In the Prologue, the Invisible Man expresses a very clear understanding of his role in society as an invisible man. Not only the first sentence, and therefore declaration, of the Prologue “I am an invisible man,” but it unfolds what exactly it means to be an invisible man and the character’s self awareness. This self awareness seems to be almost entirely reliant upon what the character is not or juxtaposition to other characters. For example, the Prologue he builds an understanding what is known more as a physical invisibility in order to form an understanding of his own invisibility “of a peculiar disposition of the [inner] eyes of those whom [he] come in contact with” (pg 3). This model of comparing what is known in order to build an understanding of what is not, like the character’s invisibility, is something found throughout the novel as the character at many times is framed a part from the world around him—a true man of invisibility. For example, when he is to present his speech in Chapter 1 to the group of white men, they make it very clear that he is still lower and lesser by making him partake in the battle royal prior to giving his speech, which one would think would be a moment of honor. Instead, to me as a reader, it came off as a bit bitter and not how a speaker would be honored. Then, in Chapter 3, the character is confronted with the vets at Golden Days, and he doesn’t seem to belong there either. At one point, Sylvester asks him to participate in the beating of Supercargo, and in a way it seemed as if the background character was asking the Invisible Man to participate in the action or plot of the world around him, yet he does not (pg 84). In this way, like when he gives the speech, he is very much separate from the world around him, and it would follow that if he is not to have a place within the world around him that the character seems to grasp he is not a part of, then what is he? An invisible man.

Invisible Man’s “the vet” and relationship to other characters

It is not only dangerous but also inefficient for the rulers to control the subjugated only through brute force. It is much safer and more efficient to make the obedient and talented individuals of the controlled class to have a place in society, thus incentivizing them to fit into the established system and thereby letting them contribute to the hegemony.

In such sense, the early relationship between Mr. Norton and the protagonist is a symbiotic contract. In return of some degradation, the protagonist is ensured a position in society as a respected expert, thus functioning as a buffet class between the controlling and the controlled class. Mr. Norton is in a much better side of the deal: through a significant donation, he gains a social position as a philanthropist while still enjoying what is left of his fortune. The two characters are in a socially constructed mirage that serves to satisfies both, of course more for the likes of Mr. Norton.

The advent of “the vet” is what shatters this mirage. Taking the form as a Shakespearean fool, the vet exposes the hypocrisy contained in the aforementioned contract. The vet is a possible fate of the protagonist. “[He] performed a few brain surgeries that won [him] some small attention” as a successful brain surgeon (91). But then he “was forced to the utmost degradation because [he] possessed (…) the belief that [his] knowledge could bring [himself] dignity (…) and other men health” (93). He may be a shell-shocked mad veteran, yet he is capable of seeing the truth the protagonist and Mr. Norton fail to, or rather refuse to, see: this is no country for blacks.

     From the beginning of chapter 1 to the end of chapter 4, the protagonist expressed his strong desire to continue and succeed in his education, and even when he was beaten he was still thinking about his speech which helped him get into college. After the protagonist sent Mr. Norton back to campus, he thought about the possibility of him being expelled and claimed: “Here within this quiet greenness I possessed the only identity I had ever known, and I was losing it.”(99). It is highly possible that the “only” identity that the protagonist thought he possessed was that of a student, as one who was struggling to be humble decent like Dr. Bledsoe, but what if he loses this identity? In the prologue, the protagonist never mentioned once about education or humility, suggesting the possible loss of his “only” identity. I am really curious that if it was the loss of the “only” identity that led to the protagonist’s invisibility, or could it be that invisibility came to be at least part of his identity, substituting the former one, and was the character’s change from the obedient student to a cynical man a product of his identity issue.

As we are presented with an introduction and background to the narrator in the first four chapters of the book, what I found most intriguing were the different status images that were presented. While the narrator describes events and facts in his life- such as his living conditions and being forced to fight senselessly- that suggest a total lack of control or dignity, his constant inner dialogue is founded on a basis of superiority. He holds steadfast value in his ability to articulate and identify himself as an educated person, and establishes a strict hierarchy which he acts upon. “…I felt that only these men could judge truly my ability, and now this stupid clown was ruining my chances.” (Pg. 25) The making of this personal standard, however, is unseen by the readers, and we do not immediately see the connection made between his situational positions of power. This is ultimately a purposeful yet extremely delicate technique that dictates the transparency of the character’s internalizations, and can result in either absolute empathy or extreme isolation between the narrator and a reader depending on the latter’s ability to relate to the system of logic present in the story.

Our narrator is an “Invisible Man” for a number of reasons, many of which are already divulged to us by Chapter 4, and I am intrigued by how shifting perspectives in the narrative explore and heighten this invisibility. In Chapter 2, the Invisible Man’s voice is rendered literally invisible as Jim Trueblood’s narrative takes dominance (64-68), replacing our protagonist’s first-person narration. Mr. Norton doesn’t “even look at [him]” (61) as Trueblood speaks, and the cruel irony of how the Invisible Man has been ‘replaced’ in the narrative is compounded by how Norton eventually gives Trueblood a hundred-dollar bill, whereas the Invisible Man had originally hoped Norton would sponsor his education (38). Through shifting the perspective in this chapter to relay a story (one that is separate from the Invisible Man’s own narrative) from Trueblood’s point of view, Ralph Ellison has manufactured our protagonist’s invisibility on a stylistic level.  I am interested in seeing how Ellison’s decisions to navigate different perspectives and assign primacy of narrative to other characters will increase or reduce the Invisible Man’s invisibility as the novel progresses, and in doing so shape the ways we feel about and understand the character.

Welcome to your course blog at University of Chicago.

To get started, go to your blog dashboard and review the common settings and options for your blog.

If you are familiar with blogging tools, you can simply log in, edit this post and explore all the other options available to you on the dashboard. For assistance, visit the quick start documentation, check out the User Guide guide, or email academictech@uchicago.edu.

–Academic & Scholarly Technology Services
http://academictech.uchicago.edu/