Invisible Man on the other hand focuses massively on irony and environment/setting details. However in my opinion it falls short instead on the protagonist. While I don't think the narrator is undeveloped, find him a bit boring. In the beginning of the novel, he's clearly not meant to be very relatable. He's submissive, naive, and almost without any self-respect. He doesn't really have any striking ideals or personality aspects that I find interesting. Later he breaks out of this character somewhat, becoming a great deal more skeptical and aggressive. However these personality aspects are really only noticeable because of the contrast to his old character. As far as I'm concerned he's become an average, educated young man, still without any particular ideals or goals other than to be vaguely successful.
Now one could make the argument that Ellison's huge environmental and ironic depth makes up for the lacking protagonist, and it does to some extent, and while the constant ironies give a lot of potential for analysis, for me it gets a little old. The plot is a bit too predictable, and you can hardly read a page without being thrown with some irony (or what might be irony). If you combine that with the often predictable narrator, the novel often seems fairly unimaginative. While the prologue gets us wondering how the narrator develops, I wish it didn't exist at times, because the reader not only knows where the narrator will end up (irrelevant and "invisible"), but we also know his final psychological result, which I don't enjoy knowing.
Please keep in mind that I'm not done with the novel yet, and I am quite biased towards Native Son. I just think Invisible Man is an acquired taste that I don't quite have.
In a way "Invisible Man" is almost a mock up of "Native Son". Invisible Man, presents a story where "Bigger" goes down a different path of life, where "Bigger" is educated and "successful". So in a way "Invisible Man" is a satire of "Native Son" that shows the problems that come from becoming educated and successful.
ReplyDeleteI've heard some complaints about _Invisible Man_ over the years--a good friend of mine and former student once called it "contrived," which I couldn't argue with; I just think the contrivances are interesting and effective. But I've never heard the plot called "predictable" before!
ReplyDeleteI do see what you're saying about the narrator and his relative flatness/emptiness. But keep the prologue in mind, and keep in mind the possibility that he deliberately presents himself this way. He's got no real identity at this point; he IS largely an empty vessel waiting to be filled by others' expectations for him. But somehow he turns into the beguiling, taunting, ambiguous voice of the prologue, and for me, this is where the story lies. His "depth" is implied in the imminent transition from one state to the other.
Although I can definitely see the heavy reliance on symbolism and allegory in Invisible Man you are referring to, I would argue that there is still a great deal of character development that is worth noting. To say that the plot is predictable... well kudos to you, clearly I have not been nearly as insightful! All jokes aside, so far Invisible Man has been the more satisfying read for me, partly because I think, like Mr. Mitchell says, "the contrivances are interesting and effective", and partly because between the two implicit character fates, the narrator's offers more promise and enigma; in that sense, Invisible Man is less predictable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of your points, but overall I preferred Invisible Man mostly because the narrator seems to be shaped by his environment, but at the same time makes some conscious decisions that show us his progression as a person. I think that since we are given such a good look at his thoughts and his decisions throughout the book, it is more intriguing to watch his character develop, while Bigger seems to be a character who is meant to fit a stereotype merely in order to prove a point.
ReplyDelete