Invisible Man: Prologue and Epilogue

Because tomorrow we will be talking about the prologue and epilogue in Invisible Man, I figure it would be best to dish out my thoughts concerning the two sections, and their connection to meaning of the book as a whole. 

While reading both the prologue and epilogue, I came to realize that the narrator's story is much of a transition; almost a journey. The whole novel is basically a culmination of the narrator's journey - his attempt to escape the identity that people give him. I came to think of the idea that the narrator is perpetually running - both literally and metaphorically. This introduces the idea of a rabbit, both Brer the rabbit as a trickster archetype, but also actual rabbits that inhabit holes within the ground. Often, rabbits are actually considered prey to other animals - and this is why their holes in the ground are so vital to their survival. In the same way, the narrator is running all sorts of places and things that attempt to give him an identity. He runs from the coin bank that reminds him of the demeaning nature of the very roots he grew within. He runs from the Brotherhood when he realizes that it has indeed been using him for no greater reason than his race. This leads him to the man-hole - which interestingly is a place of darkness. I thought it very interesting that the narrator achieved true enlightenment ONLY when he reached first encountered true darkness. Through this, I think Ellison shows the need for one to be in true darkness before gaining enlightenment. 

Interestingly, I found a connection between the grandfather and the narrator as well. Earlier in the novel, the narrator tells us about his grandfather calling himself a traitor. Later in the novel, Ras the Exhorter calls the narrator a traitor as well. As I was reading, the question came into mind: Who are both these significant characters traitors to? Perhaps, these characters represent a challenge the simple system of society. The grandfather inwardly challenged his outer orders. In the same way, the narrator challenges the system - or perhaps we can say, the lack of system - present in the riots surrounding Harlem with Ras the Exhorter. When we think of Clifton's character in all of this context, I think Clifton represents a person that definitely recognized the predicament many blacks were in that time period. Clifton was intelligent enough to realize the demeaning nature of the sambo dolls - yet it seems as if Clifton recognized that the black individuals would never be able to rid of their roots, and the slavery that characterized their history. Thus he embraces the Sambo dolls almost as if he wants to sacrifice himself - as there is no other alternative. He does tell the audience that there is  a big show coming on - perhaps he serves as a Christ figure in the novel. 

I think that the prologue and epilogue are extremely important to tying the novel together - but it's interesting and significant to note that they spark as many questions as they may answer. Nevertheless, I look forward to our seminar tomorrow! 

Invisible Man: A Response 

After reading Invisible Man, I realized I never got the opportunity to discuss my reaction to the novel. Often, the "AP Lit" worthy novels that I read aren't almost six hundred pages long...this was quite the deviation from what I am accustomed to. Nevertheless, I admire Ellison for being able to write such a comprehensive novel that explores many themes and allows for the formation of many questions regarding these themes. Although it was written years ago, I still find it very applicable to today's society, and I thought it to be a very mind engaging read. I'd like to discuss the ideas concerning the narrator as an individual in the face of an oppressive society and some of the ideas that in connection to this.

The most obvious question that stands out throughout the novel concerns the narrator's name - of lack there of. What's the significance in the lack of the narrator's name? Obviously, we can relate the idea back to the title of the novel itself: Invisible Man. Because the novel never reveals the narrator's name, Ellison gives the narrator the persona of an "invisible" man. One way I interpreted this was the idea of the narrator as a part of a collective unit. Rather than being considered an individual that has unique opinions and thoughts, the narrator is simply considered as a part of the black community - a collective unit in which everyone thinks and acts the same exact way. Often times, the narrator is told to simply do something without thinking [examples include Kimbro and Brother Jack]. I feel as if this is an exemplification of how the narrator is often viewed as one that is simple there. He exists, but only as one that will provide for someone else. When he was in Liberty Paints, he existed as a worker that simply did his job without thinking. Even when he believes himself free in the Brotherhood, he was conditioned to give speeches a certain way by Hambro - he did not think. One possible interpretation for the definition of invisibility could be one who's existence goes no further than providing for someone else. 

I found it interesting that both the narrator and the Founder did not have names in the novel. When we speak of the narrator we call him "the narrator" and in the novel, everyone refers to the Founder as "the Founder." Uncanny similarity, but by no means an accident. I think these two characters in the novel almost serve as reflections for one another. The Founder's existence goes no further than his service to the black community, while the narrator's existence goes no further than his service to the black/white community. Neither of them are recognized for individuality - they are simply extensions of the race they belong to.  

The ideas of invisibility, sight/blindness, identity, and reality versus perception are all prominent throughout the book. I liked the way Ellison used colors, thematic motifs, and different characters to highlight the questions that surround out society, prevalent to this very day. Above are simply some thoughts in response to reading the novel, and I am looking forward to the discussions to come. 

Thoughts on Liberty Paints 

After reading Invisible Man, there were several developments within the plots that were significant in developing major themes and ideas in the novel itself. Some of these themes include invisibility, sight/blindness, and identity. Often, I saw the theme of white verses black as both a literal and metaphorical concept. Of these different developments, I thought the Liberty Paints episode was significant in underscoring both the inequality and irony within society. As my seminar group is focusing on this part of the novel for an in depth study, I thought it would be natural for me to let some thoughts flow on the subject - specifically the factory episode in chapter ten. 

At Liberty Paints, the factory's gains most of its pride from it "Optic White" paint. It's interesting to note that this prize winning paint required "ten drops" of a "dead black" liquid put into a "white graduate." This not only came as a surprise to the narrator, but to me as well. After the narrator puts the black drops into the white graduate and mixes it, the paint turns bright and white. Kimbro then calls this paint "the purest white paint that can be found." I think this whole process was an intentional parallel to the customs of society in that time period. It shows that black people were necessary to make America thrive, but were often ignored and swallowed by the white people in the process. Although Kimbro calls "Optic White" the purest white paint around, white men normally considered blacks inferior and impure - as can be seen in the way the color white is typically associated with purity within the novel. This introduces a sense of irony in the whole paint mixing process. More so, it also goes to show the ignorance of the white community is recognizing the principle role of the black community within society. It is almost as if the whites and blacks complete each other - they need each other to thrive - in the same way that the white paint cannot be created without the black drops of liquid AND the white graduate. I thought that was an interesting interpretation of the scene, because although one may think that the author is disdainful and bitter towards whites for ignoring blacks, he may also be calling for the two to join together and acknowledge each other for the greater good. 

The episode with Lucius Brockway helps further the above arguments. Brockway tells the narrator, "Right down here is where the real paint is made. Without what I do they couldn't do nothing, they be making bricks without straw." It seems as if Brockway has a very necessary role in the paint making process at Liberty Paints, yet he always seems afraid that someone is trying to steal his job. He seems to live in a perpetual state of fear - it is strange, but very real, and I believe Ellison is intentionally illustrating the fear that gripped the lives of the African Americans that lived in America. Although Brockway has a legitimate society-building role, his efforts are often ignored. This brings in the irony of the name of the factory itself: "Liberty Paints." How much "Liberty" is truly present within this factory? This parallels the question: How much "Liberty" (an American democratic ideal) is truly present within American society? By bringing these fundamental questions into the text, Ellison calls for a true reflection on our respective societies. 

One of my favorite chapters in the whole novel, it was able to relate many of the common themes of liberty and freedom into the text. A very enjoyable read. 

I Died for Beauty but was Scarce
Emily Dickinson 

I died for beauty, but was scarce

Adjusted in the tomb, 

When one who died for truth was lain

In an adjoining room 

He questioned softly why I failed? 

"For beauty," I replied. 

"And I for truth, the two are one;

We brethen are," he said. 

And so, as kinsmen met a night, 

We talked between our rooms, 

Until the moss had reached out lips, 

And covered up our names 

When I read any type of literature, I often find that I prefer pieces that are able to convey complex messages while maintaining a smaller amount of words. Every word and every feeling becomes so much more powerful when there are fewer words to begin with. Emily Dickinson has always been a fan favorite when it comes to poetry and after reading more of her recently, I found this poem and was automatically attracted to its complexity. A few lines, and yet it left me in chills. I appreciate anything that can get me to feel through a few lines of writing. 

The speaker begins by explaining that she died for beauty - an idea that I feel many girls and women can easily relate too. When the speaker says this, I feel as if she means to emphasize the idea that she yearned to be thought of as beautiful - perhaps beauty gave significance to her existence. It is as if she died for beauty because she was loved for her beauty. She automatically transitions to being "adjusted" in a "tomb." This death can be interpreted as both a literal death and a metaphorical death. She claims that one "who died for truth was lain in the adjoining room." Immediately we see a contrast between beauty and truth - although both are very different [arguably contradictory] forces, their "followers" end up in the same place. Death.  

Oftentimes, beauty is judged by outer appearance. Similarly, outer appearances are very unreliable and often deceiving. One could argue that outer beauty is a stark contrast to the overarching idea of "truth." I think this contrast is extremely significant to point out, and was an intentional choice by Dickinson. The contrast between the two forces illuminates the strangeness of the two forces ending up in the same place. The next stanza asks has the speaker's neighbor asking her why she "failed" - it is important to note that death is viewed as failure here. Whether literal or metaphorical, death is a form of failure - and this stanza depicts two very different types of of people "failing" together. The neighbor says, "We brethen are," as a means of communicating how close these two are - not only because they are beside each other but also because they are both in a state of death and failure. 

Bonded by their mutual failure and death, the two individuals through the night until the "moss had reached out lips, 

And covered up our names." Dickinson's choice of diction is not only peculiar, but also rather chilling. Names define a person and give them individuality - without a name, an individual is nothing. This diction implies that the two individuals talked until they were decomposed completely, and left in a state of nothingness. It is as if they never existed. 

What was Dickinson trying to convey? Perhaps she was relaying the idea that no matter what one may hold on to in life, the end result is always death. Or she might have meant for this poem to illustrate the deception of worldly forces such as "beauty" and "truth," and that pursuing one as an absolute truth will only contribute to one's own demise [think Winesburg Ifrah!]. Dickinson also makes a comment on humanity itself, emphasizing the powerlessness of humans and their inability to succeed in the world. Orrrr maybe Dickinson wants to show that humans will never truly be effective forever - they will be forgotten once they meet death. 

Whatever Dickinson's idea may be, I think her simple language and elegant style gives off a powerful and cynical feeling. 

Poetry is feeling, and feeling is always beautiful in some way.