Invisibility for sale

Richard Wright’s Invisible Man overflows with figurative language of all sorts. Almost every object, action, or color has a deeper meaning waiting to be discovered. While, as said mr. Mitchell, it may be impossible to read Invisible Man on all the levels at once, many of those levels contribute new dimensions to the narrator and his evolution. In chapter fifteen of Invisible Man the bank is a symbol for the current state of the narrator, and serves to undercut his future with the Brotherhood.

The banks sudden appearance parallels narrators belief that he is about to become visible. The narrator has just accepted a job from the Brotherhood in which you will be speaking in front of many people. With so many eyes upon him the narrator Must doubtless be seen and will gain public recognition. similarly, The narrator's spies the bank for the first time even though he has lived in the room for quite a while. However the Bank is not and could not be an actual person for it is  simply a racist caricature. If the audience sees the narrator in the same way that the narrator sees the bank then they must not actually truly see him but will just perceive what they think that he is. Ironically, the narrator will not become more visible, but less visible.

The similarities don't to end there. The narrator has just accepted a great sum of money from the Brotherhood as a first payment for his job. The bank is being fed coins through its grinning mouth. To look at this piece of early  Americana without disgust must involve forgetting the past of the  African Americans. Therefore, the narrator, much like the bank, is being fed, money to be happy. However this happiness is undercut by the fact that the bank has an expression that is described by the narrator as more of one of strangulation rather than one of happiness. The Narrator’s anger at the bank is ironic as he is about to enter a Brotherhood which tries to forget the past while his anger is due to the fact that these objects represent Actually forgetting the Past.

While the narrator is trying to get rid of the symbol of his own current state, it is constantly shoved back at him, and each time the idea that the narrator is invisible is reinforced by the identities that are imposed on him. It is almost as though Events are conspiring to force the narrator to accept this position.  when the narrator first places the broken newspaper wrapped Bank inside a trash can he's confronted by a yellow woman who calls him a southerner.  later when the narrator tries to drop  that package in the street he is confronted by a man who calls him a northerner.  in reality the narrator cannot be defined by either of these  categories. Here, however, the narrator does not realize his invisibility.

The bank symbolizes the Brotherhood’s construct of the narrator, and the similarities point towards further disillusionment in the future. Even though many people have both intentionally and unintentionally pointed toward the Narrator’s invisibility, he fails to see it. Maybe the symbolism and irony of the narrator’s life is not yet apparent to him, but once he sees them, he will be able to understand his own invisibility.

Native Blood

            Literature is a constant conversation. Arguments are proposed by one writer, then another responds in their own work. Often, the foundations of the argument are parallel by the responding author except with a slight alteration. Ralph Ellison would have definitely read Richard Wright’s Native Son before writing Invisible Man, and would have kept Wright’s propositions in mind. Ellison responds almost directly to Wright in Trueblood’s story, but with a small twist.

            The very name given to Trueblood invokes the title of Wright’s work, Native Son. A native son could be thought of as a man birthed in and raised by factors inherent to their situation. The ‘blood’ calls to the meaning of the word son that is involved in lineage, and ‘true’ qualifies that line of descent to apply to the original inhabitants. A ‘native son’ will have ‘true blood’. The word ‘True’ also goes further to imply that it is genuine, which in turn subtly inquires about the veracity of the phrase ‘native son’.

            Trueblood becomes entrapped in a situation with great similarity to that of Bigger. Both originally harbor some lust for their eventual victims. Bigger eyes Mary on a movie screen, and Trueblood admits that Matty Lou resembles his wife, only better looking. Bigger is forced into the same room as the drunk Mary, just as Trueblood must sleep with his wife and Matty Lou. Then Bigger is trapped by the presence of the blind Ms. Dalton and is forced to keep Mary quiet, else risk being accused of breaking a social taboo. Trueblood also is trapped, but by his sleeping wife’s presence and has to silence Matty Lou, or he would be caught breaking the social taboo.

            However, there are differences in the two scenes. Trueblood does not stop before he is found breaking the social taboo, while Bigger is not caught infringing on the unwritten law. Ironically, Bigger suffers imprisonment and death, while Trueblood is rewarded.

            While there are clearly intentional differences between the two incidents, the meaning of those divergences is more obscure. In fact, thinking long and hard as I can, I cannot find it. Part of the reason for this post is to ask that question to my fellow peers: what could be the significance of those differences? Are they not as different as I may think? Am I missing something crucial? Any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Lab Rat, But Bigger

            Richard Wright’s Native son depicts an experiment: he drops a subject into a situation and records and analyzes the outcome. While many would agree that placing a human subject in as hostile a experiment as the one Bigger experiences is inhumane, Wright implies that we are doing just that: creating the environment that forces people like Bigger into that cage.

Native son opens with a frantic scene in which a rat is chased around a small room and eventually killed. The rat, when cornered, “leaped at Bigger’s trouser-leg and snagged it in his teeth, hanging on” (5). In it’s terror, the rat lashes out uselessly against the object that causes it fear. Even if the rat did not strike out it would have been killed. Just by entering the room, the rat has no chance of escape. It's fate has been determined by the fact that it is in the wrong place at the wrong time, which are events that are completely out of the rat’s control. It did not know that it would be trapped once it entered the room, and therefore cannot be blamed. Nor is the fear that determines the rat’s fate the rat’s fault because this fear is due to societies’ predispositions, which the rat did not cause, so should not be blamed for.

Likewise, unavoidable events trap Bigger Thomas into a room with Mary Dalton, for which he is sentenced to death. Bigger instantly knows that he will be accused of rape and any jury would find him guilty, and, “Frantically, he caught the corner of a pillow and brought it to her lips. He had to stop her from mumbling, or he would be caught” (85). Similar to the rat, Bigger uselessly attempts to avoid his fate by stopping Mary Dalton from talking. Just as the rat did not know it would be trapped once it enters the room, Bigger did not know that Ms. Dalton would walk up the stairs to check on Mary. Also, societal prejudices decide Bigger’s fate, so therefore he too should not be blamed for his actions.

While the Thomas family may be blamed for killing the rat, attempting to extinguish a perceived threat is a human nature, just as is striking out when in fear. The true causes, then, are those stereotypes of society, and the environmental factors that force a rat into a home, because those are things that can be changed. Seen through this lenses, what should be improved in Bigger’s case are the people’s prejudices and his environment.