Mantissa Part 2

When I first started reading Mantissa I was confused as to what parts of theory was applied to this. Once I read Ms. Sheldon's blog post, I started to realize what exactly what was incorporated into the novel. Even though I understand what is going on in the book now, I can't help but think that what Lacan is saying about about sexuality and identity is being reflected in Fowles' novel. 

When considering the death drive and jouissance in the novel I feel that it is contradictory in the book.  Miles Green in the first section is searching for who he could be, trying to find his identity.  Through the first section, he racks his brain to think of possible ideas of who he possible could be, he then finally thinks that he is part of the government.  This continues through to the end of the first section which results in sexual interaction between Miles Green and the Doctor, resulting in both of them orgasming.  From my understanding of Lacan's theory between the relationship of sexuality and identity, all the work that Miles Green has been working for to find out who he is, had just been sidetracked by the sexual release. In that point he had no sense of identity and gave up the feeling of trying to fill a void.

All within the first section I believe that Fowles is refuting the Lacan theory between sexuality and identity because the nurse and the doctor are doing sexual things to Mr. Green throughout the section in order for him to remember more about himself. If it were to hold true with the Lacanian theory, identity is lost in sexual contact so in a way the medical professionals are reversing his attempts to find his own identity. In Fowles novel, my understanding is that he writes in a way that sexuality and identity are connected and one is needed to determine the other, not like in Lacan's theory where you can't have the two together. 

I may be completely off in left field with this blog post, but when reading it, these were the thoughts that I was thinking about, and once Ashley posted her blog, I started to think of these questions more, and this is finally what I came up with. Hope you enjoyed!

Mantissa Response

After reading the first half of John Fowles' Mantissa I had mixed emotions. I enjoy reading the book because I think the way it is written and the subject matter makes it easy to read. With that said I found myself being confused a little as to what was going on with the other characters, how they disappear and are what he desires them to be in the second half. 

Dr. M then explained to us that the character in the second portion is his muse and that made everything seem to fit into place with one another.

As far as a passage that I would connect to an idea or theory, I found a line that the character who is with Miles Green in the second portion.  The character says "Nothing's real until you see it on television". This quote got me thinking, and I believe that there is truth to this statement.

This quote coincides with Baudrillard's ideas of Simulacra/Simulacrum and the Hyper real. What I think this quote is saying is that the character, Miles Green, only assumes things are real once he sees it on television, the object or idea is not real until it is seen on television.  I think this correlates to the idea of the Hyper real. From my understanding of Simulacra/Simulacrum and the Hyper real. The Hyper real is your experience mediated through simulation. For example, a person can watch a movie that contains a sex scene and that is what they think it is like, so once they actually engage in the act in real life, they are living their experience through the simulated one in the movie.

With that said I think that the quote is saying that our authentic experiences are not justified until we see them in front of us as a simulation.

Response to Ken Rufo

When first learning about Baudrillard, I was a little confused as to what he was saying when he was discussing simulation. After reading Ken Rufo's post and learning more from Dr. M, I am understanding the concept of Simulacra/Simulation/Hyperreal.

Just the other day I was thinking about the concept of money and I found it interesting that Ken touched base on what I was thinking about. I was wondering if you work a job, and get your money direct deposited in your account, and you use a credit or debit card to pay for items, you essentially never see that money, but it stands for something.  Once Ken touched base on the idea of the credit card accumulation being a simulation of what is being used to buy a product, it allowed me to understand what I previously pondered.

I enjoyed when Ken went through the works of Baudrillard and how some of his ideas have changed as he went on in life. He started off with Marxist views, but then a hint of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism is found in his work.  The way that Ken related his changing ideas, allowed me to make a connection with how the theories we learn are connected. 

The last part that I found interesting is that Baudrillard does not even like the Matrix movie. He believes that the effects in that are a simulation itself, which I never thought about in those terms, but once I started thinking about it, it can be seen as taking away from Baudrillard's ideas. With that I said, I think it would be hard to make a movie or rendition of his ideas and not make it something it is not. In order for everything to be visual comprehensive I think there needs to be some form of simulation, when discussing the ideas of Simulacra/Simulacrum.

Thank You again Ken for the post!