/lit/ - Literature

>>12375670
>Brock is the master who is chosen, but he's not a master-figure himself, he's a man *suffering from his desires.* a man suffering from desires which both *are* and *are not* his own, is what i perhaps should have said. the symbiote is a reflection of him, and perhaps a more accurate reflection of him than the face that he sees in the mirror.

and we have seen this before. we see it everywhere in LOTR, in the relationship between Frodo and Gollum (even Frodo and Sam), and in Journey, between Wukong and Xuanzang. i think we *might* have seen it in the Matrix, had the writers been more interested in writing a more human psychological portrayal of *what it is like to live in the Matrix* rather than a kung-fu spectacular. again, i'm fine with the kung-fu spectacular...until the ending of the first film, and then i realize i am in fact bitterly disappointed. what Smith actually would have wanted might well have been *to secretly have been Neo,* and perhaps what Neo would have wanted was *to in fact be the foil to an Agent Smith bent on destroying the Matrix.* doesn't this make sense? doesn't that seem to you to actually be a more accurate reflection of what those guys wanted?

this is what i realize i hate about postmodernity: so much of it is all confession, *but you cannot confess to a Marxist inquisitor in the same way you confess to a priest.* and ultimately, what your priest really wants from you is not to hear your confession, but to hear someday that you no longer have anything to confess, because you are beginning to walk a higher path. *you.* this is the problem with utopian thinking: the idea that an ideal society of the future won't contain human error, fallenness, wrong-thinking, or some kind of internal grappling with the self. the Christians *recognized* that the condition of man is to Fall; can we really say the same about postmodernity? doesn't postmodernity itself depend on a kind of cynical suspicion of each other, that we all suck, deep down, and only the Revolution can save us? does this make any sense?

it is the weaponized cynicism of contemporary positivity, aided by a very late strain of pseudo-Marxist ideology, that i am grappling with. it's fundamental ontology is the joke, but this is what makes the Joker the bane of Gotham City: that there is no joke, and there is no redeemer either. and Batman cannot save Gotham from itself, because Gotham needs the Joker more than it can say...

ugh. the fucking things i think about. there they are, raw and bloody. but it feels good at least to get them out.

>>9770589
looks more like this than anything else.