'The informant is real?'

(note. This post is attempting to be written without recognizing that there are two more Matrix films following the first.)

The Matrix provides a fantastic medium in which to analyze the ideas Baudrilard presents regarding the simulation of Reality. Let's start by assuming that we have both working knowledge of both the Matrix and Simulacra and Simulation. The crew provides a vast array of how we can view life once we accept that we are living within a world that has become a simulation of a simulation. First we have Cypher, the informant who gives up Neo. He despise the world in which Zion exists (which I will refer to as Zion from here out) and wishes only to return to his state of 'ignorance is bliss'. He believes that even though he was living a lie, buying into that lie is a better life then constantly running from Sentinels and Agents. His is the pessimistic view who acknowledge that we live in a false reality but long to return to their state of unknowing. The cyber-pimp Mouse follows nothing but his desires which are nothing but a creation of the simulation (in literal form, the girl in the red dress). His is the id of the crew, the 'I don't care that it isn't real, it still feels good.' He tricks his mind, even for a short time, into believing that the simulation is reality. He states that 'to deny our impulses are to deny what makes us a human being'. But aren't these impulses generated within the simulation, which would make them anything but human. If this is the case then to their impulses are what make them even more fully integrated into the simulation and into the false world of the Matrix.
The three main characters, Neo, Morpheus and Trinity difference revolve around their interpretations of the Prophecy, as given by the Oracle. Morpheus fully buys into this prophecy, basing his life around the fact that he will find 'The One'. Trinity is skeptical as she is told she will fall in love with 'The One'. And Neo is told he is not 'The One'. But wait a second. What exactly is this 'prophecy'. It is merely a statement from within the simulation stating that someone can free them from it. The statement comes from within the Matrix, not from Zion, which means that it has necessarily voided its ability to produce a truth (much like language necessarily cannot describe what it is attempting to.) While on their way to the Oracle Trinity states that 'The Matrix cannot tell you who you are'. To which Neo replies 'But an Oracle can?'. he recognizes that their idea of escaping the simulation/symbolic world is impossible if they rest their hopes on something developed within that system. This is why the Oracle tells Neo that he isn't The One. Had she told him the truth it would have conflicted with Neo's idea that the Matrix/Oracle can tell him who he is.
Well who are any of them when they are within the Matrix? They are nothing but a simulation of their Zion self reproduced within the Matrix, a world in which they should have the ability to control. Not one of them has allowed their brain to give up to the fact that the Matrix is in fact a simulation. The crew even attempts to differentiate the 'real' from simulation by all wearing sunglasses while in the Matrix. By wearing shades they make an effort to separate themselves from the simulation around them. Neo however tends not to wear sunglasses, immersing himself in the Matrix (figuratively, and at the end literally with Mr. Smith). By immersing himself within the simulation he acknowledges that he is himself but a simulation, and as such is able to do anything he would like to. The rest of the crew attempt to hold onto the notion that there is a shred of real within the simulation.
Morpheus himself, the champion of Zion, is held back from full enlightenment by grasping on to notions of the 'real'. In his fight scene with Neo he states that physical properties don't matter, that speed and power are really nothing and yet he states two minutes later that Neo is 'faster then that'. By holding on to these notions he limits his abilities to fully free himself from his tie with the Matrix as Neo eventually does.

This notion that Neo must fully free himself from the 'simulation' in order to become 'The One' is proved in a two step process at the end of the film. First Mr. Smith calls him Mr. Anderson, to which Neo replies "My name is Neo". This simple statement signifies the rejection of the simulated self that denies the simulation (Mr. Anderson) and the assumption of the fully simulated self. 'Neo' is nothing but his call name online, a fully simulated world. Stating that 'He is Neo' is him stating that 'He is fully simulated.' This further rubbed in our face when Mr. Smith says 'Goodbye Mr. Anderson' and kills Mr. Anderson. 'Neo' Fully rises from the dead, because of his recognition that his simulated self as no relation to his actual Zion self. He then rises from the 'dead' and dives into Mr. Smith. This dive into Mr. Smith shows the limitations the Agents themselves have within the Matrix. They are tied into the notion that they are an entity, even though they acknowledge they're living in a simulation they are tied to their image(which is why any person can turn into an Agent but must change their look to look like an Agent.). Neo's shattering of Mr. Smith's image shows the limitations those who attempt to maintain the simulation have.

The Fascination With Autobiography

Joan Didion was an obvious choice for my post. One day I picked up Play It As It Lays and didn’t put it down. Though Maria has been criticized as an unlikable and often infuriating protagonist I was drawn to her. I had to know the women behind the protagonist but had forgotten that the author’s character is not necessarily the author. It is uncomfortable to be presented with a character that is a copy without an original. Maria feels familiar so I assume that she must be a representation of someone. Attaching her to Didion allows me to cop out of the anxiety caused by what is in fact my self-identification with Maria.

Attaching a text to an author places the consequences of the text onto an individual.  The individualization of the author functions to assign personal responsibility for the implications of a text onto the author while ignoring the greater cultural force that lies beyond the author. This individualization is accomplished by the glorification of the author, a choice that the Paris Review’s archive of author interviews pays testaments to.

I was absorbed by the 1977 interview between Joan Didion and Linda Kuehl but was disappointed by the 2006 interview between Didion and Hilton Als. It wasn’t Didion’s responses that had changed, it was the interviewer, or the force behind the interviewer.   

Both interviews begin with “the circumstances in which the interview was conducted.” These circumstances are meant to set the scene, presenting the interview as a story itself. Due to the untimely death of Kuehl, Didion herself describes the circumstances of the1977 interview, and offers her opinion of her interviewer. This individualizes Kuehl in a way that Als is denied. There is an artificiality to the 2006 interview that denies the interview as an interaction between two people, or two forces. It is problematic that the interviewer is briefly named at the beginning of the interview only to be thrown back into the safe anonymity of  “interviewer.” The status of the interviewer as anonymous privileges Didion’s responses while ignoring the agenda of the interviewer.  Why is the interviewer asking the questions she is? Why are these questions important? How do these questions function to the glorify the individual author?

Four questions struck me in particular.

1.)“Did any writer influence you more than others?”

Writer’s are of a different breed. They have been grouped into an awesome and exclusive club where all they ever seem to do is chain-smoke cigarettes, fuck, and write, of course. (I cannot deny the timing of my witnessing Nicole Kidman as Virginia Woolf smoking in The Hours and the start of my nicotine habit.) Authors are going to influence each other but an essentializing relationship amongst all writers is problematic. As Didion points out, when she was starting to write, male novelists had a particular role in the world while women novelists had no defined role.

2.)“When did you know you wanted to write?” 

A myth exists that there is always a moment in which the author realizes they want to be a writer. It is a glorified awakening to their calling, a theatrical event that mimics the seduction of drama. An epiphany.  

3.)“What are the disadvantages, if any, of being a woman writer?”

The interviewer turns to gender when Didion does not list any women writers as her influences. This attempts to individualize Didion through her sexual identity. Didion complicates this by stating that she doesn’t seem to recognize what a “feminine” writing style is.   

4.)“Was the book autobiographical?”

The author’s background is of the utmost significance to the interviewer. There is a longing to understand what compelled the author to write the text, as well as a tendency to bestow significance to every detail of a text though details are often arbitrary. For example, one could argue that the reason for the separation of mother and child in Play It As It Lays represents Didion’s own longing for a child. However, Didion asserts that the daughter is absent from the text simply because she was unsuccessful at writing the character. 

The fascination with autobiography is especially strong if you lie on the poles of hate or love of a given text. This is either an attempt to identify oneself with the author and text or to distance oneself from the author and text. A sloppy attempt at distancing is a hasty response to one's simultaneous attraction and repulsion to the text; you are horrified yet drawn to Maria.  In fact, Play It As It Lays itself demonstrates the reliance on setting and biography (“the facts”) while simultaneously suggesting that they do not apply.

There is an inclination to apply autobiographical meaning to a text whenever possible. However, a text is most fully experienced when we abandon the search for the author and allow ourselves to become intimate with the text. It is an abandonment of meaning and embracing of being. An intellectual “jouissance” perhaps.