Representations. Not Characters.
Reading Invisible Man up until now, I cannot help but notice that Ralph Ellison puts an emphasis on the representation of his characters rather than their development. He is methodical about his characters' traits and seems to have an obsession with putting the reader through a gauntlet of metaphors. For example, we recently discussed how Wright subtly refers to Odysseus through Brother Jack and the description of a blonde girl the Narrator happens to glimpse on the street. As Jack's eyeball falls into the glass of water, the word cyclopean gets thrown around. The blonde serves as the personification of the Greek Sirens Odysseus encounters on one of his adventures.
Noticing these little references to other works changed the way I read the words on the page. And these allusions are only half of the way Ellison constructed these individuals. He also has his characters serve as a symbol of the racial and societal ideologies present at the time. The fetishization of Tod Clifton's biracial-ness was a prime example of this. Or the fact that the Narrator was the 'perfect candidate to speak out for hIS peOpLE'. There are layers to all this. Like an onion.
This realization that the characters serve much more than roles in the story was crucial to my understanding of this work. Hope it did for others as well. Let me know in the comments!
Noticing these little references to other works changed the way I read the words on the page. And these allusions are only half of the way Ellison constructed these individuals. He also has his characters serve as a symbol of the racial and societal ideologies present at the time. The fetishization of Tod Clifton's biracial-ness was a prime example of this. Or the fact that the Narrator was the 'perfect candidate to speak out for hIS peOpLE'. There are layers to all this. Like an onion.
This realization that the characters serve much more than roles in the story was crucial to my understanding of this work. Hope it did for others as well. Let me know in the comments!
Very good point! It's ironic that a book that reveals the invisibility in the narrators life portrays characters as invisible in and of itself. There are numerous times where we only find out how other people are viewed by those around them, rather than the beliefs they hold. This whole book seems to be build on stereotypes, and I think that's pretty ironic.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that the only character in the book that isn't partly or completely invisible to us is the Narrator, the so-called "invisible man". So much of the book is dedicated to his transition to invisibility, but the downside of having a book written in first-person limited is the limited view we get into any of the others in the story. Most of the characters outside the narrator exist as cloaked metaphors or one-faceted representations meant to challenge him or further his plot arc, so their development is completely thrown to the side. It's pretty ironic that an invisible man is the only totally visible character, but this book is full of contradictions.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Ellison's representation of characters and the parallels that can be drawn from them to other famous characters added to the theme of invisibility of his book. Rather than see these characters for who they are, Ellison makes it easy to compare them to other characters we know. Ellison's allusions give the book an almost surreal feeling, and I often felt that scenes or characters had more metaphorical importance than importance advancing the plot.
ReplyDeleteThese metaphors and allusions seemed very strategic in my opinion, to force us to see how truly invisible many of the characters were. Ironically, the most 'visible' character was the 'invisible man' with the other characters easily paralleled to represent various different things, from characters in greek myths to the specific racial problems Black people face in society. Not only do we see how invisible the characters are to each other, but through these parallels and deeper meanings in each character, Ellison is forcing us to see how truly invisible the characters are to everyone. Ironically, the most 'visible' character in this book is the 'invisible man' himself, who potentially can parallel to us, and to the readers who read this book.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think the whole point is that while the narrator is invisible, so is everyone else. We all fail to see each other. However, it's much easier to see the narrator's invisibility as a reader, so like you did, we must dig a little deeper and notice clues to see the bigger picture.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, Ellison works hard to make his narrator as three dimensional as possible while still maintaining the dreamlike perspective that makes Invisible Man so unique. Every character is well built to serve their purpose in the narrator's eventual understanding of invisibility, to the point where it feels like a complete story even if we don't look into the deeper meaning of what invisibility is. When I read your post I immediately thought of how Wright tends to do the same thing in Native Son. As we've discussed in class Bigger is meant to be a generalization, which can really take the humanity out of a character. Wright uses Bigger to show how 'the average black man' would act in the context of Bigger's situation but Ellison doesn't bother with that. I just find the contrast between the two really interesting because they're both famous books but take two completely different angles at representing a black protagonist.
ReplyDeleteThe connections you made with characters in Invisible Man and the Odyssey are very interesting. I can totally see how each character fits the role of those in the Greek myth. The narrator could be interpreted as a kind of tragic hero that goes through a series of hardships before finally finding himself and finishing his "quest". One thing I'd like to point out is that the narrator actually had quite a bit of character development throughout the story, but I agree that for most other characters, their representations and relationships with the narrators took priority over their development.
ReplyDelete