final independent reading blog

Wow. Okay. Here we go...

For a brief summary, the narrator joined the Brotherhood, a group of white and black men that practice the “science” of political, racial action. They persuade the narrator to join, and he works for them as a speaker, initially for the citizens of Harlem, until he is relocated. He gives it his full time and effort, truly believing he is a part of the “family.” Towards the end, however, he realizes that in their minds, he is “simply a material, a natural resource to be used,” not to mention the corruption of the whole organization (508). Much more happened in between, but that’s the basic layout.

First, I want to address the idea of invisibility. In the last post, I did not fully understand why the narrator considers himself invisible. In the last fifth of the book or so, he addresses this idea much more. In hearing the narrator’s speech at the funeral of a “traitor” to the Brotherhood (Clifton), Brother Jack (the Brotherhood’s leader) explodes in outrage. It is the first time that his insanity surfaces, and the narrator concludes that Jack must not “even see [him]” (475). The word “see” represents understanding and general human respect/morality. The narrator ponders whether the color of his skin matters, considering that the Brotherhood doesn’t “see either color or men” (508). Whoah. But then why are there so many references to whiteness? Maybe because the narrator doesn’t realize race’s insignificance until the end. He is constantly noticing race and whiteness which controls him, and therefore, so does the reader. But I don’t think Ellison’s subject/message is as simple as race relations in the 1950s.

If the narrator’s realization isn’t obvious enough, there is another scene which illustrates this concept. Ras the Exhorter (a black supremacist) and his followers verbally and (attempt to) physically harm the narrator. Ras keeps yelling, “Hang the lying traitor!” and sends his men to chase the narrator (558). Everyone in this scene is black. It’s not as if all blacks stick together to fight white superiority; it’s not that simple. To paraphrase the narrator, members of the Brotherhood and Ras’s group alike are both colorblind and moral-blind (508). People turn to violence out of fear because they fail (and refuse) to open their eyes.

Here’s one of many questions I have: are all these characters blind, or is the narrator invisible? Which happened first, or did they happen simultaneously? My gut instinct is to say that their blindness causes him to believe he is invisible. After all, he only senses his invisibility when he is misunderstood and unseen. For example, when he gives an inspiring and passionate speech about the immorality of dispossession, the audience listens intently, watching him, “the silence profound” (343). The light “is so strong” that he can no longer see the audience; only they can see him -- the opposite of invisibility (341). At the end, the applause strikes “like a clap of thunder” (346). The audience connects with his words and his honesty, and as a result he is seen, perhaps more than he wishes.

Based on these observations, I will attempt to formulate one possible message...The basic human flaw/struggle is blindness, limiting us from complete understanding of anyone but ourselves, the result being an individual, internal sense of invisibility. Quite depressing, but that’s existentialism.

Would I recommend? Hmm….. only on certain terms. You must be patient. This book is not only long, but dense in both language and ideas. You must be willing to get confused. You must be willing to question, and not be discouraged if you can’t find a concrete answer. You must be willing to overcome frustration with the narrator’s passiveness in order to continue reading (because trust me, you will become frustrated). YOU MUST BE WILLING TO READ WITH FOCUS, SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY!!! Ellison does not come right out and say what he (or the narrator) means. Often the messages are implicit in random, seemingly useless scenes and could be lost if you skim. I am torn between fascination for the ideas presented in this novel, and frustration for the way in which they are presented. I often felt confused while reading, asking myself, “Why is this random, apparently useless scene being described in such detail?”, and became even more frustrated when I couldn’t find an answer. The messages became clearer toward the end, which was intentional and a message in itself, but throughout, I had trouble focusing.

As for reading habits, I have strengths and weaknesses, like anyone. I think I’m decent at construing messages/themes, but I often don’t have strong textual evidence for my conclusions (as this post probably shows). In other cases, as mentioned in post 3, I get lost in tiny details (such as the whiteness motif), and miss the main point if there is one. I hang onto the cliff of symbolism too tight sometimes, failing to realize that the ground is only one foot below me. Nabokov and Prose might applaud my attention to detail, but I recognize that attention to detail doesn’t really matter if the bigger message is ignored. Also, I found myself identifying with the narrator, of which Nabokov would censure. Although I’m not sure why exactly identification is a bad thing. Perhaps it can help support the message that all humans are blind in some way and all feel some invisibility, and therefore we can relate to the narrator and characters in the book. I did read quite slowly throughout, and I feel that that definitely aided my overall understanding and comfort with the not only the plot but with characterization, so thank you, Francine Prose.

independent reading post #3

I have discovered a poor reading habit of mine. I tend to go into a book with an open mind, but once I find something “interesting” (symbolism, motif, etc.), I often only focus on that. I miss out of bigger picture themes because I am so distracted with tiny details that sometimes are irrelevant. In this post, I will give a brief section continuing the whiteness motif, and then will attempt to dissect the protagonist.

The most overt racial symbolic reference in the next section I read occurs when the protagonist gets a job in a paint factory. His initial job is to mix black “dope” into Optic White paint (201). His angry boss, Kimbro, tells him to “stir it ‘til it disappears,” referring to the blackness of the dope (200). This symbol supports the message that black people are often
mixed into” white culture until their culture/identity is undifferentiable. That’s basically what the narrator is experiencing. He is taught to obey whites. Even in his black college, he had to be careful to please the white guests (i.e. Norton). He almost forces himself to be “mixed in,” attempting to put aside his past to please white people.

Now for character dissection.

The protagonist has changed since his move North. He shows skepticism of whites through his perception of Kimbro, saying, “You just can’t trust any of them” (202). He has less trust and therefore less inward respect for whites than he did at college. Due to this lack of respect, anger comes closer to the surface of his conscience. And when anger does permeate, he doesn’t hold back. The reader sees a whole different side of him.

He practically kills Lucius Brockway, the old black man in charge of the gas tanks in the basement of the paint factory, when Brockway realizes the narrator might be part of the union.The narrator finally stands up for himself. He lunges onto Brockway, whose head flies “backwards and up and back again” at each strike (225). Despite the narrator’s surprising action, two aspects of this scene prevent it from being a true character shift. One is the fact that Brockway is black. Although the narrator is losing trust for whites, I doubt he would physically harm a white person. He’s getting his anger for whites out on this black man simply because he can and no one can see it happening; which brings me to the second reason: the fight takes place in a basement. The narrator still doesn’t possess the courage to demonstrate anger in public. He fears what others might think of him, not to mention potential punishment he would face. The basement is symbolic. His outbursts are still contained; not visible on the surface. So far, I conclude that this is the reason for the title Invisible Man. In a way, humans are defined by their emotions. The narrator keeps him emotions hidden, and therefore isn’t truly seen.