotti, L., 2010, “Agency, Life Extension, and the Meaning of Life”, The Monist , 92: 38–56.
• Bortolotti, L. and Nagasawa, Y., 2009, “Immortality Without Boredom”, Ratio , 22: 261–77.
• Brännmark, J., 2003, “Leading Lives”, Philosophical Papers , 32: 321–43.
• Britton, K., 1969, Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brogaard, B. and Smith, B., 2005, “On Luck, Responsibility, and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 443–58.
• Brown, D., 1971, “Process Philosophy and the Question of Life's Meaning”, Religious Studies , 7: 13–29.
• Camus, A., 1955, The Myth of Sisyphus , J. O'Brian (tr.), London: H. Hamilton.
• Chappell, T., 2009, “Infinity Goes Up on Trial: Must Immortality Be Meaningless?”, European Journal of Philosophy , 17: 30–44.
• Cooper, D., 2005, “Life and Meaning”, Ratio , 18: 125–37.
• Cottingham, J., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2005, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Craig, W., 1994, “The Absurdity of Life Without God”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 40–56.
• Dahl, N., 1987, “Morality and the Meaning of Life”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 17: 1–22.
• Darwall, S., 1983, Impartial Reason , Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Davis, W., 1986, “The Creation of Meaning”, Philosophy Today , 30: 151–67.
• –––, 1987, “The Meaning of Life”, Metaphilosophy , 18: 288–305.
• Dworkin, R., 2000, Sovereign Virtue , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Edwards, P., 1972, “Why”, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volumes 7– 8 , P. Edwards (ed.), New York: Macmillan Publishing Company: 296–302.
• Ellin, J., 1995. Morality and the Meaning of Life , Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
• Feinberg, J., 1980, “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” repr. in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992: 297–330.
• Fischer, J. M., 1994, “Why Immortality is Not So Bad”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 2: 257–70.
• –––, 2005, “Free Will, Death, and Immortality: The Role of Narrative”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 379–403.
• Flanagan, O., 1996, Self-Expressions: Mind, Morals, and the Meaning of Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Frankfurt, H., 1982, “The Importance of What We Care About”, Synthese , 53: 257–72.
• –––, 2002, “Reply to Susan Wolf”, in The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt , S. Buss and L. Overton (eds.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 245–52.
• –––, 2004, The Reasons of Love , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gewirth, A., 1998, Self-Fulfillment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Goetz, S., 2012, The Purpose of Life: A Theistic Perspective , New York: Continuum.
• Gordon, J., 1983, “Is the Existence of God Relevant to the Meaning of Life?” The Modern Schoolman , 60: 227–46.
• Griffin, J., 1981, “On Life's Being Valuable”, Dialectics and Humanism , 8: 51–62.
• Haber, J., 1997, “Contingency and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Writings , 5: 32–44.
• Hanfling, O., 1987, The Quest for Meaning , New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
• Hare, R. M., 1957, “Nothing Matters”, repr. in Applications of Moral Philosophy , London: Macmillan, 1972: 32–47.
• Hartshorne, C., 1984, “God and the Meaning of Life”, in Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion, Volume 6: On Nature , L. Rouner (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 154–68.
• –––, 1996, “The Meaning of Life”, Process Studies , 25: 10–18.
• Hepburn, R., 1965, “Questions About the Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 261–76.
• Hooker, B., 2008, “The Meaning of Life: Subjectivism, Objectivism, and Divine Support”, in The Moral Life: Essays in Honour of John Cottingham , N. Athanassoulis and S. Vice (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 184–200.
• Hurka, T., 1993, Perfectionism , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jacquette, D., 2001, Six Philosophical Appetizers , Boston: McGraw-Hill.
• James, L., 2005, “Achievement and the Meaningfulness of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 429–42.
• –––, 2009, “Shape and the Meaningfulness of Life”, in Philosophy and Happiness , L. Bortolotti (ed.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 54–67.
• James, W., 1900, “What Makes a Life Significant?”, in On Some of Life's Ideals , New York: Henry Holt and Company: 49–94.
• Kamm, F. M., 2003, “Rescuing Ivan Ilych: How We Live and How We Die”, Ethics , 113: 202–33.
• Kant, I., 1791, Critique of Judgment .
• Kass, L., 2001, “ L'Chaim and Its Limits: Why not Immortality?”, First Things , 113: 17–24.
• Kauppinen, A., 2012, “Meaningfulness and Time”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 345–77.
• Kekes, J., 1986, “The Informed Will and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 47: 75–90.
• –––, 2000, “The Meaning of Life”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume 24; Life and Death: Metaphysics and Ethics , P. French and H. Wettstein (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 17–34.
• Klemke, E. D., 1981, “Living Without Appeal”, in The Meaning of Life, E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press.
• Landau, I., 2011, “Immorality and the Meaning of Life”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 45: 309–17.
• Lenman, J., 1995, “Immortality: A Letter”, Cogito , 9: 164–69.
• Levine, M., 1987, “What Does Death Have to Do with the Meaning of Life?” Religious Studies , 23: 457–65.
• Levinson, J., 2004, “Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62: 319–29.
• Levy, N., 2005, “Downshifting and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 18: 176–89.
• Margolis, J., 1990, “Moral Realism and the Meaning of Life”, The Philosophical Forum , 22: 19–48.
• Markus, A., 2003, “Assessing Views of Life, A Subjective Affair?”, Religious Studies , 39: 125–43.
• Martin, R., 1993, “A Fast Car and a Good Woman”, in The Experience of Philosophy, 2 nd Ed. , D. Kolak and R. Martin (eds.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company: 589–95.
• Mawson, T., 2010, “Sources of Dissatisfaction with Answers to the Question of the Meaning of Life”, European Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 2: 19–41.
• Metz, T., 2012, “The Meaningful and the Worthwhile: Clarifying the Relationships”, The Philosophical Forum , 43: 435–48.
• –––, 2013, Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Mintoff, J., 2008, “Transcending Absurdity”, Ratio , 21: 64–84.
• Moreland, J. P., 1987, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity , Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
• Morris, T., 1992, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life , Grand Rapids: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Munitz, M., 1986, Cosmic Understanding , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Murphy, J., 1982, Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life , Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Nagel, T., 1970, “The Absurd”, Journal of Philosophy , 68: 716–27.
• –––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nielsen, K., 1964, “Linguistic Philosophy and ‘The Meaning of Life’”, rev. ed. in The Meaning of Life, E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1981: 177–204.
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Nussbaum, M., 1989, “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50: 303–51.
• Oakley, T., 2010, “The Issue is Meaninglessness”, The Monist , 93: 106–22.
• Perrett, R., 1986, “Regarding Immortality”, Religious Studies , 22: 219–33.
• Pogge, T., 1997, “Kant on Ends and the Meaning of Life”, in Reclaiming the History of Ethics: Essays for John Rawls , A. Reath et al. (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press: 361–87.
• Quigley, M. and Harris, J., 2009, “Immortal Happiness”, in Philosophy and Happiness , L. Bortolotti (ed.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 68–81.
• Quinn, P., 2000, “How Christianity Secures Life's Meanings”, in The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , J. Runzo and N. Martin (eds.), Oxford: Oneworld Publications: 53–68.
• Railton, P., 1984, “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality”, repr. in Consequentialism and Its Critics , S. Scheffler (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1988: 93–133.
• Raz, J., 2001, Value, Respect, and Attachment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sartre, J.-P., 1948, Existentialism is a Humanism , P. Mairet (tr.), London: Methuen & Co.
• Schmidtz, D., 2001, “The Meanings of Life”, in Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion, Volume 22; If I Should Die: Life, Death, and Immortality , L. Rouner (ed.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press: 170–88.
• Seachris, J., 2009, “The Meaning of Life as Narrative: A New Proposal for Interpreting Philosophy's ‘Primary’ Question”, Philo , 12: 5–23.
• Singer, I., 1996, Meaning in Life, Volume 1: The Creation of Value , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Singer, P., 1993, Practical Ethics, 2 nd Ed ., New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1995, How are We to Live? Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.
• Smith, Q., 1997, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 2003, “Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism”, in Time and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection , H. Dyke (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 43–54.
• Smuts, A., 2011, “Immortality and Significance”, Philosophy and Literature , 35: 134–49.
• Starkey, C., 2006, “Meaning and Affect”, The Pluralist , 1: 88–103.
• Swenson, D., 1949, “The Dignity of Human Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 21–30.
• Tabensky, P., 2003, “Parallels Between Living and Painting”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 37: 59–68.
• Tännsjö, T., 1988, “The Moral Significance of Moral Realism”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 26: 247–61.
• Taylor, C., 1989, Sources of the Self , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1992, The Ethics of Authenticity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Taylor, R., 1970, Good and Evil , New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
• –––, 1987, “Time and Life's Meaning”, The Review of Metaphysics , 40: 675–86.
• Thomas, L., 2005, “Morality and a Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 405–27.
• Thomson, G., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , South Melbourne: Wadsworth.
• Tolstoy, L., 1884, A Confession .
• Trisel, B. A., 2002, “Futility and the Meaning of Life Debate”, Sorites , 70–84.
• –––, 2004, “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts”, The Philosophical Forum , 35: 371–91.
• –––, 2012, “Intended and Unintended Life”, The Philosophical Forum , 43: 395–403.
• Velleman, J. D., 1991, “Well-Being and Time”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 72: 48–77.
• Velleman, J. D., 2005, “Family History”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 357–78.
• Walker, L., 1989, “Religion and the Meaning of Life and Death”, in Philosophy: The Quest for Truth , L. Pojman (ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co: 167–71.
• Weinberg, R., 2012, “Is Having Children Always Wrong?”, South African Journal of Philosophy , 31: 26–37.
• Wielenberg, E., 2005, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wiggins, D., 1988, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life”, rev. ed. in Essays on Moral Realism , G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 127-65.
• Williams, B., 1973, “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”, in Problems of the Self , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 82–100.
• –––, 1976, “Persons, Character and Morality”, in The Identities of Persons , A. O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press: 197–216.
• Williams, G., 1999, “Kant and the Question of Meaning”, The Philosophical Forum , 30: 115–31.
• Wisnewski, J. J., 2005, “Is the Immortal Life Worth Living?”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 58: 27–36.
• Wohlgennant, R., 1981, “Has the Question About the Meaning of Life Any Meaning?” repr. in Life and Meaning: A Reader , O. Hanfling (ed.), Cambridge: Basic Blackwell Inc., 1987: 34–38.
• Wolf, S., 1997a, “Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 14: 207–25.
• –––, 1997b, “Meaningful Lives in a Meaningless World”, Quaestiones Infinitae , Volume 19 , Utrecht: Utrecht University: 1–22.
• –––, 2002, “The True, the Good, and the Lovable: Frankfurt's Avoidance of Objectivity”, in The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt , S. Buss and L. Overton (eds.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: 227–44.
• –––, 2010, Meaning in Life and Why It Matters , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Wollheim, R., 1984, The Thread of Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wong, W., 2008, “Meaningfulness and Identities”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 11: 123–48.
• Benatar, D. (ed.), 2004, Life, Death & Meaning , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• Cottingham, J. (ed.), 2007, Western Philosophy: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell: pt. 12.
• Hanfling, O. (ed.), 1987, Life and Meaning: A Reader , Cambridge: Basic Blackwell Inc.
• Klemke, E. D. and Cahn, S. M. (eds.), 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Reader, 3 rd Ed. , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Metz, T. (ed.), 2005, Special Issue: Meaning in Life, Philosophical Papers , 34: 330–463.
• Runzo, J. and Martin, N. (eds.), 2000, The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
• Sanders, S. and Cheney, D. (eds.), 1980, The Meaning of Life: Questions, Answers, and Analysis , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Seachris, J. (ed.), 2012, Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Smith, Q. (ed.), 2010, Special Issue: The Meaning of Life, The Monist , 93: 3–165.
• Westphal, J. and Levenson, C. A. (eds.), 1993, Life and Death , Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Baggini, J., 2004, What's It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , London: Granta Books.
• Belliotti, R., 2001, What Is the Meaning of Life? , Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Eagleton, T., 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ford, D., 2007, The Search for Meaning: A Short History , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Messerly, J., 2012, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Approaches , Seattle: Darwin and Hume Publishers.
• Young, J., 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life , New York: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up this entry topic at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Seachris, J., 2011, “ Meaning of Life: The Analytic Perspective ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.)
• Vohánka, V. and Vohánková, P., n.d., “ On Nihilism Driven by the Magnitude of the Universe ”.

afterlife | death | ethics: ancient | existentialism | friendship | love | perfectionism, in moral and political philosophy | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic | well-being

Copyright © 2013 by Thaddeus Metz < tmetz @ uj . ac . za >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

Explaining the News to Our Kids

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

The book of life, common sense media reviewers.

Beautifully animated film has some scary imagery.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

Kids will learn the cultural traditions of the Day

There's an ongoing message that doing what'

Manolo is pressured to be as great a bullfighter a

Potentially scary imagery/pervasive death referenc

Manolo and Joaquin are both in love with Maria. Th

Words like "kick his butt" and insults l

There's no consumerism in the film, which is s

There's drinking, but it's not clear what&

Parents need to know that The Book of Life is a refreshingly original animated film that takes viewers to the underworld and back. Smaller children might find the scenes in the Land of the Remembered scary, especially those featuring the king of the underworld, Xibalba (who's named after the Mayan name…

Educational Value

Kids will learn the cultural traditions of the Day of the Dead and what it was like to live in an old Mexican town without technology.

Positive Messages

There's an ongoing message that doing what's right is more important than other people's expectations of you. When Manolo goes to the underworld, he learns that he's part of a bigger world. On the Day of the Dead, family members that have died are honored and remembered in a big celebration.

Positive Role Models

Manolo is pressured to be as great a bullfighter as his father and other ancestors were, but he defies them by not killing the bull in the ring because it’s wrong. His kindness and integrity end up saving him in the end. Maria is strong and self-sufficient; at first, she won't be pressured into marrying Joaquin just because her father wants her to and everyone in town admires him. Joaquin is egotistical and keeps a great secret about how he came to be the town's invincible hero. Xibalba is a classic villain who will stop at nothing to trade places with La Muerte.

Violence & Scariness

Potentially scary imagery/pervasive death references (skeletons, beheaded figures, etc.) throughout the movie. Manolo fights real-life bulls, and, near the end, he also fights a scary demon bull the size of a building. Xiabalba, the king of the underworld, is scary and makes loud frightening movements that could scare some children. Manolo dies and becomes a skeleton figure and reunites with his dead ancestors, including his mother. His grandfather has his head chopped off, and Manolo's mother carries it around. Maria and Manolo are bitten by a snake that transforms from a cane. There's a battle scene at the end with punching and sword fighting. Joaquin, the town hero, fights throughout the movie. Manolo and Joaquin get in a slap fight over Maria. Throughout the movie, there are little scares where characters jump out or react loudly. At the beginning of the movie, children visiting a museum are taken through a magical door to a secret room.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Manolo and Joaquin are both in love with Maria. They try to kiss her several times, and Manolo eventually does. Manolo's mariachi friends sing "If You Think I'm Sexy" and "Just a Friend" to help Manolo court Maria.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Words like "kick his butt" and insults like "lazy bum." Some kids are called "detention kids."

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

There's no consumerism in the film, which is set in the past, but there are tie-in marketing deals for clothing, jewelry, toys, etc.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

There's drinking, but it's not clear what's being consumed.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that The Book of Life is a refreshingly original animated film that takes viewers to the underworld and back. Smaller children might find the scenes in the Land of the Remembered scary, especially those featuring the king of the underworld, Xibalba (who's named after the Mayan name for the realm of the dead). The characters in the Land of the Remembered are traditional Day of the Dead figures, which are skeletons in brightly colored clothing. One dead character's head is separate from his body. There are some bullfighting scenes and battle sequences that are a little violent, and things get somewhat darker when the action shifts to the underworld (there's a demonic bull surrounded by fire). Expect a little bit of kissing and a few insults ("kick his butt," "lazy bum"), too. But the fun definitely outweighs the scary/iffy parts, and ultimately this is a vibrant, colorful movie about doing the right thing and the importance of family -- messages that can be appreciated by both kids and parents. It's also an invitation to explore and learn more about Mexican culture, from the details of the Day of the Dead celebrations to legendary creatures like Chupacabras. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (29)
• Kids say (41)

Based on 29 parent reviews

Violence, sexism, just junk

Enthralling story that highlights mexican culture, what's the story.

In THE BOOK OF LIFE, Manolo (voiced by Diego Luna ) and Joaquin ( Channing Tatum ) have loved Maria ( Zoe Saldana ) all their lives. What they don't know is that the kind La Muerte ( Kate del Castillo ) and the evil Xibalba ( Ron Perlman ) -- the rulers of the underworld -- made a bet over which boy Maria would marry. She's sent away to school and comes back more confident and more beautiful. Meanwhile, Manolo grows up into a sensitive guitar player whose family wants him to be a ruthless bullfighter, while Joaquin becomes the town hero -- with a big secret and huge ego. Xibalba will go to any lengths to win the bet, so he sets his snake on Manolo. So Manolo must travel through the underworld on the Day of the Dead, the biggest party of the year, to return to his true love.

Is It Any Good?

This is a beautifully animated film about Dia de los Muertos that combines essential Mexican folklore, ancient mythology, and pop culture. Luna is charming as Manolo, the guitar playing bullfighter who's too kind to kill the bull. Tatum has just the right amount of bravado to play Joaquin, who shouts his own name as he rushes into battle, and Saldana is sassy and adorable as the smart, independent Maria.

Most impressive is the visually stunning underworld that director Jorge Gutierrez has created. The Book of Life immerses viewers into the environment, traditions, colors, and sounds of Day of the Dead celebration; La Muerte is the most gorgeous animated queen since Maleficent in the original Sleeping Beauty , and Xibalba is perfect as her scary king. The characters and the music (excellent reworkings of classic and alternative pop songs) are absorbing and memorable, and you'll be thinking about the world full of color and fun that Gutierrez has created long after you've seen the movie.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the pressure to live up to expectations. Can you relate to Manolo and Joaquin's feeling that they can't fill the shoes of the family that came before them in The Book of Life ? What's the best way to handle that type of situation? Manolo, Maria, and Joaquin all ultimately realize that they must follow their own paths. Kids: Is it ever OK to defy your parents' wishes?

How scary is The Book of Life ? Is it ever fun to be scared? Why or why not?

How do the characters in The Book of Life demonstrate integrity ? Why is this an important character strength ?

Are you familiar with Day of the Dead? Does your culture celebrate loved ones after they've died? How could you learn more about this holiday? What other Latino traditions and values does the movie include?

Especially considering the movie's time setting (likely the early 1900s), Maria is a very progressive young woman, with a strong, determined personality. How does that make her a role model? How are her goals and dreams out of the ordinary for the world she's part of?

Movie Details

• In theaters : October 17, 2014
• On DVD or streaming : January 27, 2015
• Cast : Diego Luna , Zoe Saldana , Channing Tatum
• Director : Jorge R. Gutierrez
• Inclusion Information : Latino actors, Female actors, Black actors
• Studio : Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
• Genre : Family and Kids
• Topics : Magic and Fantasy , Adventures , Fairy Tales , Great Boy Role Models , Great Girl Role Models
• Character Strengths : Integrity
• Run time : 95 minutes
• MPAA rating : PG
• MPAA explanation : mild action, rude humor, some thematic elements and brief scary images
• Award : Common Sense Selection
• Last updated : January 20, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

The Nightmare Before Christmas

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride

Offbeat animated movies, animation apps, games, and websites, related topics.

• Magic and Fantasy
• Fairy Tales
• Great Boy Role Models
• Great Girl Role Models

Want suggestions based on your streaming services? Get personalized recommendations

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

• Craft and Criticism
• Fiction and Poetry
• News and Culture
• Lit Hub Radio
• Reading Lists

• Literary Criticism
• Craft and Advice
• In Conversation
• On Translation
• Short Story
• From the Novel
• Bookstores and Libraries
• Film and TV
• Art and Photography
• Freeman’s
• The Virtual Book Channel
• Behind the Mic
• Beyond the Page
• The Cosmic Library
• The Critic and Her Publics
• Emergence Magazine
• Fiction/Non/Fiction
• First Draft: A Dialogue on Writing
• The History of Literature
• I’m a Writer But
• Lit Century
• Tor Presents: Voyage Into Genre
• Windham-Campbell Prizes Podcast
• Write-minded
• The Best of the Decade
• Best Reviewed Books
• BookMarks Daily Giveaway
• The Daily Thrill
• CrimeReads Daily Giveaway

The Best Reviewed Essay Collections of 2021

Featuring joan didion, rachel kushner, hanif abdurraqib, ann patchett, jenny diski, and more.

Well, friends, another grim and grueling plague year is drawing to a close, and that can mean only one thing: it’s time to put on our Book Marks stats hats and tabulate the best reviewed books of the past twelve months.

Yes, using reviews drawn from more than 150 publications, over the next two weeks we’ll be revealing the most critically-acclaimed books of 2021, in the categories of (deep breath): Memoir and Biography ; Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and Horror ; Short Story Collections ; Essay Collections; Poetry; Mystery and Crime; Graphic Literature; Literature in Translation; General Fiction; and General Nonfiction.

Today’s installment: Essay Collections .

Brought to you by Book Marks , Lit Hub’s “Rotten Tomatoes for books.”

1. These Precious Days by Ann Patchett (Harper)

21 Rave • 3 Positive • 1 Mixed Read Ann Patchett on creating the work space you need, here

“… excellent … Patchett has a talent for friendship and celebrates many of those friends here. She writes with pure love for her mother, and with humor and some good-natured exasperation at Karl, who is such a great character he warrants a book of his own. Patchett’s account of his feigned offer to buy a woman’s newly adopted baby when she expresses unwarranted doubts is priceless … The days that Patchett refers to are precious indeed, but her writing is anything but. She describes deftly, with a line or a look, and I considered the absence of paragraphs freighted with adjectives to be a mercy. I don’t care about the hue of the sky or the shade of the couch. That’s not writing; it’s decorating. Or hiding. Patchett’s heart, smarts and 40 years of craft create an economy that delivers her perfectly understated stories emotionally whole. Her writing style is most gloriously her own.”

–Alex Witchel ( The New York Times Book Review )

2. Let Me Tell You What I Mean by Joan Didion (Knopf)

14 Rave • 12 Positive • 6 Mixed Read an excerpt from Let Me Tell You What I Mean here

“In five decades’ worth of essays, reportage and criticism, Didion has documented the charade implicit in how things are, in a first-person, observational style that is not sacrosanct but common-sensical. Seeing as a way of extrapolating hypocrisy, disingenuousness and doubt, she’ll notice the hydrangeas are plastic and mention it once, in passing, sorting the scene. Her gaze, like a sentry on the page, permanently trained on what is being disguised … The essays in Let Me Tell You What I Mean are at once funny and touching, roving and no-nonsense. They are about humiliation and about notions of rightness … Didion’s pen is like a periscope onto the creative mind—and, as this collection demonstrates, it always has been. These essays offer a direct line to what’s in the offing.”

–Durga Chew-Bose ( The New York Times Book Review )

3. Orwell’s Roses by Rebecca Solnit (Viking)

12 Rave • 13 Positive • 1 Mixed Read an excerpt from Orwell’s Roses here

“… on its simplest level, a tribute by one fine essayist of the political left to another of an earlier generation. But as with any of Solnit’s books, such a description would be reductive: the great pleasure of reading her is spending time with her mind, its digressions and juxtapositions, its unexpected connections. Only a few contemporary writers have the ability to start almost anywhere and lead the reader on paths that, while apparently meandering, compel unfailingly and feel, by the end, cosmically connected … Somehow, Solnit’s references to Ross Gay, Michael Pollan, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Peter Coyote (to name but a few) feel perfectly at home in the narrative; just as later chapters about an eighteenth-century portrait by Sir Joshua Reynolds and a visit to the heart of the Colombian rose-growing industry seem inevitable and indispensable … The book provides a captivating account of Orwell as gardener, lover, parent, and endlessly curious thinker … And, movingly, she takes the time to find the traces of Orwell the gardener and lover of beauty in his political novels, and in his insistence on the value and pleasure of things .”

–Claire Messud ( Harper’s )

4. Girlhood by Melissa Febos (Bloomsbury)

16 Rave • 5 Positive • 1 Mixed Read an excerpt from Girlhood here

“Every once in a while, a book comes along that feels so definitive, so necessary, that not only do you want to tell everyone to read it now, but you also find yourself wanting to go back in time and tell your younger self that you will one day get to read something that will make your life make sense. Melissa Febos’s fierce nonfiction collection, Girlhood , might just be that book. Febos is one of our most passionate and profound essayists … Girlhood …offers us exquisite, ferocious language for embracing self-pleasure and self-love. It’s a book that women will wish they had when they were younger, and that they’ll rejoice in having now … Febos is a balletic memoirist whose capacious gaze can take in so many seemingly disparate things and unfurl them in a graceful, cohesive way … Intellectual and erotic, engaging and empowering[.]”

–Michelle Hart ( Oprah Daily )

5. Why Didn’t You Just Do What You Were Told by Jenny Diski (Bloomsbury)

14 Rave • 7 Positive

“[Diski’s] reputation as an original, witty and cant-free thinker on the way we live now should be given a significant boost. Her prose is elegant and amused, as if to counter her native melancholia and includes frequent dips into memorable images … Like the ideal artist Henry James conjured up, on whom nothing is lost, Diski notices everything that comes her way … She is discerning about serious topics (madness and death) as well as less fraught material, such as fashion … in truth Diski’s first-person voice is like no other, selectively intimate but not overbearingly egotistic, like, say, Norman Mailer’s. It bears some resemblance to Joan Didion’s, if Didion were less skittish and insistently stylish and generated more warmth. What they have in common is their innate skepticism and the way they ask questions that wouldn’t occur to anyone else … Suffice it to say that our culture, enmeshed as it is in carefully arranged snapshots of real life, needs Jenny Diski, who, by her own admission, ‘never owned a camera, never taken one on holiday.’” It is all but impossible not to warm up to a writer who observes herself so keenly … I, in turn, wish there were more people around who thought like Diski. The world would be a more generous, less shallow and infinitely more intriguing place.”

–Daphne Merkin ( The New York Times Book Review )

6. The Hard Crowd: Essays 2000-2020 by Rachel Kushner (Scribner)

12 Rave • 7 Positive Listen to an interview with Rachel Kushner here

“Whether she’s writing about Jeff Koons, prison abolition or a Palestinian refugee camp in Jerusalem, [Kushner’s] interested in appearances, and in the deeper currents a surface detail might betray … Her writing is magnetised by outlaw sensibility, hard lives lived at a slant, art made in conditions of ferment and unrest, though she rarely serves a platter that isn’t style-mag ready … She makes a pretty convincing case for a political dimension to Jeff Koons’s vacuities and mirrored surfaces, engages repeatedly with the Italian avant garde and writes best of all about an artist friend whose death undoes a spell of nihilism … It’s not just that Kushner is looking back on the distant city of youth; more that she’s the sole survivor of a wild crowd done down by prison, drugs, untimely death … What she remembers is a whole world, but does the act of immortalising it in language also drain it of its power,’neon, in pink, red, and warm white, bleeding into the fog’? She’s mining a rich seam of specificity, her writing charged by the dangers she ran up against. And then there’s the frank pleasure of her sentences, often shorn of definite articles or odd words, so they rev and bucket along … That New Journalism style, live hard and keep your eyes open, has long since given way to the millennial cult of the personal essay, with its performance of pain, its earnest display of wounds received and lessons learned. But Kushner brings it all flooding back. Even if I’m skeptical of its dazzle, I’m glad to taste something this sharp, this smart.”

–Olivia Laing ( The Guardian )

7. The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century by Amia Srinivasan (FSG)

12 Rave • 7 Positive • 5 Mixed • 1 Pan

“[A] quietly dazzling new essay collection … This is, needless to say, fraught terrain, and Srinivasan treads it with determination and skill … These essays are works of both criticism and imagination. Srinivasan refuses to resort to straw men; she will lay out even the most specious argument clearly and carefully, demonstrating its emotional power, even if her ultimate intention is to dismantle it … This, then, is a book that explicitly addresses intersectionality, even if Srinivasan is dissatisfied with the common—and reductive—understanding of the term … Srinivasan has written a compassionate book. She has also written a challenging one … Srinivasan proposes the kind of education enacted in this brilliant, rigorous book. She coaxes our imaginations out of the well-worn grooves of the existing order.”

–Jennifer Szalai ( The New York Times )

8. A Little Devil in America by Hanif Abdurraqib (Random House)

13 Rave • 4 Positive Listen to an interview with Hanif Abdurraqib here

“[A] wide, deep, and discerning inquest into the Beauty of Blackness as enacted on stages and screens, in unanimity and discord, on public airwaves and in intimate spaces … has brought to pop criticism and cultural history not just a poet’s lyricism and imagery but also a scholar’s rigor, a novelist’s sense of character and place, and a punk-rocker’s impulse to dislodge conventional wisdom from its moorings until something shakes loose and is exposed to audiences too lethargic to think or even react differently … Abdurraqib cherishes this power to enlarge oneself within or beyond real or imagined restrictions … Abdurraqib reminds readers of the massive viewing audience’s shock and awe over seeing one of the world’s biggest pop icons appearing midfield at this least radical of American rituals … Something about the seemingly insatiable hunger Abdurraqib shows for cultural transaction, paradoxical mischief, and Beauty in Blackness tells me he’ll get to such matters soon enough.”

–Gene Seymour ( Bookforum )

9. On Animals by Susan Orlean (Avid Reader Press)

11 Rave • 6 Positive • 1 Mixed Listen to an interview with Susan Orlean here

“I very much enjoyed Orlean’s perspective in these original, perceptive, and clever essays showcasing the sometimes strange, sometimes sick, sometimes tender relationships between people and animals … whether Orlean is writing about one couple’s quest to find their lost dog, the lives of working donkeys of the Fez medina in Morocco, or a man who rescues lions (and happily allows even full grown males to gently chew his head), her pages are crammed with quirky characters, telling details, and flabbergasting facts … Readers will find these pages full of astonishments … Orlean excels as a reporter…Such thorough reporting made me long for updates on some of these stories … But even this criticism only testifies to the delight of each of the urbane and vivid stories in this collection. Even though Orlean claims the animals she writes about remain enigmas, she makes us care about their fates. Readers will continue to think about these dogs and donkeys, tigers and lions, chickens and pigeons long after we close the book’s covers. I hope most of them are still well.”

–Sy Montgomery ( The Boston Globe )

10. Graceland, at Last: Notes on Hope and Heartache from the American South  by Margaret Renkl (Milkweed Editions)

9 Rave • 5 Positive Read Margaret Renkl on finding ideas everywhere, here

“Renkl’s sense of joyful belonging to the South, a region too often dismissed on both coasts in crude stereotypes and bad jokes, co-exists with her intense desire for Southerners who face prejudice or poverty finally to be embraced and supported … Renkl at her most tender and most fierce … Renkl’s gift, just as it was in her first book Late Migrations , is to make fascinating for others what is closest to her heart … Any initial sense of emotional whiplash faded as as I proceeded across the six sections and realized that the book is largely organized around one concept, that of fair and loving treatment for all—regardless of race, class, sex, gender or species … What rises in me after reading her essays is Lewis’ famous urging to get in good trouble to make the world fairer and better. Many people in the South are doing just that—and through her beautiful writing, Renkl is among them.”

–Barbara J. King ( NPR )

Our System:

RAVE = 5 points • POSITIVE = 3 points • MIXED = 1 point • PAN = -5 points

• Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Previous Article

Next article, support lit hub..

Join our community of readers.

to the Lithub Daily

Popular posts.

Follow us on Twitter

Prayers for the Stolen: How Two Artists Portray the Violence of Human Trafficking in Mexico

• RSS - Posts

Literary Hub

Created by Grove Atlantic and Electric Literature

Sign Up For Our Newsletters

How to Pitch Lit Hub

Advertisers: Contact Us

Privacy Policy

Support Lit Hub - Become A Member

Become a Lit Hub Supporting Member : Because Books Matter

For the past decade, Literary Hub has brought you the best of the book world for free—no paywall. But our future relies on you. In return for a donation, you’ll get an ad-free reading experience , exclusive editors’ picks, book giveaways, and our coveted Joan Didion Lit Hub tote bag . Most importantly, you’ll keep independent book coverage alive and thriving on the internet.

Become a member for as low as $5/month

Essays About Life: Top 5 Examples Plus 7 Prompts

Life envelops various meanings; if you are writing essays about life, discover our comprehensive guide with examples and prompts to help you with your essay.

What is life? You can ask anyone; I assure you, no two people will have the same answer. How we define life relies on our beliefs and priorities. One can say that life is the capacity for growth or the time between birth and death. Others can share that life is the constant pursuit of purpose and fulfillment. Life is a broad topic that inspires scholars, poets, and many others. It stimulates discussions that encourage diverse perspectives and interpretations. 

5 Essay Examples

1. essay on life by anonymous on toppr.com, 2. the theme of life, existence and consciousness by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 3. compassion can save life by anonymous on papersowl.com, 4. a life of consumption vs. a life of self-realization by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 5. you only live once: a motto for life by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 1. what is the true meaning of life, 2. my life purpose, 3. what makes life special, 4. how to appreciate life, 5. books about life, 6. how to live a healthy life, 7. my idea of a perfect life.

“…quality of Life carries huge importance. Above all, the ultimate purpose should be to live a meaningful life. A meaningful life is one which allows us to connect with our deeper self.”

The author defines life as something that differentiates man from inorganic matter. It’s an aspect that processes and examines a person’s actions that develop through growth. For some, life is a pain because of failures and struggles, but it’s temporary. For the writer, life’s challenges help us move forward, be strong, and live to the fullest. You can also check out these essays about utopia .

“… Kafka defines the dangers of depending on art for life. The hunger artist expresses his dissatisfaction with the world by using himself and not an external canvas to create his artwork, forcing a lack of separation between the artist and his art. Therefore, instead of the art depending on the audience, the artist depends on the audience, meaning when the audience’s appreciation for work dwindles, their appreciation for the artist diminishes as well, leading to the hunger artist’s death.”

The essay talks about “ A Hunger Artist ” by Franz Kafka, who describes his views on life through art. The author analyzes Kafka’s fictional main character and his anxieties and frustrations about life and the world. This perception shows how much he suffered as an artist and how unhappy he was. Through the essay, the writer effectively explains Kafka’s conclusion that artists’ survival should not depend on their art.

“Compassion is that feeling that we’ve all experienced at some point in our lives. When we know that there is someone that really cares for us. Compassion comes from that moment when we can see the world through another person’s eyes.”

The author is a nurse who believes that to be professional, they need to be compassionate and treat their patients with respect, empathy, and dignity. One can show compassion through small actions such as talking and listening to patients’ grievances. In conclusion, compassion can save a person’s life by accepting everyone regardless of race, gender, etc.

“… A life of self-realization is more preferable and beneficial in comparison with a life on consumption. At the same time, this statement may be objected as person’s consumption leads to his or her happiness.”

The author examines Jon Elster’s theory to find out what makes a person happy and what people should think and feel about their material belongings. The essay mentions a list of common activities that make us feel happy and satisfied, such as buying new things. The writer explains that Elster’s statement about the prevalence of self-realization in consumption will always trigger intense debate.

“Appreciate the moment you’ve been given and appreciate the people you’ve been given to spend it with, because no matter how beautiful or tragic a moment is, it always ends. So hold on a little tighter, smile a little bigger, cry a little harder, laugh a little louder, forgive a little quicker, and love a whole lot deeper because these are the moments you will remember when you’re old and wishing you could rewind time.”

This essay explains that some things and events only happen once in a person’s life. The author encourages teenagers to enjoy the little things in their life and do what they love as much as they can. When they turn into adults, they will no longer have the luxury to do whatever they want.

The author suggests doing something meaningful as a stress reliever, trusting people, refusing to give up on the things that make you happy, and dying with beautiful memories. For help with your essays, check out our round-up of the best essay checkers .

7 Prompts for Essays About Life

Life encompasses many values and depends on one’s perception. For most, life is about reaching achievements to make themselves feel alive. Use this prompt to compile different meanings of life and provide a background on why a person defines life as they do.

Take Joseph Campbell’s, “Life has no meaning. Each of us has meaning, and we bring it to life. It is a waste to be asking the question when you are the answer,” for example. This quote pertains to his belief that an individual is responsible for giving life meaning. 

For this prompt, share with your readers your current purpose in life. It can be as simple as helping your siblings graduate or something grand, such as changing a national law to make a better world. You can ask others about their life purpose to include in your essay and give your opinion on why your answers are different or similar.

Life is a fascinating subject, as each person has a unique concept. How someone lives depends on many factors, such as opportunities, upbringing, and philosophies. All of these elements affect what we consider “special.”

Share what you think makes life special. For instance, talk about your relationships, such as your close-knit family or best friends. Write about the times when you thought life was worth living. You might also be interested in these essays about yourself .

Life in itself is a gift. However, most of us follow a routine of “wake up, work (or study), sleep, repeat.” Our constant need to survive makes us take things for granted. When we endlessly repeat a routine, life becomes mundane. For this prompt, offer tips on how to avoid a monotonous life, such as keeping a gratitude journal or traveling.

Many literary pieces use life as their subject. If you have a favorite book about life, recommend it to your readers by summarizing the content and sharing how the book influenced your outlook on life. You can suggest more than one book and explain why everyone should read them.

For example, Paulo Coelho’s “The Alchemist” reminds its readers to live in the moment and never fear failure.

To be healthy doesn’t only pertain to our physical condition. It also refers to our mental, spiritual, and emotional well-being. To live a happy and full life, individuals must strive to be healthy in all areas. For this prompt, list ways to achieve a healthy life. Section your essay and present activities to improve health, such as eating healthy foods, talking with friends, etc.

No one has a perfect life, but describe what it’ll be like if you do. Start with the material things, such as your house, clothes, etc. Then, move to how you connect with others. In your conclusion, answer whether you’re willing to exchange your current life for the “perfect life” you described and why.  See our essay writing tips to learn more!

Maria Caballero is a freelance writer who has been writing since high school. She believes that to be a writer doesn't only refer to excellent syntax and semantics but also knowing how to weave words together to communicate to any reader effectively.

View all posts

• Literature & Fiction
• Essays & Correspondence

Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime Try Prime and start saving today with fast, free delivery

Amazon Prime includes:

Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.

• Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
• Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
• Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
• A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
• Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
• Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access

Important:  Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.

Return this item for free

Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges

• Go to your orders and start the return
• Select the return method

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

The Book of Delights: The life-affirming New York Times bestseller Paperback – September 8, 2020

Purchase options and add-ons.

A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER As Heard on NPR's This American Life 'The delights he extols here (music, laughter, generosity, poetry, lots of nature) are bulwarks against casual cruelties . . . contagious in their joy' New York Times The winner of the NBCC Award for Poetry offers up a spirited collection of short lyric essays, written daily over a tumultuous year, reminding us of the purpose and pleasure of praising, extolling, and celebrating ordinary wonders . Among Gay's funny, poetic, philosophical delights: a friend's unabashed use of air quotes, cradling a tomato seedling aboard an aeroplane, the silent nod of acknowledgement between the only two black people in a room. But Gay never dismisses the complexities, even the terrors, of living in America as a black man or the ecological and psychic violence of our consumer culture or the loss of those he loves. More than anything other subject, though, Gay celebrates the beauty of the natural world - his garden, the flowers peeking out of the sidewalk, the hypnotic movements of a praying mantis. The Book of Delights is about our shared bonds, and the rewards that come from a life closely observed . These remarkable pieces serve as a powerful and necessary reminder that we can, and should, stake out a space in our lives for delight . *** 'These charming, digressive "essayettes" surprise and challenge more than a reader might expect . . . experiences of "delight," recorded daily for a year, vary widely but yield revealing patterns through insights about everything from nature and the body to race and masculinity.' New Yorker ' Pure balm for your soul. Savor one at a time every morning, this summer, or wolf them all down en masse on a gorgeous sunny day.' Celeste Ng 'A reminder of what the personal essay is best at: finding the profound in the mundane . . . His delight is infectious. It's hard to read Gay and not to be won over .' Seattle Times

• Print length 274 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Coronet
• Publication date September 8, 2020
• Dimensions 5.08 x 0.94 x 7.8 inches
• ISBN-10 152934977X
• ISBN-13 978-1529349771
• See all details

Frequently bought together

Similar items that may deliver to you quickly

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Coronet (September 8, 2020)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 274 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 152934977X
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1529349771
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 7.4 ounces
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5.08 x 0.94 x 7.8 inches
• #1,247 in Political Philosophy (Books)
• #1,620 in Essays (Books)

About the author

Ross Gay is the author of The Book of Delights, a genre-defying book of essays, and three books of poetry: Against Which, Bringing the Shovel Down, and Catalog of Unabashed Gratitude. He is also the co-author, with Aimee Nezhukumatathil, of the chapbook "Lace and Pyrite: Letters from Two Gardens," in addition to being co-author, with Richard Wehrenberg, Jr., of the chapbook, "River." He is a founding editor, with Karissa Chen and Patrick Rosal, of the online sports magazine Some Call it Ballin', in addition to being an editor with the chapbook presses Q Avenue and Ledge Mule Press. Ross is a founding board member of the Bloomington Community Orchard, a non-profit, free-fruit-for-all food justice and joy project. He has received fellowships from Cave Canem, the Bread Loaf Writer's Conference, and the Guggenheim Foundation. Ross teaches at Indiana University.

Author website: http://www.rossgay.net

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Reviews with images

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Paul Auster, American author of The New York Trilogy, dies aged 77

The writer of The New York Trilogy, Leviathan and 4 3 2 1 – known for his stylised postmodernist fiction – has died from complications of lung cancer

‘A literary voice for the ages’: Paul Auster remembered by Ian McEwan, Joyce Carol Oates and more

Paul Auster – a life in quotes

Paul Auster – a life in pictures

Paul Auster, the author of 34 books including the acclaimed New York Trilogy, has died aged 77.

The author died on Tuesday due to complications from lung cancer, the Guardian has been told.

Auster became known for his “highly stylised, quirkily riddlesome postmodernist fiction in which narrators are rarely other than unreliable and the bedrock of plot is continually shifting,” the novelist Joyce Carol Oates wrote in 2010.

His stories often play with themes of coincidence, chance and fate. Many of his protagonists are writers themselves, and his body of work is self-referential, with characters from early novels appearing again in later ones.

“Auster has established one of the most distinctive niches in contemporary literature,” wrote critic Michael Dirda in 2008. “His narrative voice is as hypnotic as that of the Ancient Mariner. Start one of his books and by page two you cannot choose but hear.”

The author was born in Newark, New Jersey, in 1947. According to Auster, his writing life began at the age of eight when he missed out on getting an autograph from his baseball hero, Willie Mays, because neither he nor his parents had carried a pencil to the game. From then on, he took a pencil everywhere. “If there’s a pencil in your pocket, there’s a good chance that one day you’ll feel tempted to start using it,” he wrote in a 1995 essay .

While hiking during a summer camp aged 14, Auster witnessed a boy inches away from him getting struck by lightning and dying instantly – an event that he said “absolutely changed” his life and that he thought about “every day”. Chance, “understandably, became a recurring theme in his fiction,” wrote the critic Laura Miller in 2017. A similar incident occurs in Auster’s 2017 Booker-shortlisted novel 4 3 2 1: one of the book’s four versions of protagonist Archie Ferguson runs under a tree at a summer camp and is killed by a falling branch when lightning strikes.

Auster studied at Columbia University before moving to Paris in the early 1970s, where he worked a variety of jobs, including translation, and lived with his “on-again off-again” girlfriend, the writer Lydia Davis, whom he had met while at college. In 1974, they returned to the US and married. In 1977, the couple had a son, Daniel, but separated shortly afterwards.

In January 1979, Auster’s father, Samuel, died, and the event became the seed for the writer’s first memoir, The Invention of Solitude, published in 1982. In it, Auster revealed that his paternal grandfather was shot and killed by his grandmother, who was acquitted on grounds of insanity. “A boy cannot live through this kind of thing without being affected by it as a man,” Auster wrote in reference to his father, with whom he described himself having an “un-movable relationship, cut off from each other on opposite sides of a wall”.

Auster’s breakthrough came with the 1985 publication of City of Glass, the first novel in his New York trilogy. While the books are ostensibly mystery stories, Auster wielded the form to ask existential questions about identity. “The more [Auster’s detectives] stalk their eccentric quarry, the more they seem actually to be stalking the Big Questions – the implications of authorship, the enigmas of epistemology, the veils and masks of language,” wrote the critic and screenwriter Stephen Schiff in 1987.

Auster published regularly throughout the 80s, 90s and 00s, writing more than a dozen novels including Moon Palace (1989), The Music of Chance (1990), The Book of Illusions (2002) and Oracle Night (2003). He also became involved in film, writing the screenplay for Smoke, directed by Wayne Wang, for which he won the Independent Spirit award for best first screenplay in 1995.

after newsletter promotion

In 1981, Auster met the writer Siri Hustvedt and they married the following year. In 1987 they had a daughter, Sophie, who became a singer and actor. Auster’s 1992 novel Leviathan, about a man who accidentally blows himself up, features a character called Iris Vegan, who is the heroine of Hustvedt’s first novel, The Blindfold.

Auster was better known in Europe than in his native United States: “Merely a bestselling author in these parts,” read a 2007 New York magazine article , “Auster is a rock star in Paris.” In 2006, he was awarded Spain’s Prince of Asturias prize for literature, and in 1993 he was given the Prix Médicis Étranger for Leviathan. He was also a Commandeur de l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres.

In April 2022, Auster and Davis’s son, Daniel, died from a drug overdose. In March 2023, Hustvedt revealed that Auster was being treated for cancer after having been diagnosed the previous December. His final novel, Baumgartner, about a widowed septuagenarian writer, was published in October.

Auster is survived by Hustvedt, their daughter Sophie Auster, his sister Janet Auster, and a grandson.

• Paul Auster

More on this story

Paul Auster obituary

‘I remember Paul Auster’: a tribute by Jonathan Lethem to his friend

‘Getting a book idea feels like a buzz in the head’: Paul Auster – a life in quotes

Brooklyn’s bard: Paul Auster’s tricksy fiction captivated a generation

‘This might be the last thing I ever write’: Paul Auster on cancer, connection and the fallacy of closure

Paul Auster: ‘The gun that killed my grandfather was the same gun that ruined my father’s life’

Baumgartner by Paul Auster review – love, ageing and loss

Paul Auster: ‘It’s distress that generates art’

Comments (…), most viewed.

Utah high school removes class assignment on student essay titled ‘It Is So Hard to Be Trans’

The essay, published in the new york times, contained no explicit or “pornographic” content that would have required its removal under utah law..

(Google Maps) Herriman High School, as shown in a 2021 Google Maps image, in Herriman, Utah. Jordan School District officials ordered that a class assignment at the school involving a transgender student's essay be removed.

Jordan School District officials ordered that an assignment involving a Texas student’s essay published in The New York Times titled “It Is So Hard to Be Trans” be removed from a Herriman High School class’s curriculum after it was brought to the attention of administrators.

“We apologize to any student offended by a Herriman High School classroom assignment involving a New York Times student essay and the disruption to learning it may have caused,” district spokesperson Sandra Riesgraf said in a statement Monday.

The district investigated the assignment, “which asked students to break down parts of speech in the essay,” after school administrators were notified, Riesgraf said. The assignment was ultimately removed and is “no longer part of the class.”

“Appropriate administrative action will be taken,” the statement continued, though the statement did not specify what that action would entail.

The district also did not specify why the assignment was removed. The content does not seem to violate Utah’s sensitive materials law .

But it did seem to prompt outrage after photos of the printed-out, stapled essay made rounds in conservative social media circles as early as last Thursday, with some posts claiming students were required to write a response to the essay explaining why being transgender “isn’t a choice.”

Riesgraf said that claim was false. “Students were not required to take a stance or form an opinion on why being trans isn’t a choice,” Riesgraf said. “The assignment was to review the writing, not the subject.”

Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, weighed in on X , formerly Twitter, arguing that he didn’t see how the essay would “fit into any curriculum that is state approved.”

“I’ve asked the district to investigate,” he wrote.

McCay did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Salt Lake Tribune.

The assigned essay had been selected as one of the Top 11 winners in a 2023 student editorial contest through the The Learning Network, a free resource for teachers curated by The New York Times.

It was written by then 16-year-old Callisto Lim, a student at the Kinder High School for the Performing and Visual Arts in Houston, Texas. The essay details why Callisto felt scared for their “right to exist,” citing several states that had passed anti-transgender legislation.

“I am scared that if I stay in Texas I will be denied the health care that I need because of people like Governor Greg Abbott,” Callisto wrote.

Callisto’s essay contains no explicit “pornographic or indecent material” that would make it illegal under Utah’s current sensitive materials law.

Utah law also does not explicitly prohibit classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity, though lawmakers have made attempts to pass legislation banning such topics in the past.

Earlier this year, Rep. Jeff Stenquist , R-Draper, proposed a bill that would have prevented school officials from “endorsing, promoting, or disparaging certain beliefs or viewpoints,” building upon existing restrictions meant to uphold “constitutional freedom” in Utah public schools.

The bill would have specifically added “gender identity,” “sexual orientation,” and “political and social viewpoints” as restricted topics, but it ultimately failed to pass .

A year prior, Stenquist also ran a bill that would have prohibited any discussion of sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. HB550 took language directly from a controversial Florida bill that became more widely known as the “Don’t Say Gay” measure.

But after pushback from the LGBTQ community, Stenquist revised his draft , lifting the proposed ban on sexual orientation and gender identity but keeping the prohibition on sexuality. The bill failed to pass.

Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible

RELATED STORIES

Utah plan to ban pride flags in classrooms is rejected by house, transgender jordan school district student speaks out as adults discuss school restroom use, school districts await statewide book ban list as utah plans to retroactively enforce new law, weber state university takes utah nurse to next level in life, career., we know more about what ryan smith wants in his nhl, nba entertainment district, mitt romney’s idea to quell student protesters: don’t forgive their college loans., judge will hear phil lyman’s demand to keep running mate on friday as utah’s ballot print deadline looms, bagley cartoon: signs of the times, evictions at trailer court in moab ‘devastating,’ city council says, featured local savings.

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes
• Entertainment

Let's Break Down the Tattooist of Auschwitz Book and TV Series: See the Differences

The TV show is based Heather Morris' novel of the same name that follows Holocaust survivor Lale Sokolov's path to survival

Peacock; amazon

Peacock’s adaptation of Heather Morris’ novel about the true story of Lale Sokolov, a Jewish prisoner who was forced to work as a tattooist at Auschwitz-Birkenau during the Holocaust, is now on the streaming site.

The Tattooist of Auschwitz, starring Harvey Keitel , Melanie Lynskey and The Little Mermaid breakout Jonah Hauer-King , retells the true story of two Jewish concentration camp prisoners and their unlikely love story in the midst of the devastating persecution and murder of six million Jews.

The historical drama is another iteration of Sokolov’s recollection of his time as one of 1.3 million people on the grounds of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, his eventual escape and the survivor’s guilt he faced in his life abroad decades after the war concluded. 

However, the show does include some changes from the book. Read on to see how the novel and Peacock series differ. Warning: Spoilers ahead for  The Tattooist of Auschwitz

Martin Mlaka/Sky UK

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

The Interviews Between Lale Sokolov and Heather Morris

The book is written in a third-person point of view, with Lale serving as the all-seeing narrator and sole protagonist. The novel also begins with Lale being forcibly transported to the concentration camp with many others. The book then walks readers through Lale’s years at the camp in chronological order.

Meanwhile, the series takes a completely different storytelling approach and positions it as an interview between Lale and the author of the book, Heather Morris. Audiences are given a peek into the relationship between the storyteller and her subject. As the series progresses, Lale grapples with his survivor's guilt and recalls the tragedies he endured. Thanks to the interview format, Lale’s answers provide entirely new insights into Lale as he reflects on his time at the camp.

Lale’s Hallucinations

In the book, audiences don’t learn of Lale’s survivor’s guilt in its full capacity because Lale is constantly looking ahead to the next thing he must do to survive while in the camp. Therefore, his ongoing memories of those who were in the camp with him, as well as those who tortured him in the camp, only arrive in the book as the moment occurs.

The series draws the audience into Lale’s psyche and shows imagery of who haunts the survivor’s memories. Throughout the series, he shares a pivotal moment from his time with Heather and then a figure from that moment appears in the present day and forces Lale to reckon with his past and memory. Several times throughout the series, Lale is haunted by the SS German officer Stefan Baretzki (Jonas Nay), as well as the men that he befriended who died long before the camps were liberated, including Aaron (Ilan Galkoff).

Victor, the Polish Worker Who Willingly Reports on Site

The novel shares the story of Lale’s relationship with Victor, a Polish worker who is paid to work at the camp and build the crematoriums. He serves as an ally to Lale, who exchanges food for valuables that Gita finds in her “job” of sorting through the prisoners’ confiscated valuable belongings.

This character does not exist in the TV series.

Penicillin for Gita

In the novel, Gita falls ill, and in a moment of desperation and devotion, Lale risks his own life to exchange jewels from Gita’s job in return for penicillin to cure her. 

But in the series, Lale is sent to see Dr. Schumann (a doctor performing experiments on the camp's victims) to assist the SS officers with their tattooing tasks. While there, he sneaks into a private area to ask a nurse for penicillin.

Once he obtains the medication, Lale then has another prisoner reluctantly deliver the medication to her.

Flashback to Lale’s life

Given the book begins with Lale heading straight to Auschwitz, readers don’t learn much about his life before the Holocaust. It's only when Lale reckons with the fact that he had been imprisoned for at least two years that he begins to recall his relationship with his parents and siblings back in Slovakia. 

The series shares those memories at the start, depicting Lale leaving his mother and sister, and the emotional separation between the three. 

Gita’s Escape

In the book, Gita and four other women from the camp escape their transport from Auschwitz to another camp and arrive at the door of a Polish family, who reluctantly take them in.

Meanwhile, the series follows Gita and her friends throughout their escape. Although their escape from the transport is the same, she and her friend lose another friend on the path. Their late friend dies in her sleep, leaving the two to say their final goodbye to her in the snow.

In the book, Gita is reunited with her brothers, who are under Russian captivity. But in the series, she learns from a neighbor who arrives at Auschwitz that her entire family was killed during the war.

Lale’s Escape

In both the show and book, Lale arrives on the doorstep of Russian soldiers in Austria and becomes a captive of theirs, tasked with recruiting young women to meet the Russian men. 

In the novel, Lale’s experience with finding the young women lasts significantly longer, and the reader follows his several outings to find women. But one day, one of the soldiers tells Lale that he will be given the chance do his “job” alone, leading Lale to head straight for the train station. Once he arrives at the train station, he pulls out his bag of jewels from the camp and pays the ticket taker, and heads right for Slovakia.

However, in the series, Lale only briefly has to recruit young women for the soldiers. Additionally, one of the young women he meets assists him later on in his escape.

Lale Considers Assisting Baretzki

The series concludes with Lale revealing to Heather that many years after the war concluded, he and Gita were asked by German forces to testify in support of SS officer Baretzki and speak out against the war crimes he committed. In the show, Lale contemplates testifying for Baretzki, while Gita vehemently expresses her refusal. Lale does not end up testifying, and Heather also reveals she looked up Baretzki’s fate, that he was found guilty and then committed suicide in prison.

The novel does not include Baretzki’s fate in the story itself, but the novel provides an “Additional Information” section after the epilogue, reporting that Baretzki was convicted in 1961 and, in 1988, died by suicide in prison.

Related Articles

By the Book

Letter by Letter, Steve Gleason Typed His Memoir With His Eyes

The former N.F.L. player has been living with A.L.S. for more than a decade. Sharing “the most lacerating and vulnerable times” in “A Life Impossible” was worth the physical and emotional toll, he says.

Credit... Rebecca Clarke

Supported by

• Share full article

Describe your ideal reading experience (when, where, what, how).

I have always loved to read, and I read nearly anywhere. Journalists used to get a kick out of the fact that in the midst of the chaotic joy of the [New Orleans] Saints locker room, I would lie on the floor reading books.

These days, while I’m not so good at flipping pages, I still tear through books. I listen on Audible, or read on Kindle, and for the books I’d like to pass on, I buy the book for the shelves in our house.

The ideal reading experience? For me, there is nothing more glorious than sitting outside under the shade of an oak tree with my wife, Michel, or our 12-year-old son, Rivers, listening on Audible or hearing them read the hard copy. (Rivers and I just finished the young readers adaptation of “The Boys in the Boat,” by Daniel James Brown.) Our 5-year-old daughter, Gray, is just learning to read, so I look forward to continuing this tradition in nature, my sanctuary, for many years.

What book do you turn to during hard times?

Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning.” There were a couple years, as I was losing the ability to move, talk and breathe, that I felt so lonely, ashamed and weary that I was ready to give up and die. His words helped me choose life.

What did it take to write a nearly 300-page book?

In a word … everything. I type with my eyes, letter by letter, so to write this, it took a physical toll to write for several hours each day for two years. It took patience and discipline. People often talk about “writer’s block,” but I think I experienced something of the opposite thousands of times over the past couple years. Ordinary writers may have a wonderful idea to get on the page, then they quickly write it down. But I type so slowly that the wonderful idea that was so vivid and clear eventually slipped into the fog as I trudged and typed.

It also took an emotional toll. To relive the most lacerating and vulnerable times of my life, then to share those experiences in a raw, truthful human way, rather than a heroic way, took an extraordinary amount of trust. It’s clear to me that sharing our shortcomings and weaknesses with each other is our greatest strength. Our salvation.

Why do you describe yourself as afraid to finish it?

There were multiple reasons. Unlike most authors, I’m not able to quickly scroll through a chapter to revise or edit. I have bragged on social media, “I get more done in one day than most people get done in 15 minutes!” So, during the end of the writing process, there was fear that I would lose the input I needed to tell our story fully and truthfully.

Michel and I took some enormous risks in openly and transparently sharing our journey as a couple enduring the dark traumas of life with A.L.S. When you read the searing experience that we have been through, you may feel kind of like you’re overhearing conversations that you shouldn’t be hearing. But these difficult, truthful and compassionate conversations were our redemption, and our healing. I also took some personal risks in sharing my fairly unconventional views on religion and spirituality.

I think the most frightening aspect may be that once published, my life story would become solid, static and fixed. That is so crazy to me, because, as a lifelong explorer, my perspectives, philosophical outlooks, and beliefs are dynamic and fluid.

Galleys for your book opened with a quote from Shakespeare, “Tears water our growth.” How did you come across it? Why that quote?

I know this will come as a shock, but not everything I read on the internet is true! While this quote was attributed to Shakespeare, we did a little digging and there is no record of him ever saying or writing this, even though it’s constantly attributed to him. Although, in “As You Like It,” he does write: “Sweet are the uses of adversity. …” [The quote is now attributed to Author Unknown.]

What kind of reader were you as a child? Do any childhood books and authors stick with you?

My mom was a language arts teacher, so she would read to me nearly every night and I was a voracious reader growing up. The book that stands out from my youth is “Ender’s Game,” a novel by Orson Scott Card. In sixth grade I found this book in the Bookmobile, a big yellow van that I remember with great nostalgia. I can’t say exactly why, but I also read it a couple years after I was diagnosed with A.L.S.

I sense that in both my adolescence and the crazy unknowns of life where I was losing the ability to move, talk and breathe, I resonated with two themes in “Ender’s Game” — feeling isolation, and working to discover my own identity.

I’m reminded of a profound truth in a quote from Ender: “In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him.” In embracing this paradox, I find strength and compassion in the midst of adversity.

What book has had the greatest impact on you?

Wow, this is an impossible question to answer, but I enjoy dancing with the impossible. It would be “21 Lessons for the 21st Century ,” by Yuval Noah Harari . I read this in early 2019, my ninth season with A.L.S. In “21 Lessons,” Harari explores the profound challenges facing humanity, including technological disruption, political polarization and existential risks. With such rapid change, life will become ever more chaotic.

Harari mentions multiple times that the realest thing in the world is suffering. He goes on to say that suffering is a product of patterns in our own minds, and offers a tool that has helped him alleviate suffering and be more resilient — meditation. I now train my mind in meditation for two to three hours a day. I didn’t realize it then, but as I started meditation, I was embarking on a practice of a lifetime.

What’s the last great book you read?

When I was diagnosed, one of the first questions I asked in a journal entry was, “Can I discover peace of mind, even if this disease destroys my body?” That inquiry has been a guiding light for me the past 13 years. “The Good Life: Lessons From the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness,” by Robert Waldinger and Marc Schulz, has real-life stories I could relate to, providing insights which have helped illuminate the path for me to live longer, and be grateful and content.

The last book that made you cry?

“I Wish for You,” by David Wax and illustrated by Brett Blumenthal. During spring break, as our daughter nestled beside me in bed, our caregiver, Jenni, read from the book. It lists about a dozen of the most important character traits and values that I aspire to embody and instill in our kids. Witnessing Gray following along with her tiny finger, I was overwhelmed by the miraculousness of the moment. Despite being 10 years past my expiration date, here I was, sharing a cherished reading experience.

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

The complicated, generous life  of Paul Auster, who died on April 30 , yielded a body of work of staggering scope and variety .

“Real Americans,” a new novel by Rachel Khong , follows three generations of Chinese Americans as they all fight for self-determination in their own way .

“The Chocolate War,” published 50 years ago, became one of the most challenged books in the United States. Its author, Robert Cormier, spent years fighting attempts to ban it .

Joan Didion’s distinctive prose and sharp eye were tuned to an outsider’s frequency, telling us about ourselves in essays that are almost reflexively skeptical. Here are her essential works .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

Advertisement

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Bestselling novelist Paul Auster, author of 'The New York Trilogy,' dies at 77

"You think it will never happen to you," Paul Auster wrote about aging and mortality in his 2012 book Winter Journal. He's pictured above in New York in April 2007. Nicholas Roberts/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

"You think it will never happen to you," Paul Auster wrote about aging and mortality in his 2012 book Winter Journal. He's pictured above in New York in April 2007.

Best-selling author Paul Auster, whose novels addressed existential questions of identity, language, and literature and created mysteries that raised more questions than they answered, has died. He was 77.

His death was confirmed by friend Jacki Lyden on behalf of Auster's family.

A leading figure in his generation of postmodern American writers, Auster wrote more than 20 novels, including The New York Trilogy , which included his 1985 breakthrough book, City of Glass, and his ambitious 2017 novel 4 3 2 1, which ran close to 1,000 pages.

"I think he was a really exciting and compelling voice of his generation," says Alys Moody, a professor who teaches postwar American literature. "Auster will be remembered for being one of the leading figures in a post-modern tradition that's reimagining how central language is, and how central writing is, and how central above all storytelling is."

Author Interviews

Paul auster meditates on life, death and near misses.

Paul Auster tackles homelessness and broken hearts

Auster was born in 1947 in Newark, N.J., to Jewish middle-class parents of Austrian descent. After he graduated from Columbia University with undergraduate and Master's degrees, he moved to Paris. There, he supported himself by translating French literature. Auster returned to the United States in 1974, part of a disillusioned generation. In a private 1992 interview with me, he said his novel Leviathan was about a character much like himself: "Someone filled with a kind of idealistic hope about what could be done about the future of the country and the world, who saw all these dreams bit by bit be dismantled by subsequent political events."

In his 20s, Auster published his own essays, poems, and translations. A strange event in 1980 led to his first novel.

"I was living alone in Brooklyn. And I did receive a telephone call," he recalled. "And the person on the other end asked if he had reached the Pinkerton Agency. And, of course, I said no and hung up. But after the second or third time, I said, well, what if I said Yes? And that was the genesis of the novel."

The story of that novel, City of Glass, is set in motion when the main character, a detective fiction writer named Quinn, gets a late night phone call:

Book Reviews

'winter journal': paul auster on aging and mortality, a personal 'report from the interior' of author paul auster.

"I would like to speak to Mr. Paul Auster." "There's no one here by that name." "Paul Auster. Of the Auster Detective Agency." "I'm sorry," said Quinn. "You must have the wrong number." "This is a matter of utmost urgency," said the voice. "There's nothing I can do for you," said Quinn. "There is no Paul Auster here." "You don't understand," said the voice. "Time is running out."

The writer in the novel takes on the identity of the detective, who sets out to solve the mystery of "what is reality?" He was sometimes criticized for the bizarre coincidences in his work, but the events of his life, he said, outstripped the implausibility in his fiction.

"When I was about 13 or 14 years old and, I was off at a summer camp, and we got caught in a storm. And a boy standing next to me was killed by a bolt of lightning. Dropped dead. Struck down by the sky. I think maybe that informs my work more than any book I have ever read," he explained.

4 lives in parallel run through ambitious '4 3 2 1'

1 character, 4 different lives in paul auster's '4 3 2 1', 1 character, 4 different lives in paul auster's '4 3 2 1'.

Auster also wrote and co-directed a handful of independent films. He was never at a loss for words. In 2017, he published an 880-page novel called 4 3 2 1 that told the story of one main character in four different versions, in alternating chapters. When he finished that book, he decided to take a break from fiction, so he began writing a 780-page biography of 19 th century author Stephen Crane.

"I have tried in my books to turn myself inside out as much as possible," he said. "And not to hide behind style, tricks — whatever you might call it."

Auster, whose literary influences included Franz Kafka and Samuel Beckett, will be remembered for the purity of his language, and the seriousness of his intent.

Correction May 1, 2024

An earlier version of this story indicated that Paul Auster was born in 1937. He was born in 1947.

• City of Glass
• New York City writers

The Book of Life

72 pages • 2 hours read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapters 1-5

Chapters 6-10

Chapters 11-16

Chapters 17-21

Chapters 22-26

Chapters 27-31

Chapters 32-36

Chapters 37-41

Character Analysis

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Jack Blackfriars

Content Warning:  The section contains depictions of child abuse, drugging and overdose, forced pregnancy, graphic torture, kidnapping, miscarriage, racial slurs, rape, and suicide.

Diana and Matthew initially encountered Jack during their timewalk in Shadow of Night . In The Book of Life , Jack transforms into a vampire when Andrew Hubbard, the vampire king of London, turns the dying 20-year-old before he succumbs to the plague. Jack’s character significantly illustrates Diana and Matthew’s parenting skills while offering an alternate example of how blood rage can manifest.

Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!

• 7,550+ In-Depth Study Guides
• 4,850+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
• Downloadable PDFs

Jack vividly exemplifies the devastating nature of blood rage. Encouraged by Benjamin Fuchs, the young artist brutally takes the lives of several individuals across Europe. Jack’s blood rage easily triggers in response to a range of emotions, in stark contrast to Matthew’s, which is provoked only by anger. However, Jack also learns to manage his blood rage effectively. Sometimes, his blood rage takes the form of frenzied drawing or music rather than violent impulses. Under Matthew’s guidance, Jack learns to establish boundaries and employ coping mechanisms. By the story’s conclusion, Jack’s blood rage is well-controlled, challenging the Congregation’s belief that all vampires with blood rage must be eradicated.

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Related Titles

By Deborah Harkness

A Discovery of Witches

Deborah Harkness

Shadow of Night

Featured Collections

Books on Justice & Injustice

View Collection

Good & Evil

New York Times Best Sellers

Popular Study Guides

Valentine's Day Reads: The Theme of Love