This formula can be informally read as follows: the ith messagemi brings us log(1=pi) "bits of information" (whatever this means), and appears with frequency pi, so H is the expected amount of information provided by one random message (one sample of the random variable). Moreover, we can construct an optimal uniquely decodable code that requires about H (at most H + 1, to be exact) bits per message on average, and it encodes the ith message by approximately log(1=pi) bits, following the natural idea to use short codewords for frequent messages. This fits well the informal reading of the formula given above, and it is tempting to say that the ith message "contains log(1=pi) bits of information." Shannon himself succumbed to this temptation [46, p. 399] when he wrote about entropy estimates and considers Basic English and James Joyces's book "Finnegan's Wake" as two extreme examples of high and low redundancy in English texts. But, strictly speaking, one can speak only of entropies of random variables, not of their individual values, and "Finnegan's Wake" is not a random variable, just a specific string. Can we define the amount of information in individual objects?