The Invisible Man has a somewhat opposite protagonist dynamic to Native Son. The narrator starts out (in his life, not the novel) as a fairly average character, albeit perhaps especially submissive and naive. He is certainly not an unrealistic or extreme character that many would label Bigger as. On the surface, this makes him seem more relatable than Bigger was at the opening of his story, but ultimately his lack of depth ends up making the reader feel more distanced for most of the novel. However the narrator changes drastically from this almost lack of personality to an extremely eccentric, analytical, and probably insane character by the time the epilogue rolls around. This somewhat blank slate was formed into something very complex through Ellison's very detailed and maybe absurd environment. Bigger however quickly evolves into a unique, impassioned character that I at least found to be relatable on a very human level.
I already wrote a blog post (and response paper) on why I consider Native Son to be more of an existentialist novel than a naturalist one; I find The Invisible Man a better fit for this category. Ellison doesn't really care whether the reader finds the narrator to be an interesting character, just that the premise of the character is believable. From there Ellison uses his symbol-ridden environment to mold him, thereby accomplishing his social commentary on the visibility/invisibility of an individual in society (or whatever you think he is trying to say, because really, who knows). As others have pointed out, Ellison wants the reader to be able to imagine themselves in the narrator's position. Regardless it seems clear that Wright is more concerned with existentialism, as evidenced in Bigger's final words, and the general lack of blatant symbolism, instead favoring character interaction. Ellison seems to be more resigned to the power of naturalist influences, and only has ambiguity in what exactly he is using his naturalist ideology to point out.
As an aside I'd like to say that my opinion on The Invisible Man has changed, and I found the ending to be really satisfying. I'm not saying I enjoyed it as much as Native Son, but I like that Ellison is able to portray naturalism in a non-pessimistic way as the novel closes.
I think what you have to say is really interesting, but I think that both authors have purposes that spread out to the reader, not just Ellison. I think both authors want their characters to be believable in some ways, just in different ways. If we look at Native Son, I think Bigger is a believable character, just the situations that he is put in aren't as comfortable for the reader. I see what you are trying to say, but I think it may be more of a question of how we, as the reader, take it, rather than what is actually going on in the novel. One thing that these two books have in common is that they mess with our (reader) head. And I don't think that's an accident. We are the third party, and we matter a lot in context of these novels, and so I think it's important to also include us in the observation of intention.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, I thought Invisible Man was much more existentialist than Native Son, just in the kind of questions it posed at the end about identity, how how one should cope with illusionment/disillusionment and if one should subscribe to an outside reality enforced on them by others, or their own reality. It seemed to me that the narrator followed this arch throughout the book from blind ignorant acceptance of the absurd, to disillusioned nihilism, and at the very end to a more existentialist outlook, what you could call a more enlightened acceptance of the absurd. At first, he blindly accepts any reality thrown upon him in order to succeed. Then, after his expulsion from school, he becomes more and more disillusioned, until he has cast off any reality imposed on him, has stopped believing in any kind of outside constructs whatsoever (specifically, how his identity is constructed by others), and is down in the basement with his light bulbs. His existentialist realization comes at the very end, when he re-discovers these core American principles of freedom and equality. It follows the steps of Camus' Myth of Sisyphus--first the disillusionment or awareness of the absurd, but then the enlightened acceptance of the absurd. It seemed to me, the questions at the end of the book seemed like the narrator trying to decide between this detached basement nihilism or actually trying to do something in the world he has become disillusioned with. The dream at the end encapsulates this idea: These outside forces (Jack , Bledsoe, etc.) who have been controlling him and his identity castrate him, saying that this is the final disillusionment, and the narrator is now free of illusion, which is true--the fact that he as parted with his testicles means that he has removed himself from the human task of reproduction, and symbolizes his removal from the outside world, and from outside realities. At first he laughs because he is free, free from this illusion that all the others are still inside of (he tells them that all they are are his testes, hanging from the bridge), but then he sees the bridge-robot move on, without him, and he sees that his disillusionment and detachment does no good, makes no difference, and he is powerless.
ReplyDelete