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.