IM seminar

The Invisible Man seminars are hands down the best assignments we’ve done all year. I really enjoy listening to how others perceived the novel and discussing it. Granted, some of the class mates’ opinions will obviously differ. However, listening to how others interpreted the novel allows me to get a better understanding of the book. Having said that, I want to talk about the section of the novel my group was responsible for leading the class in. I want to talk about Dr. Norton first. As we discussed in the seminar, Dr. Norton is really not a character, but a representation of the historical ideology of the White Man’s Burden. This term refers to the mindset of the affluent white men who believed that they had a “burden” to help the inferior race, the blacks. This kind of ideology is also rooted in the Manifest Destiny ideology that defined America during the 19^th century. Yes it’s true that Dr. Norton donates money to the all black institute which the narrator attends. But, what’s Norton’s true motives for donating the money? Is he really a nice guy that just wants to help some random people out? The answer is a resounding no. He is not genuinely concerned for the well being of others. He helps others out to help himself. The feeling of importance Norton feels when he donates money to the institution is the impetus behind Norton’s desire to help the school out. Oblivious to this fact, the naïve narrator blindly follows and basically worships Norton. To the narrator, Norton represents the Great White Father figure. Norton is not considered a man by the narrator, instead he is considered as a almost God like figure. Thus, the narrator tries his best to impress and look good in front of Norton. However, all of his intentions go down the drain when the narrator accidentally takes him to the bad places of the campus. At the Golden Day tavern, the veteran appears. I personally think that the veteran is one of the most significant characters in the novel. He is the only person in the novel that can see through the façade of Norton. He tells the narrator he is blind because he doesn’t see the real reason why Norton is helping him out. And he continues by saying that it is this ignorance and blindness which will be the narrator’s main tool to advancing in society. This refers to Booker T Washington’s philosophy of accomadationalism. In essence, Washington’s philosophy preaches blindness. As long as there is an equality in economics, social equality should be forsaken. And the blindness the veteran talks about is clearly evident in Washington. He thought that one would follow the other. But, this was clearly not the case. In this sense, the novel can be seen as a social commentary because Ellison was really against Washington’s philosophies. Well our last seminar is tomorrow and I’m excited to attend!

Invisbile Man

For my seminar, I was grouped with Charlie and Kurt to discuss a close reading of the section where the narrator enrolls into the college to his expulsion in the Invisible Man. This section consisted of chapters 2-9. When the narrator first enters the campus, his descriptions had an uncanny resemblance to the picaraseque novel Candide. Starting from the “lushes vines” to the everlasting sun, the college closely resembled the Garden of Eden from the Bible. Since the Garden of Eden represents innocence, the narrator in the state within the college can then also be represented as his innocent stage. Regarding this, I also found a critical article that talked about this. The article basically stated that the narrator has two fundamentally different methods of solidifying his malleable identity. The first part is before his expulsion, and the second part consists of the sections in the novel after the expulsion. Thus, the expulsion of the narrator can be seen as a fall of innocence. In essence, this situation can be equated to the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. Another interesting aspect I realized about this book after a close reading, is that Dr. Norton is a representation of the historical concept White Man’s Burden. This is the White Man’s imperialistic desires to help the “inferior race”, predominatly the blacks. However, because the narrator is so innocent and naïve at this point in the novel, he is blind to Dr. Norton’s true intentions. He is basically helping others so that he can help himself—fulfil his desires of helping the inferior race. It’s interesting to note that the only character that sees through Dr. Norton’s façade is the veteran the narrator encounters at the Golden Day Tavern. He claims that the narrator is not even looked as a person by Norton. Instead, he is a “score mark” on Norton’s achievement card. This is also where invisibility comes into play. He lacks identity, the narrator is transformed into whatever Norton sees him as, predominatly his imperialistic desires.

I also want to talk about to Dr. Bledsoe’s representation of Booker T. Washington in the novel. There is a perfect description of Bledsoe as being monumentally important among the white folks and the leader of race relations. In terms of history, Booker T. Washington was a preacher of what is now termed Accomadationalism. This is the ideology which stated that the blacks should give up their social rights and instead on focusing economic equality. This suited the whites as they could now give blacks the jobs that were unwanted. I think that Ellison criticizes Washington when he portrays Bledsoe as a manipulative and power-hungry savage. He even claims to be willing to hang all the blacks in the country to retain his position, which can certainly be constituted as selfish. And this is exactly what some of the black population perceived Washington to be. They considered him to be selfish and even a traitor to their own race as he had given up dignity of his own race. Was it worth it? I don’t think so.

Fight Club

The book I’m reading for the literature circle is Fight Club. I was glad that I got to read this book because it was my first choice and I really enjoyed the movie. However, Mrs. Clinch stated that the book is radically different from the movie. Well I read the first 8 chapters, and up to that point, the plot of the book is nearly identical to the plot in the movie. I was up at my friend’s cabin this weekend and was reading the novel when my friend pointed out that the book was almost like a movie screen. And because of the similarity in the book and movie, I assumed that the conclusion of the novel would match that of the movie—tyler durden and the narrator are one person. Under this assumption, I noticed many clues within the text that pointed towards my assumption. For instance, in the first chapter, Tyler and the narrator are always mentioned together in tandem. But, I learned today in class that the ending of the movie is not the same as the ending in the novel. I’m glad I realized this so that I can read without trying to figure contextual clues that pointed to Tyler and the narrator being one person. The novel is definitely raw and gritty. In other words, it’s not meant for the weak of heart. I thought that the narrator’s desire to overturn the norm of society was interesting. The novel is essentially about existential nihilism, which refers to the philosophy that suggests life is without an intrinsic purpose or objective. Because of the narrator’s day-to-day lifestyle, he views it as a static picture without any surprises or excitement. This is where the fight club comes in. Both the narrator and tyler start this club to break out of society. The book mentions self destruction, which is basically fighting. The narrator basically wants to test his limits not only in fighting, but the boundaries of society as well. He is finally fed up with being normal and blending into the background. I found that this idea of reaching bottom before you can be saved is prevalent throughout this novel. Besides fighting, the narrator regularaly attends different support group meetings although he is perfectly healthy. He claims that at these meetings he feel better about himself because he can witness the pains and harshness of life. There, he can see what it means to truly reach bottom and therefore be saved. The book alludes to Jesus Christ and him reaching bottom by being crucified. This idea of reaching bottom is flawed in my opinion. You don’t necessarily have to reach the rock bottom to realize and be thankful for your situation. I also realized that Tyler is the more aggressive and alpha male in the relationship he shares with the narrator. If the novel is not like the movie where they are the same person, I wonder who Tyler Durden really is, is he a real person or just a figment of the narrator’s imagination? Im excited to find out!

Invisible Man

I’m glad that I got the chance to read Invisible Man. If I wasn’t forced to read this book, I don’t think I ever would have. The descriptions through the unnamed narrator really allowed me to get a glimpse of what life was like in the shoes of a black man during the 60s. The novel starts with the narrator claiming that he is invisible. The invisibility is not referring to the ability of the narrator to be literally unseen, but instead to the fact that people refuse to see him for who he is. Everyone else tries to force an identity upon the narrator. The narrator essentially sets out on a quest to find and discover his own identity. The narrator begins his story with the narrator graduating. Being the valedictorian of the class, the narrator is excited to give a speech to the wealthy white folks in the town. Before he can, the narrator is basically sucked into a royal battle free for all. The town’s most accomplished white men gather and take great joy in humiliating the young black men. The accomplished men included lawyers, doctors, and even pastors. These men made the young black men to get into a boxing ring and start fighting blindly. At the same time, the white men shout racial terms at the black men. On top of all this, the black men are humiliated even more when they are tricked into being electrified. After all these humiliating events, the narrator is “awarded” with a scholarship. At this point in the novel, the narrator is extremely naïve and is totally submissive to others. His journey in college comes to a screeching halt one day when he has to drive a white trustee named Mr. Norton around the campus. One thing leads to another and the narrator is unjustly expelled by Dr. Bledsoe. The narrator soon finds out that the letters of recommendations he received from Bledsoe were more like letters of doom. Already in his young life, the narrator has been manipulated a multiple of times. This manipulation continues throughout the entire novel until the narrator realizes that he is invisible. The invisibility theme is very interesting to me. I believe that the invisibility theme and the struggle for identity theme are interrelated. The narrator is blind and therefore unable to make his own identity; instead, he has society impose an identity on him. For example, the Brotherhood forces an identity on the narrator by essentially brainwashing him. They don’t see the narrator for who he is, but rather as a mere tool that can be used to communicate with the people. The narrator finally understands the invisibility theme after pretending to be Rinehart. Realizing that people see him for who they want to see him as, the narrator realizes the fluidity of identity. It is this realization that leads him to conclude that he is invisible. I look forward to doing some seminars on this book as it was really interesting to me.

Sonnet

For the past couple days in class, we have been learning about sonnets. I’m not really into poetry but I think sonnets are very interesting. I really like the sonnet’s purpose—a medium through which skilled poets can dazzle audiences. The main subject of sonnets is love. The poet often is chasing a cruel fair—the gorgeous woman that eludes men in their quest for love. I noticed the hunter vs. hunted analogy is a common theme in sonnets as well. Both Spenser and Wyatt uses this analogy to describe their love situation. Obviously, the poets are the hunters who are hunting for the deer. At the literal level, the hunter is hunting the deer. Figuratively, the deer is the equivalent of the cruel fair. The hunting analogy holds true on so many levels, which renders it popular among sonnet writers. Just as a deer looks innocent and harmless, the cruel fair appears to be pure and innocent. Yet, the cruel fair is a professional when it comes to manipulating the emotions of others. The cruel fair also possesses the uncanny ability to evoke strong emotions in others. For example, the cruel fair often leaves the hunter exhausted and wearied because it eludes the hunter so much. Yet, something about the cruel fair makes the hunter keep on hunting for it. It’s also in the cruel fair’s nature that makes them enjoy being sought after by these hunters. It’s really a game to the deer. On the other hand, the hunter is more serious and genuine in their”love”. In essence, the hunt is more than a game to the hunter. Failure to successfully hunt means not having food that night, at least in the Elizebethan times. This shows that the hunter took hunting very seriously. If we take this analogy a step further, we can see that the deer is the hunter’s food—a source for the hunter’s weariness to be replenished. This is ironic in that the deer is what causes the weariness in the hunter initially. I found the Spenserian version of the hunting sonnet to be a lot more interesting. I personally think that the couplet in that sonnet changes the entire situation. It completely reverts the situation. Until the last two lines, it appears as though that the deer is in control as she leaves the hunter all tired and weary. But at the couplet, Spenser claims that he “won” the deer by “beguiling her goods”. This means that Spenser was pretending this entire time to fall victim to the cruel fair’s desires. In reality, he was the one in control while manipulating the emotions of the deer because the deer ends up “allowing” the hunter to finally catch her. I look forward to reading Shakespeare’s sonnets tomorrow!