asynchronous session on Ellison chs. 17-20

Here’s everything you need to play along today in our first asynchronous session. First the video (be sure to have your copy of the book in hand):

Ch 17-20 lecture (Vimeo)

In Dropbox (.mov format)

Here’s the text of the lecture, more or less, if you want it.

And here’s the prompt for the blog post that’s due by tomorrow at 5pm. Note that this post counts as Blog Post #3 on the syllabus! Definitely take in the lecture before writing; the writing assignment will be easier and make more sense after the lecture.

For your writing exercise, I want you to consider some ways the novel replicates this argument about history and historiography: what happens and how those happenings are organized into narrative form. I would argue that one way the novel performs, so to speak, this theoretical problem is through stuff, things, objects. One of the IMs hallmarks as a character is that he’s what Yiddish speakers call a Luftmensch, literally a “air person,” something like a “space cadet,” or, closer to the German, one with his “head in the clouds.” He’s always thinking about himself, about political and social theories, about his memories and dreams for the future. He always claims to have a plan, a pattern, a discipline to follow. But the novel confronts him with stubborn bits of stuff, objects that don’t fit into his airy theorizing and disrupt his dreams of uplift and American success. The passages we ended with suggest that these “remainders” might point to new narratives, and new ways of creating narratives—it seems significant that he slumps against a “refuse can” on 441 as he’s having these thoughts, a container for stuff that has been disavowed or dropped out of history. The critic Bill Brown has pioneered an approach to literary criticism based on the representation of such stubborn stuff in fictional narratives, an approach we call “thing theory.”
Brown wants us to reclaim things from two extremes: on the one hand, the idea that they’re beneath our attention, just inert and inanimate “stuff” that one can sweep aside in order to get to the real “ideas.” On the other hand, he wants us to avoid what Marx called the “fetishism” of commodities, the mystification of objects with occult power that we all engage in every time we feel a flush of desire for the new iPhone or the new Tesla or the new … you get the point. In between these extremes lies a productive zone wherein we explore the “ideas” inherent in things:

Taken literally, the belief that there are ideas in things amounts to granting them an interiority and, thus, something like the structure of subjectivity. … It amounts to asserting a kind of fetishism, but one that is part of the modernist’s effort to arrest commodity-fetishism-as-usual: that is, an effort to interrupt the habit of granting material objects a value and power of their own, divorced from, and failing to disclose, the human power and social interaction that brought those objects into being.

–Bill Brown, A Sense of Things: The Object Matter of American Literature, 7-8.

So your assignment is to take of the following objects from the novel and unpack it, explaining how it emerges in the novel, how the IM initially “reads” it, and what other meanings we might generate from it based on the IMs new way of taking things “outside of the groove of history” and getting them in. You may choose from:
  1. The jumble of possessions from the “dispossessed” couple’s apartment in Chapter 13
  2. Mary Rambo’s figurine in Ch. 15
  3. Brother Tarp’s chain link in Ch. 18
  4. Tod Clifton’s dancing paper puppet in Ch. 19
Write at least 500 words and no more than 1000. Have an argument. Cite the text. Due by Friday at 5pm on the course blog. This exercise fulfills the “Blog Post #3 on the syllabus in addition to substituting for today’s (Thursday’s) class.

Zora and the IM

The Invisible Man is also writing about his own experience as a black man living in America. While reading his book, I found some similarities with Hurston, especially in the beginning. The first thing that grabbed my attention was the idea that blacks think that slavery ended. Ralph Ellison explained that “about eighty-five years ago they were told that they were free, united with others of our country in everything pertaining to the common good, and, in everything social, separate like the fingers of the hand and they believed it”(15). Hence, most blacks were told that all American citizens are equal and benefit from the same rights, and everyone believed it. in the same way, Zora Neale Hurston argued that slavery ended sixty years ago (2). Both authors believed that slavery ended a long time ago but they kept acting that they were socially equal with whites. Although Hurston mentioned the first day she felt colored, she still does not believe that slavery still exists. Ellison was told by his grandfather that oppression still exists and that he was a subservient to white men (16). Something that Ellison could not believe and made him confused about white people’s intentions towards him, whether they want him to succeed or not. One strong evidence that slavery was still existing in their time is that both authors were used as entertainment for whites. Hurston was singing for whites to please them and get money in return. In her writing, she pointed out “They liked to hear me “speak pieces” and sing” (1). Hence, whites were treating her nicely because she was singing for them and pleasing them. Similarly, Ellison was invited to give a speech in front of some white leaders of the town. He wrote, “it was a great success. Everyone praised me and I was invited to give a speech at a gathering of the town’s leading white citizens. It was a triumph for our whole community” (17). It can be seen that Ellison considered that giving a speech in front of some white leaders was an honor for him and his black community, but the truth was shocking. Ellison was used as a piece of entertainment by whites. Ellison wrote “…I might as well take part in the battle royal to be fought by some of my schoolmates as part of the entertainment. The battle royal came first” (17). Ellison was forced to be involved in the royal battle instead of giving a speech and leave. The outcome is that Whites never looked at blacks as intelligent people, instead, blacks are considered as a source of amusement. For both authors, they thought that whites value their talents, but they were wrong. Anything that blacks do, they get something in return (money for Hurston and scholarship for Ellison) with the condition to please the whites. For me, this is a sign of aggression applied to blacks but in a hidden way.

The second similarity is how whites are threatened by blacks. Hurston argues that “The position of my white neighbor is much more difficult. No brown specter…as the game of getting” (3) The writer confirms that whites are always afraid of losing their privileges anytime because of blacks. For Ellison, I think the fact that he steals energy from the white power company is a strong message addressed to whites. He claims that “I use their service and pay them nothing at all, and they don’t know it” (5). The outcome is that whites are not aware of black people’s potentials and intelligence. If Ellison were not noticed by the white company when using their service without paying a penny, maybe one day he could use his intelligence and gain political and economic power causing whites to lose their privileges. So, both authors want to convey that black intelligence is not to be underestimated.

See the source image

The City Can Change Where You Came From

While reading Invisible Man I noticed the development in the invisible man’s relationship with the black social justice movement through his relocation to New York City. While in the south the invisible man is surrounded by white people just trying to fit in. He feels as though he has to “cultivate friendly relations” with the “southern white man who is his next-door neighbor.” This is shown through his speech made at the battle royal. His speech is extremely rehearsed to the point where he is reading from the text without any care to what is going on around him. He seems to be a clown in the circus created by the white men around him however he continues to preach Booker T. Washington’s words as if he is reading from a script. He tells the black man to remain in his place in the era of Jim Crow by being a laborer and not advocating for further social justice. We can see that even when the narrator arrives in New York City he remains subservient to the white man, remaining in his place as a laborer in a paint factory. While working in the factory he observes that only a few drops of white paint mixed into black paint created the whitest white imaginable. He witnesses that whites are prospering on the labor of black people and this compels him to act. When he sees the elderly couple being evicted and essentially dispossessed in the middle of the street it is a great awakening for him. He wasn’t sure that heartless evictions like the one he was witnessing occurred in the north and it riled him up. However, his instinct was still to remain in his place and not break the law. He spontaneously made a speech for the whole crowd gathered compelling them not to attack the police officers and to remain the good law-abiding citizens they were. But when the crowd responded back angrily the invisible man actually listened to them. By taking the crowds’ thoughts and incorporating them into his speech he was transformed and became angrier with every word he spoke. The readers could almost feel him experiencing this turmoil internally about how he should act. However, his spontaneity and instinctual capability to connect with a crowd were what attracted the brotherhood to him. And as he is ushered into the brotherhood the new chapter of his relationship to black people’s role in America begins. New York City essentially changed the invisible man’s entire perspective towards how black people should act towards the law. Being in the city transforms him from a subservient, meek puppet who was not in tune with his surroundings to an advocate for the people, influenced by the people ready to act to get the fundamental rights that they all deserved.

call and response/antiphonal development

We explored today Ellison’s interest in antiphonal forms to link an individual musician/orator/writer with an audience. I wanted to share links to two blog posts that help us grasp this connection more concretely. First, the post I shared on Zoom:

Private Site

This site is currently private. Log in to WordPress.com to request access.

And second, a jazz-centric post from Lincoln Center’s blog. This one is more relevant in some ways, since the IMs performances in chapters 12 and 16 are jazz-like in their improvisiatory riffing, their lack of a “blueprint” as Peetie Wheatstraw has it:

https://www.jazz.org/blog/playlist-call-and-response/