Thursday, December 1, 2016

Rough Draft [squeeee]

I am ridiculously proud of this essay... and it's still only in draft mode. Rough Draft 2.1 to be exact. Brought 2.0 to class, took more notes and edits, input the notes and revisions from the last page forward. That is 2.1. Now I am going to take a break, feed my tum [has been bothering me lately], etc. When I come back to my computer, I will read top-down for cohesiveness and clarity, and make adjustments where I can. I know some of the sentances are broken. I know some of the words don't make sense. I have found that the more I embrace myself--in everything--the better the results are. I saw it with biphasic sleep patterns [fighting them means 4-5 hrs a day, vs. 2x4 hrs], I see it when I get the cleaning-ADD [flit around from one mess to the next, randomly do dishes, but get distracted by the mess on the floor, etc]. At this point in life I am learning to a) find the flow within my life and b) roll with the flow instead of try swimming up stream [my spirit animal is crow, not salmon! jk] What I mean is, I have begun embracing my own writing style and process, and I can already tell a huge difference between this essay and the last. I think I understand what Mr. Z meant about taking authority and writing with it. Of course I know what I'm talking about, and I am trying to share it with all of you wonderful people. It's just that at this point, not all the pieces are there yet. It's still rough around the edges.

I make such a point of stating this because I want to share this essay. So badly. But thanks to the culture of trolls, I am skeptical of posting it. I like to think that I have thick enough skin to handle criticism, but trolls don't offer criticism. They offer unfounded personal attacks. I know this isn't perfect. I admit it. But I expect for it to be accepted with a grain of salt, since it is a work in progress. No one looks at a painting that is only background, waiting for the paint to dry, and critiques the lack  of perfection of the subject that hasn't yet been painted. Do people even understand painting these days? Sigh. Here's some stuff to read. If you're ready to go down the rabbit hole, just know the tunnel isn't smoothed out professionally yet and you may have to do a little [brain] work of your own.

While studying the oracles of the past (as presented through ancient histories and literatures and modern commentaries and essays), it is extremely important to note how easy it is to overlap one meaning with another—that is to say, it is simple to read “oracle” as “The Oracle” and “protagonist” as “Neo” or occasionally “mankind.” It is almost as if we can picture the modern characters juxtaposed in the narratives of the past, and everything still sounds completely valid—conversely, the analysis and critique of oracles of the past explains much about The Oracle of the film. The fact that these meanings slip so easily between two texts shows that they must be connected in a very tight fashion. Here is a quick example: “quote” where the author clearly means someone else but replacing 2 synonyms the author’s statement is still absolutely correct, despite the different media format.

Oracles themselves are masters of mystification—and also victims of being retroactively mystified by others with ulterior motives
[CM1] . This holds true for the multiplicity of realities within both the film and the ancient cannon. “The gods do not reveal their knowledge of things hidden to men in human language, but instead use their own specific language. Divine speech…is different from human language insofar as it is frequently not directly intelligible to mortals” [CM2] (Kindt 37) The oracles are tasked with encoding the “language of the gods” into a language that can be interpreted and processed by humankind. In this way oracles have always been mediator and medium simultaneously: One foot in the world of man, one foot in the world of the gods.

The problems begin to arise when we attempt to extend the Grecian metaphor to the rest of the film. If The Oracle is the oracle [obviously], and Neo represents a generic hero/everyman. Then who is speaking through the oracle?

Throughout two volumes of comics regarding the universe of The Matrix, The Oracle only physically appears once, but is referenced x-times. Still completely obscured, although characters have become more critical of her. Additionally, many characters [example, example] possess oracular powers. Although the comics provide no answers regarding The Oracle herself, they do give curious viewers a much better understanding of the mise-en-scene
[CM4] of the matrix itself. Some history of the past [what is our future] is uncovered, but only in bits and pieces—such as the story of Bi66-ER, literally titled “Bits and Pieces of Information.” It is up to readers and viewers to put the puzzle pieces together and make their own assumptions about the History of The Matrix, which is in our reality, our future. Or at least, what we perceive to be our future!

 [CM1]Prove it
 [CM2]Analyze/finish thought
 [CM3]Maybe cut this
 [CM4]Word choice wrong