One of the large criticisms of the
novel is that the ending “too optimistic” and “not protesty enough”. Although I was not expecting the ending to go
in the direction it went, I think that its “strangeness” is left up for many
different interpretations. I think one must look at the beginning before making
any judgments on the ending. In the
prologue, the narrator says, “I am not complaining, nor am I protesting either”
(3). Many critics were blasting Invisible Man for not protesting enough
and the narrator tells them on the very first page of the novel that this is not a protest novel! In my opinion, the novel is still a protest
novel, but from Ellison’s perspective, not
the narrator’s. What the narrator says does not necessarily
mean it is what Ellison believes, nor does Ellison necessarily want everyone to
follow the narrator’s advice.
The “point” of the novel is not to
tell everyone to go curl up in a hole in the ground and find your own identity
-- that is just the story of the narrator.
Later in the prologue, the narrator says he “is in a state of
hibernation” (6). Hibernation is a
temporary state that will result in eventual reemergence. At the
end of the novel the narrator is still in a state of confusion that he has
trouble articulating:
There seems to be no escape. Here I’ve set out to throw my anger into the
world’s face, but now that I’ve tried to put it all down the old fascination
with playing a role returns, and I’m drawn upward again. So that before I finish I’ve failed (maybe my
anger is too heavy; perhaps, being a talker, I’ve used too many words). But I’ve failed. The very act of trying to put it all down has
confused me and negated some of the anger and some of the bitterness. (579)
Instead
of viewing this ending state as what Ellison wants the reader to do/take away, this scene can be read as Ellison
warning the reader of how the
narrator’s course of action has failed. He
still needs a “role” to play -- even if it is the role of an “invisible
man”. This can be thought of as, yet again,
the “boomerang” coming back into the narrator’s face after another wave of the
naïve optimism. Maybe these “infinite
possibilities” are not quite as the narrator imagined them moments ago (576).
I think the notion of Ellison's perpetual "boomerang" hitting the Narrator each time he attempts to find his identity is very interesting because it could be read metaphorically. In that, Ellison is making the point that African-American haven't yet discovered their true identity in American society. Perhaps this notion of the cycle of the boomerang speaks to Ellison's view that African-Americans should continue to attempt to define their identity, and he is merely presenting a fictional representation of in Invisible Man through the character of the Narrator.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to think that the narrator does not envision his novel as a form of protest, but the quote, "I am not complaining, nor am I protesting either" (3), is not evidence to prove that argument. In context, the narrator states that he does not protest his own invisibility, for it is useful in a multitude of scenarios. Imagine how much you could do if no one could see you!
ReplyDeleteThe narrator claims that he speaks for the reader on lower frequencies. Leaving us with a spooky uncertainty. Making the reader asks themselves if they are invisible. Do you feel the narrator is correct in this claim? I agree that the novel takes an odd swing but, I think Ellison wants to remind us that we need to have faith in the system and in society to grow towards a world where everyone is accepted.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the ambiguous ending can be interpreted as an identity realization/crisis on a more personal ("we are all invisible") but can ALSO be thought of as the narrator's naivety going through another "boomerang" phase -- we all are invisible but because of the society that surrounds us, some people are profoundly *more* invisible than others due to the absurd racial constraints society enforces.
DeleteYou last point is especially interesting. The idea that invisibility can, in fact, be something (a role, like you mentioned) is a crucial realization for the narrator. "Nothing is something", and although it takes him the course of the novel to fully grasp the usefulness of being invisible, he eventually arrives at this conclusion.
ReplyDelete