At first, I just figured that we did not know his name, because he is invisible. Fair enough. It represents the narrator's invisibility in his world. But just as I was beginning this post, it struck me that everyone in his world knows his name, and yet we are blind to it. The readers are just as blind, if not more so, than the characters in the book. I probably realized this a while ago, but it only now surfaced in my mind at a conscious level. (Level is a really level word, that's pretty cool). But back to the matter at hand. The narrator is incredibly invisible to the readers as well as everyone else. This seems strange, because we have spent so many days in class talking about the narrator, I feel like I know him well. I think that Ellison is hiding his name to remind us readers that we don't know the narrator as much as we would like to think we do. By with holding the narrator's name from us, Ellison is hinting that the narrator is invisible to us as well, and that no matter how much we discuss and interpret and debate who the narrator is, none of us really know him. He is a person too (debate-ably) and is just as invisible to us as anyone he interacts with. We only see him through our perceptions of how we expect him to be. I know that I am making assumptions about him based on his early actions, the genre of book, and how I am used to other fictional characters' being and acting. I will try to my ignorance in mind in future class discussions, and I think that it is important that everyone else does as well. Sure, we have to assume things about him, we must make guesses and form opinions and theories based on what we believe, but it is important to remember that what we believe about the narrator and his feelings may be wrong. I think Ellison is trying to show his readers that, and I think that that is very wise of him.
Note that I gave this post no title. I did that because I was going to name it invisibility or some such nonsense, but I figured that making the title itself invisible would be cooler.