Baudrillard Response

First of all, I found Ken Rufo's post very helpful when it came to understanding Baudrillard and the concepts that he produced. When I initially started reading the post, I found Baudrillard's ideas entirely confusing and dense, ultimately feeling as though I had no way of comprehending their depth. However, Ken Rufo's examples proved to be my savior. I wanted to focus on one of Baudrillard's ideas in particular. I was especially interested in Baudrillard's third model stage of simulation, in which simulations of reality are produced so heavily that ultimately the relationship between reality and its copy are confused. Plato's idea of simulacrum (a copy without an original) is completely mind boggling. One example of simulacrum that I like to think of is Disney's "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" park. In this sense, a simulation was created according to the Disney movie that was produced, however, because it was a movie the shrunken location does not exist, and as a result the Disney park did not copy anything, but instead maintains the power of persuasion by making you believe that this simulation is like the real thing. Because simulations have increased tremendously and can be found in much of everything, reality has become lost and is hard to find. Because simulacrum starts making things perceptibly real, people start experiencing their own reality through simulations. Baudrillard called this previous idea the hyperreal. Therefore, to relate back to my previous example, if you were to one day become miraculously shrunken and placed in a yard, you would be apt to relate Disney's "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" park to the reality you would be experiencing (was Disney's interpretation accurate? not accurate?) As a result, reality actually becomes a copy of the simulation you had previously experienced. Overall I found Baudrillard's ideas very interesting, yet confusing. I think that Baudrillard's ideas about the simulated are very interesting, because they offer an alternative to reality, and make everything seem like an illusion. I have never seen the Matrix, but now that I have a slight grasp of Baudrillard's ideas, I am looking forward to watching it in class.

Part 2: Authorship explored by Amardeep Singh

While I was going through the different blogs looking for some type of reference to authorship I came across Amardeep Singh's post entitled, "Why I didn't like 'The White Tiger.'" In this particular blog post Amardeep Singh states the reasons why he did not like the novel, which was supposedly acclaimed by critics. Singh states that the novel was very unrealistic and fake in nature, because the main character who is supposedly "half baked" goes on long rants that would be quite impossible for someone of his mental state. In this way, the novel doesn't make much sense. Because Singh questioned the intentions of the author for creating a contradicting main character, Singh is acknowledging the fact that in his eyes the author of the book has little validity. If the author is not going to properly portray the main character of the novel, then he loses a sense of accountability to the readers. When I was reading Barthes' "The Death of the Author" he stated that writer's can only make imitations of other original works, and therefore the ability to express oneself declines, because originality ceases to exist. Because all that exists are imitations the text becomes "lost, infinitely deferred" (Rice and Waugh, 188). In relation to "The White Tiger" as Singh describes it, the novel did not make any sense, because of the contradictions and the politically incorrect topics explored. According to Barthes, perhaps the reason that the novel did not make much sense, was because of the multiple writings and imitations within the text. The imitations in the text made it completely unfocused, and as a result it lost its meaning. Barthes also stated that once the critic looks to the author, the text is explained. This could possibly account for the reason in which "The White Tiger" was positively acclaimed by critics, while at the same time, he did not understand it or like it. Barthes claimed that no one ever pays any attention to the reader, even though the reader plays a critical part in focusing the text. While "The White Tiger" was acclaimed and the author made important as the creator of the text, the reader's position remains insignificant and small. Although I've never read "The White Tiger" I think Singh made a very good point concerning the author's validity within the text. 

Part 1: Barthes' "The Death of the Author"

When I first read Barthes' "The Death of the Author" I was entirely confused, and must admit that it wasn't until the second reading that I started picking up specific ideas and concepts that he expressed. I am going to try my best to decipher a specific point that Barthes explicated in the article. I must say that one idea in particular stood out to me in the reading. Barthes' concept that writer originality is dead, because everything is just an imitation of everything preceding it, was very interesting to me. Because the art of writing has existed for so long, writers seek to establish a sense of uniqueness to their writing, but the ideas that they display are only elaborations of previous ideas that existed, and therefore, creativity cannot be attained. There was one particular quote that I thought truly epitomized Barthes' argument--he states, " Succeeding the Author, the scriptor no longer bears within him passions, humours, feelings, impressions, but rather this immense dictionary from which he draws a writing that can know no halt: life never does more than imitate the book, and the book itself is only a tissue of signs, an imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred (pg 188)." In this particular quote, I think that Barthes is emphasizing the fact that the death of the author, or creativity, has made the scriptor a bundle of inadequacy. Because the scriptor is unable to create an origin or original idea to his writing, he is forced to draw on previous ideas, and as a result his work of imitation bears no meaning. The fact that there are only imitations, reasserts Barthes' argument that the author is dead. Barthes acknowledges the fact that most people, especially critics, are prone to looking at the author for answers to the text. In contrast to this method, Barthes states that the reader holds the absolute power. Since each text is a mixture of reoccuring ideas, you cannot look to the author for the answer, but instead the reader, because the reader is the one who brings the "lost" ideas in the writing to life, by actively reading the text. I like the fact that Barthes believes that more credit should be given to the reader, as oppose to the author, because it is the reader's interpretation that truly brings the text to life.

Love and Narcissism according to Derrida

As I watched the documentary on Derrida I found myself being very interested on his thoughts about love and narcissism. In particular, I found it most amusing when he said that love is narcissistic. When the interviewer first asked Derrida about his thoughts on love, he replied by saying that it is impossible to describe love. Love is a very abstract thing. Derrida posed a question: Do I love someone because of who they are or what they are? To love someone because of who they are as a person, is to love the singularity that makes that person unique. To love someone because of what they are is to love the qualities that they possess, but not necessarily the person as a whole. As a result, there is a division between the who and what. Most relationships end, because we no longer like the qualities that a certain person possesses. But then what is so narcissistic about love? I am going to give my own interpretation of Derrida's assumption that love is narcissistic. Most times when people fall in love, they initially fall in love with someone, because of the image they represent or the qualities they possess. Therefore, the person is falling in love with the what, instead of the who. Narcissism is when someone is completely self-centered, and does not bother to focus on others. A narcissist will often use others to merely fulfill their own selfish needs and desires. When we fall in love with what a person is (the qualities they possess) we are using the qualities that they have to serve ourselves, so that they simply become beneficial to us in a selfish manner. Therefore, it may be said that love is a very self-centered thing to have in one's life. In the particular example about Narcissus and Echo, Narcissus only sees himself in the water and falls in love with his own reflection. Derrida asks--how can a person so blinded love? I think this was a very good example of love's narcissism, because it emphasized the fact that in the face of love one always returns to the self and what the self needs. Even though the Hollywood image of love is made to seem very selfless and enduring, I think that in matters of love, the priorities of the self always come before anyone else.

Derrida

After watching the documentary film, Derrida, in class, I feel as though I have a better grasp of Derrida's ideas, because I now have a better understanding of Derrida as a person. I thought Derrida seemed like a very pleasant person. He was funny at times, and very down to earth. He didn't try to flaunt himself in a superior manner, but instead admitted openly that "this is not how I really am--first of all, I don't dress like this." By admitting to these things, he made himself seem more approachable, and less intimidating. When it came to the interview process, it was made very clear that Derrida avoided many direct questions asked of him, and instead beat around the bush. He openly resisted the interview process by not answering the questions asked of him, but instead talked about different things that appealed to him. In one particular occasion, the interviewer asks Derrida how him and his wife met each other. At first, Derrida delays answering the question by saying that he cannot answer the question given to him with all these interruptions (camera and lights). After a slight delay, Derrida says that he won't tell everything--he will only agree to say the superficial things, such as facts and dates. Derrida fails to open up about his personal life, because the telling of a story is an inadequate resort. Both Marguerite and him think the same thing, but say nothing in confidence with one another. Derrida stated that certain details about a person's life should remain hidden. I think the interviewer was trying to get Derrida to open up about his personal life, because much emphasis is placed on where a person came from. The interviewer wanted Derrida to disclose personal information about himself so that the audience could gain a better insight into Derrida's life and him as a person. However, Derrida felt that a person's feelings and reflections concerning certain things should remain hidden, because no story told could live up to the actual experience. He could not explain certain moments in his life, because they would all prove to be insufficient. By only giving facts and dates, Derrida left the actual story to his wife and himself. If Derrida were to disclose all the personal details of how he met his wife, the story would become tainted by other's judgement. Therefore, he leaves the memory to only his wife and himself, keeping it pure and untainted, which is the most important thing of all. Because the interviewer felt as though it was important to portray Derrida as best as possible, and Derrida felt as though it was important to preserve himself from becoming the iconic image they wanted him to be, there was a direct disconnect between the two forces. However, despite the interviewer's attempts, Derrida remained true to himself.