Their Eyes Were Watching God?

I want to make a blog post just laying out my initial thoughts and reactions to Their Eyes Were Watching God, so this might be convoluted or confusing, but try to bear with me. I added a question mark to the end of my title because I thought that it looked kinda fun, but after reading the title again it strikes me as a less straight-forward statement than I had previously thought. This is to say, does the past tense refer to the fact that this is a story about the past, or is it because the characters had been watching god and then looked away? I have never given any thought to the Hurston's title before now, apart from being confused by it but assuming the meaning would become clear. Now, however, I am rather intrigued. What does this oh so intriguing phrase really mean?
So far, the first idea that pops into my head is that the God is Jody, and the townsfolk look to him for guidance. This seems totally wrong to me, but it is just the first thought I had. It seems unlikely to be Hurston's meaning. It could be that the citizens of Eatonville are looking ahead at something greater while they are living in less than ideal situations. It could refer to the fact that Janie seems much more preoccupied with nature than with the god that her grandmother and presumably the citizens of Eatonville worship. That interpretation plays of the use of "Their" in the title, which separates the narrator or perhaps protagonist from other people. It could be referring to Janie's apparent move away from the pursuit of an idealized love towards a more down to earth acceptance of her life, in that she used to be watching god (her bright vision for her future) but now has I guess looked town more to earth and is trying to deal more with reality.
So basically I am just staring at the title until some theory pops into my head, and so far I have talked about the words "were" and "their", so it seems fitting for me to move onto "eyes". What I think of when I specifically focus on the use of this word in the title is the fact that it isn't "hearts" or "souls". Eyes are a much more physical feature. While they may be the windows to the soul, they are more earthly than the soul. So when I see "eyes" I think that perhaps the people referred to are watching god only with their eyes and not with their souls or minds. The implications of this in my view are that they do not really believe in or trust god, but are watching him to protect themselves or something. As if they are watching god but intentionally trying to remain separate from him and follow a non-religious path. This interpretation seems flimsy to me, but the fact that eyes are specifically mentioned sort of sets the people away from god more than if it just said "they were watching god". This second version is also way less poetic, but it could be saying that the citizens of Eatonville or just people in general were watching but not following god. This is my theory about "watching" as well. It separates the people from god, and specifically does not imply a desire to act religiously. They are watching, not following. I guess I have already addressed the word "god", in that it may refer to Jody (unlikely) and it may refer to nature (perhaps a bit more likely).
I do not think that any of the theories I lay out in this post are accurate, but perhaps one or two are on the right path. I will be interested to re-read this post once we have finished reading and discussing Their Eyes Were Watching God and see what I think about the title then. Also I went on a tangent and did not really discuss my initial reactions to this novel. whoops. I think this was more interesting, but sorry about lying to you about the subject matter. I would be very interested to hear any other ideas about the title that anyone else has.

Responsibility

I have been thinking a lot lately about responsibility in Invisible Man. I am writing my response paper on this topic, and figured I would try to lay out my thoughts in a blog post first. I noticed that the phrases "social responsibility" and "personal responsibility" are both uttered by the narrator in the novel, and both times the concept is met with derision.
First, the narrator says it during his speech after the battle royal, and is made to repeat it often, until he accidentally says "social equality", and frightens everyone. The rich old white guys who are "listening" to the narrator all laugh at his idea of there people having a social responsibility. Later, after Todd Clifton's funeral, the narrator tells the Jack and other Brothers that he felt it was his personal responsibility to perform the funeral. He is once again scoffed at and must repeat the phrase. This no doubt influenced his departure from the Brotherhood, but it also shows how the Brotherhood views responsibility. The Brotherhood clearly thinks that personal responsibility is not a real thing, they feel responsible only to their own ideals and the people who share them.
I think that people's reactions to the idea of social or personal responsibility display that the few people feel a connection or a responsibility for society as a whole, or for people who do not share their ideals. They only care about the groups that they are a part of, and the specific ideals that they have chosen to hold. It seems to me that most people are blind to the ideals of others, and to the feelings or reality of groups other than their own. I would even go so far as to say that the groups--be they political, economic, or racial--are invisible.
I want to explore this invisibility and how it presents itself in Invisible Man. I think that it is safe to say the Ras's followers/ideals are failed to be seen by the Brotherhood, and Ras fails to understand the true ideals and workings of the Brotherhood. This is also evident during the eviction at which the narrator makes his debut as a Harlem leader. The people who are being evicted, and the crowd that forms around them, do not care about the forces that move the people who are evicting them. If both groups had been able to see the other, the outcome of the situation may have been much more positive.
Also, it is not in the book, but in the Documentary we watched, I think the narrator says something like it is his social responsibility to write the book, during the prologue-scene. I checked and I don't think he says that in the actual book, but I found it interesting that they added it in the movie.

Invisibility and Blindness and the narrators perception of them

When I wrote the prompt in class the other day about how the narrator changed between the beginning and end of Invisible Man, I started thinking a lot about his perceptions of invisibility and blindness. Throughout his story, it is clear that his perception of the world is changing monumentally, and I think that by contemplating and writing about how he changed, he changed even more.

In chapter one, and in much of the book for that matter, the narrator has no conception of invisibility or blindness. For a while, his only thoughts are that to be with the Brotherhood is to be visible, and everyone who isn't is invisible (like Todd Clifton). Members of the Brotherhood also consider everyone else blind because they lack the scientific view the Brothers take. I am not sure if the narrator completely believes this, but he seems to go along with it. While in the Brotherhood, however, the narrator is invisible (goes by a false name, is seen as "leader", etc.) as well as blind (only sees masses, is blinded by spotlight, etc.). Only when the narrator finally breaks with the Brotherhood and retreats to his brightly lit hole does he become fully aware of his invisibility. At this point though, he does not fully understand the extent to which everyone is invisible, and to which he himself is and has been blind. By the end of the novel, the narrator seems to realize that he has not really seen anyone else. This is obvious to readers, because none of the others characters are even remotely well-developed. And because the narrator is writing the book, it is likely that he notices this as well. After the narrator has reflected on his life by writing about it, I think he realizes that the man he talks about beating up in the prologue was just as invisible to the narrator as the narrator was to him. This is just one example of the narrator's blindness, as well as the invisibility of everyone else. As the narrator says in the prologue, the invisibility is caused by the blindness of others. Once the narrator become aware of how blind he has been, he becomes more determined to go out into the world and stop being blind. He sees that the 1,369 lights in his basement may have been just as blinding as the stage lights, at least until has started using them to write a book.

When the narrator begins the prologue, he knows that he has been bind to his own invisibility for most of his life. By the time he finishes the book, he discovers that he has also been blind to every one else, and thereby causing them to be invisible as well. He sees that his blindness has only been perpetuating his in other people's invisibility, and seems determined to come out of his cave and try to change that. Or perhaps not. But at the very least his is aware that he is blind as well as invisible, and he only found that out by undergoing thorough meditation on his life in the form of an autobiography.