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?
Hi Rachel! I'm really enjoying Invisible Man so far. Ellison is incredibly talented at storytelling.
ReplyDeleteI think what you said in that line about the prologue is absolutely correct— and I definitely wouldn't have caught that on my own. What stands out to me is how directly he seems to be speaking to the audience. He says that he "[plays] the invisible music of [his] isolation" (13), almost as if he's trying to make the reader (especially white readers) feel bad about themselves for not noticing him. In my opinion, that's completely understandable. If I had gone ignored by everyone because of something as trivial as my skin color, I would want people to feel bad too. Especially if they were reading a book I had written for entertainment. Could this be a reflection between Ellison and his main character? Or do you feel Ellison is more refined in his emotions?
I remember watching one of the videos Mrs. Disher posted about the Invisible Man. It had the "social equality" scene in it, and before I even knew the context it gave me chills. It's so horrifying that white people did these things to black people— and not even a decade ago, too. It's appalling and definitely puts some things into perspective.
Regarding Trueblood, I'm guessing it's to show contrast. I think it's evident that fathers will be an important theme, as the narrator explicitly states that the Founder is "the cold Father symbol" (36), so I can see the desire to include as many types of fathers as possible. But I'm still at a complete loss as to the importance of this particular father. What do you think the purpose of that was?
I think that you’re right in suggesting that Ellison might want the (assumingly white) reader to feel some of the shame and condemnation that his character brings onto the white characters. I think that Ellison must have in his life felt ignored just like the narrator, so letting his readers feel the anger towards those that ignored him as if they were those people is intentional.
ReplyDeleteAs for the father figure, I think that fathers will be a recurring thing in the book. For the ‘cold’ father of the university’s founder, I think the purpose of including that line would be to place the coldness on the university itself. The narrator hasn’t really shown that the university has been especially warm to him, but it’s more of a distant feeling that he’s doing something right, just like a cold father would acknowledge that his son was doing something good, but without encouragement or love in it.
What do you think of the narrator’s relationship with Mr. Norton? They seem to get along better than the other white characters do with the narrator, but one of the veterans in the Golden Day describes Norton as seeing the narrator as “a mark on the scorecard of [his] achievement, a thing and not a man; a child, or even less—a black amorphous thing” (95), while the narrator sees Norton as “not a man to him, but a God, a force” (95). Do you think these descriptions are specific to them? I think he means it to show how the narrator views all white people and how Norton sees all black people. What do you think?
Rachel,
DeleteYou're asking a very good question about Mr. Norton. I think, as I mentioned before with Trueblood, Mr. Norton exists to show contrast. Though I believe this is most notable with Dr. Bledsoe (given that he and the narrator are both males of African American decent), many of the characters including Mr. Norton show just how alienated the narrator is. No one has the exact same beliefs as the narrator does in his small town, and because of this, he feels completely alone.
The character we would expect to be sympathetic towards the narrator is Dr. Bledsoe. They both come from a seemingly similar background, though the narrator feels more alienated by Dr. Bledsoe than anyone else thus far into the novel. This is evident when Dr. Bledsoe calls the narrator nigger, to which the narrator responds "That,... He called me that" (139).
It seems as though the only person the narrator could ever find refuge in was his grandfather. Do you think the narrator will find a similar situation in New York? It is very clear that he is incredibly angry at society, explicitly stating that he "could hardly get to sleep for dreaming of revenge" (195). Without a doubt, he has every reason to be upset. Even so, angry black people in this time period usually didn't get much (if any) respect from the whites. It's obvious that there are other black people out there who sympathize with the narrator, but will he find them? Are they, like the narrator, too scared to speak their minds? Even further, is that the solution to his problems?
In response to your question about the narrator’s grandfather, I think that he will probably be the recurring character that the narrator looks to as an example. I think that you’re absolutely right in saying that no one else really thinks like the narrator does, and I think part of that stems from him trying to live up to his grandfather’s dying words, and I think that will continue as he goes throughout the book. I think that he will continue to be the only one to think the way he does, not necessarily because the other characters would be scared to speak their mind but because he doesn’t really yet understand where he fits into the world. I think a lot of his conflict with himself comes from that.
DeleteIn New York, I think the way the paint is described when the narrator works at the paint company is really interesting. There is a lot of stress on making sure people know that the white paint they make is the best, and I definitely think it can be related to race relations for the narrator. I think it’s most noticeable when the narrator is thinking about the company’s slogan of “If It’s Optic White, It’s the Right White” (217) and he relates it to the phrase he’s been told all his life: “If you’re white, you’re right” (218). I thought that was really powerful. What about you?
Finally, what do you think of the Brotherhood the narrator is in? Is the narrator right in joining and believing they’re together as a group, or is Brother Wrestrum right by saying that there are members who will “call you Brother to your face and the minute you turn your back, you’re a black son of a bitch” (393)? Do you think that the narrator should stay in the Brotherhood?
Rachel,
DeleteThat phrase is incredibly powerful. In hindsight, I think maybe his grandfather should have thought out his dying words a little bit better. He pretty much gave the narrator an impossible task & legacy to live up to. I don't like it when people do that. Like sure, fill my shoes, be the person I couldn't be (But you know, no pressure).
Regarding the brotherhood, it sounds more like a cult than anything else in my opinion. Perhaps I'm being a bit too suspicious here, but the way they call each other "brother Tod" and "brother Jack" kind of throws me off. Even so, I'm ultimately glad the narrator has found a place where he can more or less fit in. Perhaps being in a community where the other brothers can recognize each other with "something [they] can wear, a pin or something like that" (395) as a symbolism of community is exactly what the narrator needs. I doubt he's ever been surrounded by a group of supportive people like this before, and although I am mildly suspicious of all of them, I'm happy the narrator has become part of something.
Do they make you feel the same way? There's something off-putting about this group. It reminds me of the book Coraline, where everything is perfect in Coraline's secret world and she fits in just fine-- until her secret world mother wants to sew buttons onto her eyes. I'm just waiting for the button moment in which it's revealed that there's something sinister behind the Brotherhood. The narrator says the meetings are "working very well" (382). How long will this keep up? What will cause things to go awry?
I get the same cultic vibe you’re getting from the Brotherhood. In just a few chapters, the narrator’s relationship with the brotherhood has already fallen so far. They’re already revealing their true controlling nature, especially when brother Jack says “we do not shape our policies to the mistaken and infantile notions of the man in the street. Our job is not to ask them what they think but to tell them” (473). They’re trying to control the people’s thoughts, not represent them, as they pretend to do. I doubt they care about helping the community at all; it seems they only want a position of power to input their own ideology, which is another cultic aspect. The comparison to Coraline is spot on, because the narrator comes in thinking the Brotherhood is great, but once he sees the manipulation behind it then the dream is over.
DeleteWhat do you think of the comment the narrator makes about Brother Jack, saying that he is the “great white father” (473) of the Brotherhood? I thought it was an interesting comment because of the recurring motif of fathers, plus the fact that the book is mainly about racism. What kind of father is Brother Jack in comparison to the other fathers mentioned by the narrator so far in the book? Most of them, I’ve noticed, come with a negative connotation. The ‘father’ of the narrator’s old school was cold, for instance. Brother Jack’s negative connotation is being controlling of those he would supposedly supposed to take care of like a father. What are your thoughts?
The recurring motif of negatively portraying fathers is definitely something worth noticing. It makes me wonder if Ellison had a complicated relationship (if any relationship at all) with his own father. The trials the narrator occurs seem very personal in all respects-- the theme of paternity included.
DeleteBrother Jack is, I believe, a physical embodiment of the message Ellison is trying to get across. I mentioned earlier how the brawl at the start of the book gave me major Fight Club vibes, and, as that book was a commentary on masculinity, I get the same feeling from Invisible Man. It is undeniable that the major theme of this book is racism, but the narrator also appears to have some underlying feelings about the brutality black people are expected to have. One of the things I enjoy the most about our main character is how soft he is. It is undeniable that he feels a great rage towards the system he is forced into, but he has also time and time again demonstrated great empathy towards others. This is notable when he explains what happened to Todd Clifton and "[his] head was getting lighter and [his] chest felt tight" (466). The disgust he feels towards the death of an innocent man really shows his true nature. I appreciate the way he sympathizes with others in a way that the other characters do not.
Do you believe Ellison could be commenting on the toxicity of black masculinity? Brother Jack degrades the narrator by saying "So it makes you uncomfortable, does it? You're a sentimentalist" (474), though I do not believe this is an insult. I hope the narrator will find that he does not have to be aggressive like society tells him. Do you think he'll find other ways to express his anger?
I definitely agree with your point about Invisible man being a commentary on black masculinity. The narrator is really the only character that shows any sort of soft qualities, and I think that the people in his world try to make him rough and brutal, because that’s what they want him to be. In the Battle Royale scene, they try to make him fight and be violent and that’s not really who he is, and it keeps going until the end of the book with Sybil. She tries to make him into someone angry to fulfill her own idea of what the narrator should be, but he reminds her that he’s “the sensitive type” (520). In the midst of what everyone believes he should be like, he stays true to himself.
DeleteWhat do you think of the mysterious figure of Rinehart? Why do you think so many people mistake the narrator for Rinehart, and why has he never seen or heard of the man he supposedly looks so much like? I feel like Rinehart could be some sort of symbol for what the narrator could be, but I’m not sure. What are your thoughts?
I feel like after the narrator has gone through so much trying to be seen while not seeing what’s going on around him, it’s a sharp contrast in the end when he says “I’m invisible, not blind” (576). He started out as someone who wanted to make his speeches and find community, but in the end he realizes that he’s really the only one like himself, but at least he can see everyone else for what they are. Thoughts?
I always assumed everyone telling the narrator that he looked so much like Rinehart was another example of passive-aggressive racism. The idea that two black people are the same (or similar enough for confusion) because of their race is pretty much robbing the characters of their identities. Now that I think about it, though, Rinehart seems to also function as a symbol for the narrator's future. The narrator notices that society wwas "forcing [him] to Rinehart methods..." (512), as if this character exists for the sole purpose of comparison-- which, he most likely does.
DeleteOn a different note, Ras has quite the character arc. I'm not sure why I have just now noticed it, but "Ras" sounds like "race" doesn't it? It also sounds like the Egyptian name of the sun god, Ra. Ellison's symbolism here is incredibly clever. Anyway, Ras the Exhorter (now "Destroyer"?) is very counter-productive with his attitude towards race, especially in the last chapters. It is clear that Ellison takes issues with the idea of segregation in all aspects; whether the origin come from black people or white. This idea isn't so subtle when Ras shouts at the narrator "Hang the lying traitor... what are you waiting for?" (558). Through his radical idea that black people and white people should be separate no matter what, he has become the very thing he despises.
The ending definitely depressed me more than anything else. In my opinion, character arcs in which someone goes from naive but happy to educated yet aware are always the saddest. This case is no exception; the narrator is certainly more wiser than he was before his journey, but at what cost? The world is a sad place sometimes
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete