Baudrillard and the lack of reality

The first thing I did when I opened up to Jean Baudrillard's "The Precession of Simulacra" was use my dictionary widget to figure out what in the world that means. I had a feeling I wouldn't get very far without any idea of the title's vernacular. An "unsatisfactory representation of something" has come after something, and that's what Baudrillard is trying to talk about. What is REAL? Thanks to my major, it's something I automatically ask myself when I listen to the news, look at pictures in a magazine, or listen to statements and speeches from political officials. It's all rather pessimistic, considering that the automatic assumption in answer to that question is "not what I'm being shown."

I can agree with Baudrillard's ideology that there is no such thing as "reality," but I'm not really sure if I can sufficiently explain why exactly I believe that. Without reading too much into what Baudrillard's reasons are, I think that there are certain things that are formed by humans, which therefore by default gives them a point of view. When I think about it, the first thing that comes to mind, funnily enough, is the final scene of the Jim Carrey version of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas." The entirey of the Who's world zooms out, and it's on the tip of a snowflake. Let's take this in a realistic standpoint, assuming that it's possible (which it very well may be). The Who nation have spent their entire life for generations falling as a cell in the formation of this snowflake. And though we see the snowflake for maybe more than a few seconds, their sense of time does not have the same correlation as ours. Many movies do this, and for a split second, we can all feel like postmodern thinkers, the thought of "maybe we could just be a universe inside of a locker of an alien gym (a la Men In Black). It's a scary thought-- but what I appreciate the most about Baurillard is that he is so willing to admit that what we see is probably not true, and it's an issue that we accept it as true for a multitude of reasons.

When I watched Memento for the first time, I was SURE that Teddy was THE John G. I was so sure that he was just weasling his way into Lenny's life to protect himself. And at the end, I was thrown-- Christopher Nolan did his job well. But then I watched it in its entirety again-- despite my knowledge of the ending, I still was so skeptical. What is real? I made little charts and diagrams with Lenny and Teddy and Natalie's intentions- and I still don't think there is a real, linear way to draw out exactly what that movie is all about. I want to badly for there to be a TRUTH, a solid answer with a definitive bad guy and good guy-- but the fact that I can never be sure is unsettling. I think that this is what Baudrillard is getting at when he describes a simulacra- Memento is an unsatisfactory representation of a life... but is there ever really a truly satisfactory representation?

On my honor, I have not given, nor received, nor witnessed any unauthorized assistance on this work."
Lindsay Hansen