In Invisible Man, Ralph Ellison creates a stark difference in the
attitude of the narrator in the prologue as compared to the attitude of the
narrator in the first chapter. With the
interesting structure of the story it makes the reader ponder what happened to
the narrator throughout the story to create such a clear difference in opinions
and beliefs. The differences can be seen through the actions of the narrator
but also through the narrator’s descriptions of his beliefs. Most importantly
the use of laughter in the 2 separate passages gives insight to the reader to
the change that occurred. It is my belief that as we continue to read this
story the progression of the narrator will become clear and the progression
will be the most important aspect of the novel rather than the story line.
In
the prologue the narrator seems kind of deranged and his ideas and belief seem
very odd and not conforming to societal norms. The narrator is constantly
identifying himself as “invisible” which he believes is both positive and
negative. The disillusioned idea continues to progress when he reveals that he
wants to use 5 phonographs to play the same record at the same time. Together
this all seems very odd, almost insane behavior. But at the same time the ideas
and thoughts that the narrator is having do make sense in a very convoluted
way. However in the first chapter the ideas of the narrator make a lot of sense
to the reader, sometimes even to the extent that we are not sure if the
narrator truly understands what is happening to him. A clear example of the
narrator not quite understanding the setting to the fullest extent was during
his graduation when he was cast into the battle royal and all he could think
about was his up coming speech. This rapid change makes the reader wonder why
the narrator changed his opinion and what possibly could have happened in the
story to change his opinion in such a extreme way. One of the few hidden pieces
of evidence that show the reader what happen is the different use of laughter
in the 2 different sections.
In
the prologue, the narrator is seen beating a man to an inch of his life after
he insults the narrator with an assumed racial slur. The act of the beatings
itself seems very irrational and uncontrolled, but the aftereffects are very clear
and simple to understand. In the news paper the attack is described as a
mugging despite the lack of stolen items. This causes the narrator to laugh and
ponder the possibility for an invisible man to rob someone. Then as we read the first chapter the laughter
is used in a very different way and has definite negative conations towards the
narrator, the example of this is while the narrator is attempting to read his
graduating speech he is constantly interrupted by the laughter of the drunken
men. The laughter seems to hold power in both situations, in the first chapter
it shows power towards the drunken men because they have the right to decided
if what the narrator is saying has importance or not. The power completely
changes in the prologue when the narrator is holding power over the beaten man
and maybe even holding power over societal norms. The change in power dynamics
gives the readers insight into what happened in the story and what allowed the
narrator to gain the power of laughter rather than the submission of being laughed
at.
-Jan
-Jan
I think the idea of a distinct change in character between the Intro and Prologue is definitely well supported and is what Wright Ellison wanted us to see. I too was wondering what could have happened in his life to cause this much change in his way of life and even sanity. I think you pointed out the details that Ellison writes with very well, that further separate the two sides of the Invisible Man before and after his life changing experience(s). The contrast between the somewhat relatable and understandable narrator in the first few chapters and the crazy somewhat frightening person from the prologue is very well distinguished in this post.
ReplyDeleteI thought the ideas presented were very interesting and i definitely agree that there is a very stark difference between the narrator in the prologue and chapter one. I feel that giving us a glimpse of what the narrator turns into by the end of the book was very smart of Ellison because now as the narrator goes through each chapter you can see the little things that people say or do that effect him in the long run. Also, to me it seems that the prologue narrator and the narrator in the following chapters are almost on opposite ends of a spectrum with each end thinking the other end is crazy. I hope that as the book progresses we can see the dramatic change in not only the narrators views on invisibility but also his thoughts of what is insane and sane. Nice post!
ReplyDeleteThis may shed new light on the "does Bledsoe have power" debate. If you're saying that laughter connotes power then the line "they could laugh at him but they couldn't ignore him" may have some extended implications.
ReplyDeleteI think this idea of laughter as a means of power is a theme that Ellison subtly continues throughout the book. We see the Narrator constantly told by his grandfather, then the Vet, Bledsoe, and finally Emerson to not believe in "the game" AKA the racist system and take it too seriously. And so, one way Ellison represents the narrator's is his ability to laugh at the absurdity of "the game," thus undermining it.
ReplyDeleteLike we said in class, the intro and following transition is eerily close to the noir movie trope. As a Coen brothers fan and overall fan of movies, the book set up a very cinematic type of story. I also like your idea that the 5 phonographs make a strange type of sense; the narrator has a purpose he's following, much unlike his other pursuits that are soon revoked.
ReplyDeleteInteresting take on the laugh! I would love to see what your thoughts are about it now, after we've started to transition to a part of the book where the narrator is beginning to laugh at himself, to understand this "big joke." If indeed, laughture is an indication of power dynamics, does that mean that our narrator is indeed finally gaining some power over himself?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that Ellison gave us the prologue? I've been thinking about this a lot as we've been reading the book. Ellison basically gave away the biggest aspects of the book: the narrator feels that he is invisible. He tells us the end before he tells us the beginning. I'm not sure if it's just an intriguing way to set up the book, as a writing technique, or if it's in order to draw our attention to the shifting of the characteristics of the narrator. If so, why is that so important to the book? Ellison definitely could have sold this book by just the plot-line because of how climactic it is, but he chose to pull the readers into a more psychological area, and I'm not sure why.
ReplyDeleteThis is very well written post. You do a nice job of connecting the prologue with the battle royale scene. I think the narrator seems like a very bizarre character in the prologue, and the rest of the book is unpacking this character and how he got where he is when the book opens. Laughter is a very important part of this process, and paying attention to how laughter is used differently at different points of the book reveals what stage of self-discovery the narrator is in. While laughter is definitely correlated with power in both situations, how the power is used differs really importantly, which you get at in the last paragraph. I think it would be interesting to explore what moments in the story you think the narrator gained this power that his laughter reflects.
ReplyDelete