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.
I hadn't considered Trueblood's name as a subtle allusion to the title of Wright's novel--that makes sense, and solidifies the weird parallels between these scenes. As you say, though, they're also very different scenes, and it's not clear what to make of those differences. Partly, I'd answer the question by saying that Ellison is doing a lot more than just "responding" to _Native Son_, and these scenes that echo moments in Wright's novel are also being used to frame this narrator's very different journey.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet there are good reasons to contemplate the variances. One thing I'd note is the role of the sharecroppers' cabins in the local social/economic setting--it's the "Negro college" that wants to shun or ignore these people, while Norton seems especially *interested* in them. Not as part of his "organizing of human life," but as something closer to entertainment (Trueblood performs a story and gets paid for his services). In _Native Son_, Wright is dealing more directly with taboos of white and black people interacting, particularly across gender lines, and the taboo Bigger is afraid of breaking will result in violent reprisal from the white community (he assumes): we see southern Jim Crow logic at work in the north. Ellison, at this point ion the novel, seems more interested in exploring the ways the college is defining itself as "not-Trueblood"--using Trueblood and his ilk (who have nothing directly to do with the college at all) as a way of defining themselves.
Really interesting connections here! I think that a big difference though between these two incidents are where they occurred and how they occurred. The scene with Bigger took place in Chicago, an urban, Northern city. The scene with Trueblood took place in the rural Jim Crow South. I think that the racial culture around each setting is different. Bigger, someone who works for the Dalton family, has no relation to any of the family members. He is simply supposed to serve them. He is not their equal in any way. Therefore, for a Black man to be in a White woman's bedroom (a White woman that he works for), it is extremely "dangerous". However, Trueblood and his daughter are a whole different story. This situation takes place within a household in the sharecropping Black community. There is no interracial interaction. Because of this, I feel like it doesn't make the White audience offended. Instead, the White audience feels pity or "sympathy" for this "unfortunate" situation. This kind of goes back to the white liberal idea in a way.
ReplyDeleteThough I am not sure that I can characterize the significance of these differences accurately, I have a few guesses. I think that these differences are definitely intentional. I think that Ellison uses Trueblood's situation as a commentary on the fact that he is very similar to Bigger, and yet his actions have hardly any negative repercussions. Trueblood's only consequences seem to reflect more on the black race as a whole rather than on himself. And I think this connected to the fact that it was a black on black crime. Ellison may be partially commenting on Mary's whiteness, and that when coming against someone who is white, the consequences are more or less inevitable. But something about Trueblood's crime being on someone else black, despite the fact she was his own daughter. It seems to make it less important, less criminal than Bigger's crime. The idea that black on black violence is inevitable is an idea that is touched on in both novels. But I do think it is significant is distinguishing what kind of significant differences we see between the two characters.
ReplyDeleteI think a major difference between the two incidents is merely in how the white powers react, since they're the people busting out consequences for crime in this era. Since white authorities hardly react to black on black crime with any concern (see Bessie's story, might be closer to Truebloods...), it makes sense that Trueblood slipped through the cracks. What makes Bigger have such a hard time is that he killed a white woman, which provoked the white community to latch on to the stereotypes they've created for themselves and witch hunt Bigger with a mob-like mentality. Neither reactions are appropriate. It really shows how corrupt the justice system is, especially in this time period.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting comparison. I hadn't thought of the similarities between the two scenes before reading your post. It's interesting how, like other people have been saying, the main difference seems to be how one situation involved a white woman and the other was two black people. It reminds me of how in Native Son Bigger killed both Bessie and Mary Dalton, but people only cared about Bessie as courtroom evidence when Mary's death was a huge tragedy.
ReplyDeleteThe sheer quantities of similarities and at the same time differences is astounding between the two scenarios of Bigger and Trueblood. As you mention, both of the characters find themselves in a very frightening and peculiar situation, in which they must make split second decisions that could determine the course of the rest of their lives. I think a big reason as to why Bigger was much more heavily punished than Trueblood (who actually gets rewarded as you say) is simply because of the social backlash when hearing of each of the crimes. While Trueblood's case is nothing to simply ignore and move on, we must take into account his circumstances and rural setting, as well as the fact that the entire family is essentially closed off from the rest of society, so the repercussions aren't extremely severe. On the other hand, Bigger's crime, a black man murdering and allegedly raping a white woman, who happens to be the daughter of the affluent Mr. Dalton, is a situation that would and does cause an intense outrage from the community, and it is because Bigger foresees this immense outrage that he quickly flees the entire scene, even before being concretely convicted.
ReplyDelete