America and White Boy Shuffle

When we discussed the ending of White Boy Shuffle in class, I realized that the topics we were covering consistently overlapped with the themes of the poem, "America", we talked about previously. One main discussion topic was the aspect of perspective and how the eagle looked free and appeared to be flying but in reality was trapped and unable to be independent. Similarly, Gunnar seems to have everything anyone would want (Literary genius, fame, prodigy basketball player, etc.) but still feels confined to the suffocating views of the White people. Because of this, he feels that the only course of action left is to drop a bomb on the entire Black population as a final Black movement. Another interesting aspect is the idea of dependency. For example, in order for the eagle to even appear like it's flying, someone, presumably a white person, would have to flip the coin off their finger. In White Man Shuffle, most of Gunnar's unwanted fame and glory stems from the attention of white spectators who use him as a source of their entertainment and "generosity". I think the author does an amazing job of showcasing this sense of inevitability and traps their reader into the exact perspective that Gunnar fights to get rid of at the end, which is a sense of loss and disappointment of Gunnar's waste of his talents.

This novel has kept me hooked throughout each chapter and I feel that it's fitting, in regard to the theme of amusing yet uncomfortable irony, that the solution the genius Gunnar Kaufman comes up with to finally free the Blacks from the views of society is such a simple one, yet no one left on the Earth would be able to understand.

The Paradoxes of Beloved

While reading Beloved, one of the most thought-provoking aspects for me was the idea of paradox within Sethe's world. The story takes place in a setting with slavery as a normal practice, which already makes the reader uncomfortable and makes it difficult for the reader to understand characters' motives. Out of all the crazy paradoxes within the ghosts, reincarnation, and rememory, the most important paradox for me was the idea of mother's love and Sethe's murder of her children. From a completely outside perspective, Sethe's murder of her children seems monstrous and it does not seem like it can be morally justified in any way. However, after providing the reader with around 100 pages of background to Sethe's situation and the horrors of slavery that she faced, the reader is faced with a complex dilemma. Is Sethe's action justifiable? Arguably, this question has no answer and in my opinion, I feel that Morrison purposefully made this an impossible question to answer. How could one side with a mother who murders her own children and shows no shame or regret? Yet how could one fully criticize the actions of someone who has lived through hell and knows the results that would come out of giving her children up freely? 

Arising from this is another paradox surrounding Mr. Garner and his treatment of slaves. From the introduction of his character, the reader is meant to see him in a good light because he calls his slaves "Sweet Home Men" and provides them with opportunities that would not be provided elsewhere, like being able to marry each other and live together. However, this practice of allowing them to love can be seen in the long run as an important factor as to why Sethe made her decision. Because Sethe was taught to love and learned to be a mother, she was put into a situation that no other slave would be put in. Even Paul D mentions how dangerous it is for a slave to love and not be able to give people up. Again the reader is put into a predicament. Could Garner's good treatment of his slaves have led to the horrific decisions they would later have to make? Is Paul D actually the most stable character due to his ability to close off his emotions? Lastly, is Sethe's powerful and nearly irrational love her greatest strength or her weakness?

Comparing Joker and the novel Native Son

In case you want to read a blog post about their eyes were watching god, I made one about that, too, so just check my profile.


--Spoilers--

I recently watched the new movie Joker in theaters and I couldn't help noticing the similarities between the scenes in the movie and events that took place in Native Son. In this blog post, I'll be comparing a few key aspects that I noticed.

Joker is set in 1981 and follows the life of Arthur Fleck, a clown available for hire and aspiring comedian, who lives in Gotham city and has a condition that makes him laugh uncontrollably in random situations. One of the first important settings that is shown is Arthur's workplace, housing circus members and party clowns. For now, this location can be seen as his "home". Similar to Native Son, the author is able to see how Arthur spends a lot of time in a space that is cramped and inhospitable like Bigger in his one room apartment. Arthur and Bigger also both encounter a "rat" that drive them to murder. For Bigger, this is the first time he kills and it is shown in the narrative as not really a big deal because the rat is subhuman and not respected. In Joker, the rat is a figurative rat (A clown who later rats him out to Arthur's boss and police) and this clown hands Arthur a gun. The movie progresses until Arthur is stuck in a train with three people who harass a women and then bully him for his condition. Arthur pulls out his gun to stop them from hurting him and kills all three of them. Both Bigger and Arthur are shown to have had no choice but to murder in these situations and it further introduces their capacity to kill. Bigger has his moment of "revelation" and euphoria after killing the rat and teases his sister with the body. Arthur has a similar moment in the train station's bathroom and does his signature Joker pose. For both characters, they are not reprimanded for killing and are actually praised; Bigger by his younger brother and Arthur by the rest of society. The three men that Arthur kills turn out to be rich, Wayne Enterprises employees and he is regarded as a hero for murdering these subhuman and pretentious people. A movement begins against the rich and the people all wear clown masks as a symbol for their rebellion. Later in the movie, Arthur ends up killing the clown who gave him the gun after figuring out he ratted him out, and there is an interesting scene after where Arthur teases a midget with the dead body, which is very similar to how Bigger teased his sister with the rat's body. Arthur commits all of these murders with his clown mask on, which hides his identity, and once the uprising starts, he is protected and hidden by the rich's view of everyone as the "same person". Bigger also has his own type of mask of society's view of African Americans as a collective group of the "same people".

Perhaps due to the fact that these stories both address the affect of society on people, they have a similar method of portraying elite people. In Native Son, Mary Dalton symbolizes wealth and higher status from the perspective of Bigger, and in Joker, Arthur Fleck's mother fills this role as she is treated almost religiously by Arthur (This relation between Mary Dalton and Arthur's mother soon becomes important). Coming back to the idea of society, both Bigger and Arthur are on the bottom rungs in terms of status and in the minority. Bigger is a poor, black male and Arthur is poor and has a mental illness. Racism ultimately destroys Bigger's innocence and stigma against mental illness destroy's Arthur's. These characters are both introduced to an organization that could supposedly help them. For Bigger, the Communist party and for Arthur, the Clown Company or the Social Workers, but in the end, both characters end up messing up and losing the opportunity. The way Bigger and Arthur mess up lead to the reflection between Mary Dalton and Arthur's mother. Mary Dalton flirts with Bigger and they end up kissing in Mary's bed and is nearly caught by Mary's mother. Arthur's mother is involved in an accident and through this accident, Arthur is able to find out his mother's past. In scenes that are almost identical, Bigger muffles Mary with a pillow in her bed and Arthur muffles his mother in her hospital bed. Since Mary Dalton and Arthur's mother symbolize higher status, this shows Bigger's and Arthur's "destruction of society". All these situations that Bigger and Arthur are put into are narrated to seem like they had no choice but to kill, but in reality, a normal person would not react in the same way. However, this puts the characters into a paradox because they become characters that are created by society to break societal norms and ultimately go against society.

Another interesting reflection in terms of imagery and symbolism is the idea of struggling up stairs but frolicking down. After Bigger becomes comfortable with murder, he completely abandons the idea of fitting into society and believes himself to be invincible. In Joker, Arthur also is also in a sense invincible, more so than Bigger, because he is the embodiment of a movement/rebellion in a sort of V for Vendetta-like way. Bigger and Arthur both embody the struggle between a class of people rising up against society. To conclude both Native Son and Joker, both characters finally end up locked away/killed in the very end.

their eyes were watching god Ending

The novel their eyes were watching god is meant to be inspiring but uninfluenced by politics and race. Throughout the entire story, there is a lack of white characters and their only role in the story is to progress a couple minor ideas. It seems to me that Janie's story is not supposed to be interpreted as a confrontation of African American life, but just as an experience she has had; She is not reborn into a new life because the experience is over and her life doesn't revolve around this singular experience like in most other "hero" novels. As the curtains close in the final pages, it is less like her story is finished but rather waiting to be continued. From her experiences, she has objectively not received massive life changes except her own independence as a person (Of course, losing Tea Cake cannot be completely ignored but to me his main role was to help Janie realize her independence).

One important aspect of the story is the romance that Janie is involved in. Each man she marries can be seen as a trial she must face before fully understanding herself and finally achieving peace. Although she rejects two of the men, the reason is not because of race or politics, but because of her own inability to love them. This fits into the idea that politics and society do not constantly influence the thoughts of African Americans. Instead of revolving the story around the hardships of Janie's life due to slavery and racism, Hurston puts the emphasis of the story onto "common life" and love. I think this ultimately shows that Hurston's point in writing this novel was not to make a point against the unfair roles in society, but to show that change can come from one's self. 

Janie's Husbands

One thing I noticed while reading their eyes were watching god was how each of Janie's husbands seems to characterize a particular theme or characteristic. Janie's first husband was "chosen" by her grandmother after she had her first kiss. As our class discussed, Logan Killicks represented security and safety economically for Janie. He had a house and land, and he was eligible to be married, so he seemed to be the perfect choice for Janie. However, Janie could never fall in love with Killicks. Throughout their marriage, he became less romantic and started to order her to work around the farm. From an outside perspective, this could show equality and Killicks' respect for Janie, but she took it in a very different way. She believed that her role was to stay in the house while Killicks would do the outside work. For this reason, and a rise in Killicks' abuse, she decides to leave him for her second husband Jody Starks.

Jo Starks is depicted to be a very contrasting character to Killicks. Where Killicks was rough, simple, and expected Janie to work, Starks was much smoother with his words, ambitious, and does not want Janie to work at all. This actually ends up turning out to be the problem for Janie. In the initial stages of the relationship however, she is much happier than her previous marriage. While in her first marriage, she was frustrated with the amount of work Killicks give her, in this one, she gets angry internally about how Starks won't let her do anything. Starks's ambition and set ideas about his role in society has taken away Janie's independence. It made me curious how the author meant to portray Janie with these situations. Did she want Janie to seem unreasonable with her idea of men? or was she setting up Janie for a Goldilocks-type story where she finally meets someone just right for her? This raises the question about Tea Cake. Will he be another of Janie's ex-husbands she remembers with bad feelings or the one that Janie will be able to love even after he's gone?

The Puppet and the Puppet Master

The topic the narrator discusses most extensively in the prologue is invisibility, more specifically how he realized it and used it to his advantage. Fast forward to chapter 20 in which the narrator has arrived back in Harlem. He decides to go buy new shoes and on his way back, encounters Tod Clifton, who was said to be missing. However, instead of seeing Clifton, the first thing the narrator notices is the Sambo doll that Clifton is trying to sell. He has multiple emotional and physical reactions to the doll itself and goes as far as to spit on the doll. When the narrator finally looks up and recognizes Clifton, he cannot believe his eyes. Clifton gives a strange response by smirking at the narrator while continuing trying to sell the doll. The passage describes it specifically as a "contemptuous smile". Why was Clifton smirking at the narrator? 

I believe that this is a symbolic representation of Clifton's newfound invisibility. Like he said during the scene with Ras, he has "fallen outside of history" and become something new. I interpreted the doll as what the people see as Clifton: just another black person who entertains. This fits the narrator's description of invisibility from the prologue almost perfectly, and ironically, it is the narrator who doesn't notice Clifton's invisibility. The smirk that Clifton gives to the narrator is a mocking smile because Clifton has finally realized his invisibility and he knows that the narrator is still trapped without this knowledge. Clifton has put forth this doll that people, including the narrator, see and by making this new "persona", he has effectively made himself invisible. Clifton has become his own puppet master. 

Was this scene meant to be a learning experience for the narrator? As seen in many scenes before, the narrator gathers the most useful information from unexpected sources and perhaps this is the beginning of the end of the narrator's story of his recognition of invisibility. 

The Battle Royal and the Hospital

Ellison has a habit of repeating themes and patterns throughout the novel. An important one that should be acknowledged is how the eleventh chapter mirrors the first. The first chapter covers the events of the Battle Royal while the eleventh is about the narrator’s time at the factory hospital after being “treated”. Both chapters have multiple similar aspects but with a different perspective of the narrator.

In chapter one, the narrator’s grandfather figuratively opens the narrator’s eyes unsuccessfully by revealing his secret. In the next scene, he is said to be blinded by the naked dancing woman. Similarly in chapter eleven, the narrator is physically woken up after being hurt in the previous chapter and sees the “bright third eye that glowed from the center of his forehead” (Wright 231). In both chapters, the narrator is being spectated by random people and is watched like some kind of experiment or entertainment. However, the narrator seems more aware of this in the eleventh chapter than in the first.

Another similarity is with the spectators themselves. In the Battle Royal, the spectators yelled conflicting orders at the black people to both look and not look at the dancing woman. In the hospital, the doctors give him many strange orders and questions, with some yelling and some just speaking to him. One of the most striking similarities is with the electricity. In the battle royal, the narrator is shocked by the electrified rug and sees another person “dancing” while being shocked on it. Almost directly mirroring this scene, the narrator is electrocuted and the doctors talk about how he is dancing and has good rhythm.

The narrator comes out of each of these experiences differently. In the first chapter, he receives his scholarship after answering correctly to the white peoples’ questions. In the eleventh chapter, the narrator leaves with a new personality but doesn’t answer the doctors’ questions correctly and takes it as more of a joke.

I probably missed some other references. If you find another or thought any of these were interesting, please comment your thoughts!

Inevitable Invisibility

"I am an invisible man" 

Invisibility. This titular aspect of "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison cannot be interpreted in any specific or correct way but can lead to an interesting discussion about the true meaning of being unseen in society. Is anyone truly visible in "Invisible Man"? What is the author trying to say about invisibility? And how does this apply to the real world? In order to start looking for these answers, I started to think about the meaning of invisibility.

The narrator of "Invisible Man" refers to himself as invisible in several moments in the first few chapters of the novel. The first time he discusses invisibility is actually on the first page of the novel. The reader can understand from this passage that although the narrator may be a bit chaotic, he has a clear understanding of his personal definition of invisibility. He describes, albeit in a condescending manner, to the reader that he is not a ghost or "Hollywood-movie ectoplasm", but that he is of flesh and bone and yet is somehow invisible (1). He continues by saying that he is only invisible because people refuse to see him and that they see everything, like his surroundings and their own imagination, but him. It seems that in the narrator's mind, his invisibility is a result of other people's ignorance and prejudice and not his own deceit.

"That invisibility to which I refer occurs because of a peculiar disposition of the eyes of those with whom I come in contact."

I initially thought that the type of invisibility that the narrator refers to could be a form of social invisibility. Social invisibility is normally attributed to a group of people that are constantly ignored and marginalized by the majority of society. However, in "Invisible Man", the narrator is not necessarily ignored but is depicted as "just another African American" with no individuality or personality. The whole first chapter revolves around the narrator's complete nonchalance to a disgusting and crude situation and his complete blindness to the fact that he is being used by the whites as entertainment. Although the narrator seems to think that he is "special" due to his education, he is still constantly worried about what the whites will think of him and if they will let him say his speech. He essentially turns himself into another "trophy" that the whites can use as a means of justification for their twisted benevolence. The narrator further emphasizes this fact on page 58, where he mentally curses at Jim Trueblood for ruining the reputation of African Americans, more specifically his own reputation in the eyes of Mr. Norman. This shows how the narrator automatically groups himself with his race and does not yet have an idea of individuality, as hinted at by the mention of Ralph Waldo Emerson who wrote a novel about self reflection that the narrator hadn't studied

The narrator's invisibility can't be discussed without bringing up the scene of his conflict with the white man. This scene also gives important clues about what the narrator believes to define one's invisibility. He describes how he bumped into a man who called him a possibly racially-charged name, and how he immediately started to attack him. The narrator continues and shows himself explode with rage and almost kill the man with a knife, until he suddenly stops and has a thought that the man couldn't "see" him and he runs away while laughing. It looks like the narrator realizes in that moment that to the man, he is not a person but a generalized group of people, and that from that fact, he is essentially protected. And in a sense, that realization is true, and the narrator was invisible to the man he attacked. The Daily News article publishes an article the next day calling it a mugging, which emphasizes the lack of individuality given to the narrator.

"Poor fool, poor blind fool, I thought with sincere compassion, mugged by an invisible man!"

The narrator previously said that he is invisible because people cannot see the true him, but if he himself does not yet have his own individual self, can he really call himself invisible? Or would it be more fitting to say that he is without a form yet? This is another important distinction that should be made. I think that from what has been read so far, the narrator in the present time uses the light bulbs as a metaphor for finally having a completely solid form and that since he knows exactly what his figure is, he can call himself invisible because no one else knows what he truly is. The idea of being formless can be taken back to the prologue in which he says that while light doesn't give people visibility, it gives them form. Perhaps as his vision starts to be cleared from white propaganda and he is "(en)lightened" he is able to have a more certain sense of self or a more solid form. As mentioned in a previous discussion in class, there are a couple moments where the younger narrator is aware of the white suppression, for example the "white blindfold" that he realizes he can see through in chapter 1 and the fact that he questions the true meaning of the statue on his campus. 

From these realizations, I believe that the narrator's idea of invisibility centers around the balance or imbalance between the person that one believes themselves to be and the person that others see. Even in real life, people naturally judge others by their appearance, race, and other similar aspects, and from these judgments, people are "grouped together" and are not thought of as individuals. In the novel so far, no character has been shown to have a personality or individuality other than the narrator in the present. Maybe this was a deliberate decision to show how even the reader is supposed to categorize the characters depending on the descriptions the narrator gives (Mr. Norman as a Santa Claus-like figure or just an amount of wealth, Trueblood being depicted by the narrator as representing the whole black community, etc.).

"How can he tell this to white men, I thought, when he knows they'll say that all Negroes do such things?"

Another interesting comment the narrator makes is that other people don't know that they're invisible. Could this be because they don't yet know themselves well enough? or are they just not aware that they are being generalized by others' preexisting prejudices? The narrator's definition of invisibility puts an ironic twist to the phrase "seeing through someone".

The narrator is an invisible man. However, so is everyone else. We are all invisible to each other. We are not ghosts or science experiments, but individuals with flesh and bone that people other than ourselves couldn't possibly understand fully. We are always seen with peoples' inner eyes and will inevitably become "invisible" to them. I think that this is the message that the author is trying to give about invisibility to the reader. 

I look forward to seeing my thoughts change and get proved wrong as I read further into the book and come to new realizations about how the author finally discovers his invisibility.

CJ