Invisible Man MOR

Hey Verity, how are you liking Invisible Man so far? I think its really interesting—I like that the main character isn’t given a name. I think that it emphasizes his invisibleness. I can already see why the book is named Invisible Man, since in the prologue he’s already saying things like “you never recognize me even when in closest contact with me…no doubt, you’ll hardly believe that I exist” (13). Do you think he’s addressing everyone reading specifically with this sentence? I feel like it’s mostly aimed at the white people who only acknowledge him when they want something, i.e. entertainment. They make it pretty clear that everything is fun and games until the main character crosses the line: when he tries to say “social responsibility” and says “social equality” instead, one of the white men addresses the main character and says, “You weren’t being smart, were you, boy?...We mean to do right by you, but you’ve got to know your place at all times” (31). The only time he’s really talked to is when he’s being told to watch what he says and remember his place.

Also, why do you think Jim Trueblood’s story is included in the book? The main character mentions that Trueblood and other “peasants” were doing “everything it seemed to pull us down” (47), and that Trueblood “had brought disgrace upon the black community” (46). I think the main character is upset enough with the treatment of himself and other black people in the time, and I think he sees Trueblood as someone that people could point to as some sort of justification for their hatred or superiority. What do you think?

Death of a Salesman: Feminist Lens

In literature, the female characters are often pushed into two roles—the Mary Sue and the seductress. The women in Death of a Salesman fall into the stereotypical roles of women in literature. Willy Loman’s wife Linda is the Mary Sue, the perfect motherly figure, dutifully caring for everyone around her. Meanwhile the other main female character, known only as the Woman, falls into the role of seductress, the playful one who cares only about sex and herself.

Linda Loman plays into the unhealthy idealization of women in literature. She is seemingly perfect. She is the one who takes on all of the communication and pushes for understanding in the family. She is the one who tries to mend Willy and Biff’s strained relationship, pleading with Willy to be easier on his son, saying, “You know how he [Biff] admires you. I think if he finds himself, then you’ll both be happier and not fight anymore” (25). She is always looking for harmony. Throughout the play, she can’t really be accused of any wrongdoing. This perfection is impossible for real women, flawed women, to reach. Linda’s lack of flaws just shows the stereotypical ‘ideal’ woman that never occurs in real life.

The Woman, on the other hand, represents the other stereotype of women in literature—Linda is what women ‘should’ be, and the Woman is what they ‘should not’ be. The Woman falls into the role of uncaring seductress. When Willy is trying to hide his relationship from his son, he obviously wants the Woman to leave, but she resists and makes excuses to stay when she’s clearly not wanted, saying, “But I’ve got to get dressed, Willy…Where’s my stockings? You promised me stockings, Willy!” (113-114). Where Linda can be accused of no wrong, the Woman can be accused of no right. She doesn’t care that Willy doesn’t want anyone to know about their relationship, and she only leaves when she gets what she wants. The Woman’s selfish actions portray women as self-centered and lustful.

Linda and the Woman show women as the two extremes they are not—either the perfect being or the utterly depraved one, with no in between. Women in the real world, however, are not perfect, nor do they have only bad qualities. The women in Death of a Salesman are unrealistic and only show the stereotypes of women, not the truth—that they are complicated, flawed people who also have good qualities and intentions.

Phantom of the Opera

            So far Phantom of the Opera is good in my opinion. I sort of remember the basic plot from when I read it a few years ago, but I forgot the details.

I definitely forgot how often the Phantom is described before he actually physically appears to interact with any of the main characters in the book, and I also forgot how he is described. Like when the ballet girl Jammes points out the Phantom’s face and the narrator says that she points to “a face so pallid, so lugubrious and so ugly, with two such deep black cavities under the straddling eyebrows” (27). I’ve always wondered why his eyes are described like that, since later on, if I’m not mistaken, he’s said to have no visible eyes. Why do you think his eyes are unrecognizable?

As for Christine’s interactions with the Phantom, when she’s talking with him in her dressing room, I don’t think she loves him at all, though I know there are people who think otherwise. When he asks her if she loves him, she clearly avoids giving a direct answer, instead saying “How can you talk like that?” (24).

My other question about the Phantom himself is, when the ghost appears at the dinner table with the managers and their guests, they recall the late Joseph Buquet’s description and notice that “according to the storu, the ghost had no nose and the person in question [at the table] had” (29). Do you think the stories don’t match up because, like the narrator suggests a few sentences later, he might have a fake nose, or are there so many stories about the ghost no one knows when they’re actually seeing him?