Invisible Man entry 1)
This book starts off by
explaining that the narrator is an “invisible man” but “no, I am not a spook
like those who haunted Edgar Allen Poe; nor am I of your Hollywood-movie
ectoplasms” (3). I enjoyed how this book started and it even made me laugh a
little, because when I first learned that we were reading the book Invisible Man I foolishly thought that it
was the book with the actual invisible man. The narrator explains that the fact
that he is an “invisible man” serves him with both pros and cons. It then
continues on to an incident where the narrator runs into a white man who calls
him an insult that the narrator wants him to apologize for. This incident
almost brings the narrator to kill the white man, but he then comes to his
senses and decides to leave. Then after a few other events pass by the narrator
explains a dream that he has in a church where he hears a black woman confess
that she loves her white master for giving her two sons, but then turns kind of
dark when she explains that she poisoned him in order to save him from being “torn
apart” from her sons. What’s the deal with that? Why did these two sons want to
kill their father? It just does not make sense to me at all, and what an awful
dream to have. The narrator then continues on by explaining some of the
narrator’s background starting with his grandparents after the Civil War who
knew that even though they had become free from slavery they still would not be
considered equal to other people during this time in American History and how
this was a struggle that they had. The invisible man then continues on by
relaying the time where he had to give a speech to a group of white men in
which afterwards he was given a scholarship to college and a briefcase. Before the
speech though there was a strange “boxing match” were a naked white woman with
an American flag walked around and the two black boxers were threatened to look
and not look at the woman by different white men. Why was did this incident
occur and did anything like this ever actually happen or is this just something
to make the story more extreme? If anything like this actually did happen then I
am honestly kind of horrified. How did this incident make you feel?
Invisible Man: section 1 entry 2
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question asked about the dream of the colored wife killing her husband, I think it makes sense. When the narrator first sees her she says, “’I dearly loved my master, son,’ she said. ‘You should have hated him’ I said. ‘He gave me several sons,’ she said, ‘and because I loved my sons I learned to love their father though I hated him too.’” (10). She loves him because he is their father, and that is the only reason. I believe that he must have been a horrible man, like every other white man we have met in this book so far, since he was a slave owner and his kids hated him so much. For all we know he could have just raped her and had his own white family. I think the time frame in this dream is back before slaves were free because she calls him master, maybe it is his grandfather. As for the boxing match/speech/naked lady event, I have no idea if things like this took place, I do not see how they could legally, keeping in mind Jim Crow laws and stuff like that. If it did happen I think this would be an extreme. What I do not understand is why the narrator acts just like the men in that boxing/speech event think/want black people to act, as we see in the beginning of the book the narrator almost kills a man without reason, and is living in the basement of a house which is both trespassing and he is stealing their electricity with all of the lights he has. I think the book will revolve around a specific idea brought up in the dream he had, “’Maybe freedom lies in hating.’ ‘Naw, son, it`s in loving.” (11). What do you think about that?
Info on historical battle royals:
ReplyDeletehttps://ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2014/may.htm
https://www.cagesideseats.com/2013/3/10/4070146/wrestling-with-past-battle-royal-WWE-Boxing-part-two
Invisible Man entry 3)
ReplyDeleteChapter 3 begins with the narrator taking Norton to a tavern called the Golden Days which served people of color and also happened to be a brothel. Upon reaching the tavern the narrator and Norton encounter a group of mentally disturbed black veterans who help carry Norton into the tavern for a drink. This act seems very generous and nice of them, what do you think about the veterans carrying this man that they are not familiar with into the tavern? After bringing Norton inside the tavern a brawl breaks out when the attendant of the veterans shows up causing Norton to fall unconscious. Then the narrator and one of the veterans brings Norton upstairs where the prostitutes live. The single veteran reveals to the narrator that he is a doctor and a graduate of the very same college that the narrator and Norton are from. The doctor then mocks the narrator some for how he views Norton and says that Norton probably doesn’t think the narrators life really holds any true value. I believe that the narrator is already aware of this, but doesn’t know what else to do or how to “fix” the way most people look at him so for the veteran to mock the narrator over this doesn’t seem to make much sense and just seems like he is mocking the narrator for the sake of mocking someone, but if the veteran were to offer some helpful advice then I could see some value in their conversation. What are your thoughts on this encounter? Soon the narrator and Norton end up back at the college and are confronted by the president of the college Dr. Bledsoe who gets very angry at the narrator and places the blame of the afternoon’s events on him. After this the narrator is instructed to listen to a service in the college. After which the narrator has another private discussion with Dr. Bledsoe who is said to have calmed down and was told that the narrator is not at fault for anything, however of course in the private meeting Bledsoe is still furious at the narrator and threatens to punish him even though he said that he would not punish the narrator. “You’ve got to be disciplined, boy,” he said, “There’s no if’s and and’s about it.” “But you gave Mr. Norton your word…” (141). Dr. Bledsoe then threatens to “get rid” of the narrator, personally I feel that this move is unnecessarily harsh and also goes against Bledsoe’s word to Mr. Norton who will surly hear about this at some point in the future. Why wouldn’t Bledsoe believe Norton and why does he feel the need to punish the narrator at all? The whole evening seemed fairly harmless and Norton believes that the narrator is a good person who doesn’t deserve punishment; otherwise he would not have said anything to Bledsoe. What are your thoughts on the whole situation?
Nick entry 4
ReplyDeleteAs for the encounter with the doctor, I think that the doctor is right, and that Mr. Norton does not care about the narrator at all, it only fits with the statement that the author is trying to make with the book. I think that as for what is happening with Bledsoe, that he wants to make the school look as good as possible, so if that means kicking out the narrator for something that may or may not have been his fault, it would inevitably be worth it because he wants to irradiate anything that could be seen as bad in the name of the school. I have a question reguarding what you think of the book so far, not of the story itself, but as for its realism. Do you think that things like this, or to this extreme really happened to African Americans after the emancipation proclamation and before the civil rights movement in the sixties? Some of the things, like the electrified carpet and battle royale scene seem a little over the top in my eyes, not only because they are absolutely terrible, but also still would be illegal. One more question, have you seen any white people in this book that are good and undoubtably not a racist?
(Nick, did you get to look at the Battle Royal links I supplied a few replies ago?)
ReplyDeleteInvisible Man entry 5)
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question I do, sadly, believe that stuff like this did happen and it might have actually been worse than what the book is telling us. Yes you are right in saying that many of the awful things that happen in the book to people of color do seem or are illegal but let me ask you, when has the fact that something is illegal stopped anyone? As for you last question up until about chapter 12 ish there have not been any white characters that have been remotely close to being called good. Now in chapter 13 we are introduced to a white man named Brother Jack who is in charge of an organization that wishes to promote equality. However I also believe that it is too early to say whether or not Jack is a good person or not due to the fact that he seems like Jack might be a very radical person. Now in these few chapters we see the narrator make it to New York and quickly discovers that even in the North it is hard for him or any person of color to succeed during this time in history. Which is a sad realization to have to come to, but that apparently was the reality during this time. The narrator gets provoked and made fun of by many people during his short time in New York and gets kicked out of the Men’s house so he is then more or less forced to take up Mary’s offer and stay at her apartment. So more or less the narrator quickly learns that anywhere he goes hardship will follow him. What are your feelings about this Brother Jack guy? Do you believe that this political organization is genuinely working to advance equality? The only reason I ask is because that Emma girl whispers a bit too loudly “but don’t you think he should be a little blacker?” That right there makes me wonder.
Invisible Man: entry 6
ReplyDeleteOh I definitely believe that Brother Jack is going to be a terrible character and I think we will find that out soon. Since he is a communist fighting for “equality” I either think that their communist organization will not go anywhere or that they will be racist themselves. What do you think the problem with the brotherhood will be? Do you think that they will be terrible because they are communists and communism is one of the worst things ever thought up or do you think they will be racist even though they are fighting for “equality”? I do not think that the brotherhood is fighting for equality I think they just want members and a black person to represent them or “equality’s” sake. Oh when she says, “but don`t you think he should be a little blacker?” it is obvious that they just want a showman and do not care about equality. What do you think about the hospital scene? How often did stuff like that happen? Have you seen any other white people in the book that you do not think will turn out to be racist? I do not think there will be one. At least now we have a woman, Mary, who is not seen as an object and actually helps the main character out/ nurses him back to health.
Invisible Man entry 7)
ReplyDeleteI see and understand why you are why you believe that the Brotherhood is actually an evil organization because of their Communist view and I too believe that Communism is a horrible and terrible ideology that the world would be better off without. In chapters 15-22 we see the narrators “journey” (or whatever you want to call it) through and with the Brotherhood. Where the narrator begins with a lot of hope and optimism believing that the Brotherhood really is all about fighting for equality between the races and genders, but the more involved he gets the more he comes to realize that the Brotherhood’s main priorities don’t seem to line up with their message. The Brotherhood says that they want equality for everyone, but they believe that anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe must be against them and therefore they have to be taken out in order for them to succeed. So rather than actually fighting for equality the Brotherhood spends a lot if not most of it’s time quarreling and fighting with Ras the Exhorter and his followers. While the fight against Ras goes in for control of the people there is also fighting and back stabbing going on within the Brotherhood itself, for instance when the narrator gets an interview for with a magazine another member, Brother Westrum, calls into question the narrators motives saying that the narrator is only using the Brotherhood to further his own personal ambitions even though the narrator praises the Brotherhood and it’s members throughout the interview. The narrator sees this and continues to see more instances like this where “brothers” will turn against each other in an attempt to rise to the top in the organization. So in answering your question about what the problem with the Brotherhood will be, I believe that their main problem is the fighting amongst themselves and the unwillingness to work with other groups like Ras’ in order to actually work closer to gaining equality for the races and genders. You are correct in saying that the woman’s remark about how the narrator should be blacker is only because they wish to use the narrator in order to appeal to the public and gain a better hold on them. As for your last question, no at this point I do not believe that there will be any non-racist white characters in the story.
Invisible man entry 8:
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I thought was interesting was about how basically right after the invisible man gives a speech about women’s rights for the brotherhood, he gets seduced by a married woman. What do you think that Ralph Ellison is saying in this passage? I do not think that this represents woman in a very good way. The other thing that I would like to bring up is the fact that once Clifton basically goes off the deep end and leaves the brotherhood he starts selling little black sambo dolls. He ends up getting in some trouble with the law, and gets shot. Clifton does resist though, “I could see Clifton again, stepping solidly forward in his black shirt, his arm shooting out stiffly, sending him in a head snapping forward stumble until he caught himself,” (Ellison 436). Ellison punching the cop is what gets him killed, I feel like if he just did not do that, he would have been at least somewhat okay. I think this passage is really important to today because of all the “racist police shootings” that people protest. There are protests over things that really are people resisting arrest and potential causing harm to the police, where even if it was a white man the police would still shoot them. When people resist arrest and attack the police what do they think is going to happen? What do you think about this? Do you think it was fair for Clifton to be shot? Do you think that most of the protests today are reasonable and that there are a lot of racist cops?
Invisible Man entry 9)
ReplyDeletePersonally with regard to your first comment, I cannot say for certain but it would appear to me that Ralph Ellison is not trying to make women look bad or good. I think Ellison is just throwing an example of real world stuff that happens making the narrator a victim of circumstance I guess, because looking at the context and or background of the incident the woman and her husband already had a pretty broken relationship which lead to the woman seeking revenge on her husband. Moving on to your second set of questions I think you are right to say that Clifton would have definitely been better off if he had not punched the officer. I think that it was foolish and wrong for Clifton to punch the officer, but I also think that shooting him dead was not the move either. Personally, no I do not believe that there are many racist police officers that are out to get black people. I believe that it is silly to say that every cop is racist or that we have to limit what the police do, I believe that we do have to keep people more “informed” I guess or just teach people to use more common sense to listen and do as the officers advise you and help people come to the realization that even if you are innocent of a crime fighting the officers is not going to help your case. Now getting to the final reading section of the Invisible man, in this final section we see the narrator observe Harlem descend into madness and chaos mostly due to the death of Clifton. All the while the Brotherhood have turned their backs on the narrator and want to move on and “pursue other political issues” and Ras wanting the narrator lynched for “not supporting or standing with the black community.” This in turn causes the narrator to flee underground which is where we find him in the beginning of the story. I don’t really know how to respond to the response of the Harlem community after the death of Clifton, it seems like such a minor thing to collapse over. Honestly looking at what happened with Clifton, he was illegally selling the Sambo dolls and when asked about it by the police his response was to fight and the police’s response to that was to shoot and defend themselves. What do you think about all this? Do you think that the community is overreacting or is there response justified? Also the narrator made a potentially huge discovery when he is in the sewer burning the threat note and the note from Brother Jack that told the narrator what his new name was, in that the handwriting was almost identical. What do you think about this? If Jack is the one that wrote the threat to the narrator then what does that say about Jack? Why would he have brought in the narrator to be a spokesman for the Brotherhood if he was going to see the narrator as a problem later on.
Invisible Man entry 10:
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question on the killing of Clifton by the police as moral, I believe that if anyone is attacking a police officer, and is a serious threat, then that police officer has the legal and moral right to kill his attacker. Now in this situation I think that it could have been handled in a different way, and he should have been arrested, but if you punch a cop what do you think is going to happen? I think that they are overreacting, it is one thing to peacefully protest for a cause like Martin Luther King Jr., but it is another to be violent, riot, break stuff, and turn on the people of your own skin color. What I thought was important was Ras the exhorters attitude towards the narrator, “’Ignore his lying tongue,’ Ras shouted. “Hang him up to teach the black people a lesson, and theer be no more traitors. No more Uncle Toms. Hang him up theer with them blahsted dummies!” (557). Ras starts this whole race war in order to stop the persecution of black people, but he himself wants the narrator to be lynched just to prove a point. What Ras really wants is not to stop the persecution of black people he just wants power. What do you think about this? It really bugs me that the narrator ends just as he started, do you think it was his own fault or the fault of everyone around him that got him back there. What do you think that this says about Ralph Ellison`s view of racial equality as a whole? Do you think that this book applies to today? I do not think it does. I did not like this book, it did not do what To Kill A Mockingbird does. There are no non-racist white people and I think that is a real downside.