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.
I always have such a hard time writing/talking about this book, simply because I overuse the phrase "the narrator" too often! I'm always itching for a name. Honestly, I'm surprised that no one brought this up earlier.
ReplyDeleteYou're right in saying that Ellison seems to be doing this consciously. I suppose it allows us to see the narrator for his actions alone, removing him from one label -- that was the effect your lack of title had on this post! I had to read to find out, and that made it more interesting, no spoilers here.
But I'm uncomfortable with saying that this gives the narrator more identity. I agree with you, it seems that the lack of name shows how the narrator remains invisible, even to us. We think we know him so well, and yet we don't know the most basic fact about him! Even as we talk about how every other character is blind to the narrator's individuality, we as readers are discussing him simply as a symbol of social justice as well. We are more similar to the Brotherhood, Jan, and Mary than we think!
I think that your description of the narrator as "a symbol of social justice" is quite apt. I was struggling to put into words how we view him, but I think that that sums it up pretty well. Thanks!
DeleteI think you bring up a really interesting point when you say that the reader is supposed to be blind to the narrator too. However, it is also a point of contention. It brings the question of what is Ellison's purpose of writing a novel where the reader assumes everything about the character, but is never intended to understand him. It is slightly disconcerting that we are all forming a bond (at least I am) with a character who does not and essentially should not be forming bonds with anyone. I think an important distinction should be made and discussed whether Ellison wants his narrator to be invisible, or whether the narrator himself wants to be invisible. Nonetheless, a thought-provoking post.
ReplyDeleteIt's really funny - It took me a while to notice that we didn't know the narrator's name, but once I realized it, it I couldn't stop thinking about it as I read. Part of me keeps hoping Ellison will slip up and just sneak a name in there somewhere on accident (yeah, I know it's not going to happen, but oh well).
ReplyDeleteI never thought about how the narrator was invisible to us, but that's an amazing point. We're definitely making a lot of assumptions about him, just like many of the other characters in the book have, so how are we really any different?
Haha, I love how you didn't give this post a title... very fitting for the theme of the post!
It’s a very odd thing, what Ellison is doing. We know the characters complete inner thoughts, throughout all the scenes in the book, and the only thing missing from us is his name. He could be hiding some of his thoughts, but there’s not a lot to suggest he may be doing that. I understand that the absence of a defined name is a good representation for invisibility, but what does a name mean anyway? We know more about the narrator than you know about your average random classmate (statistically speaking), as we have complete access to his mind. What difference would it be for him to have a name or not? Other characters know his name but don’t see what we see. Is he invisible to them, or to us?
ReplyDeleteMy take on it is that the narrator is writing this while he is invisible (presumable he is invisible at the end of the story -the prologue- which is when he is writing this all), so he us purposely not telling us his name because he is currently invisible, not because he was invisible when he was getting his name handed to on slips of paper and whatnot.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has taught this book a number of times, believe me when I say that you do get sick of the term "the narrator" after a few weeks. It does start to stand in for a name--what else can we call him? Some people call him "the invisible man," but I don't like this, in part because he isn't yet the invisible man of the title until he "discovers" his invisibility. I like emphasizing his role to us as a narrator, even if the term feels clunky in writing and speaking. It reminds us that we encounter him foremost as a guy telling his story, narrating his life from the basement, a voice trying to give shape to his experience. Narrating is an essential part of his self-definition, He is "the narrator," and everything we know about the story ultimately comes from him.
ReplyDeleteA few days into reading this book, I was getting tired or writing "the narrator" every time, and wanted to propose that we call him "Bob" or something along those lines. I decided that there was a reason we didn't know his name, and so in the interest of not wanting to undermine Ellison's purpose, I refrained from assigning him one. It is interesting to me though, that he was in fact assigned one by the Brotherhood. Also, the only time he has been able to assign himself a name (in the hospital) he cannot remember it.
ReplyDelete