Throughout the first book of “Native Son”, Richard Wright spends a huge portion solely to showing the life of Bigger Thomas and his environment. Ralph Ellison does the same for the narrator of “Invisible Man.” As I read the first chapter of “Invisible Man”, I slowly discovered the abundance of similarities between the two. The social environment and surroundings where both characters are forced to live ultimately affects their actions throughout their daily lives. We saw what it did to Bigger in "Native Son", and we are beginning to see it with the narrator of “Invisible Man” and his experiences.
Both characters are reactive to their environments, rather than taking action on their
own. Both are essentially personifications of their environment, but are drastically different in the
way that they deal with their racist surroundings. Bigger Thomas’ environment in Chicago teaches him
to despise white people and he tries to do anything he can to not feel inferior. The narrator of “Invisible
Man” contrasts from this greatly, and he tries to do anything he can to conceal himself and not
cause any trouble. In his grandfather’s last words at the end of chapter 1, the narrator is perturbed by the
fact that his scholarship is a sign of uniqueness and distinction from the average black male his
age. Bigger Thomas, on the other hand, tries to stand out and be different from how he is “meant”
to be. We see this in the satisfaction he finds from accidentally killing Mary, in the sense that he is
able to know something that they don’t, and his actions are affecting the white and rich Daltons.
In Book 1 of “Native Son” when Bigger is in the theater with his friends, Wright says:
“He kept this knowledge of his fear thrust firmly down in him; his courage to live
depended upon how successfully his fear was hidden from his consciousness.”
Bigger wants to stray from his environmental boundaries but is afraid of it at the same
time, and can’t accept this fear. He cannot, in no way whatsoever, acknowledge his inferiority.
The narrator of "Invisible Man" is the opposite. He wants to stay in his lane, and is not at all critical
of his situation. However, both characters do exactly what they thought they couldn't, and pay the price.
I like this idea of how both the narrator in "Invisible Man" and Bigger Thomas both are mentally shaped by their environment. My favorite example of environmental effects is Bigger Thomas' complicated relationship with the Daltons: A timid white boy appearance on the surface and a hatred for white superiority deeper inside of him. I think this idea is related to a topic we discussed in class called naturalism. One view of the Naturalist's is that ones actions are curtailed by their circumstances and thus free will is not totally "free." Thinking about this world view, do you think that Bigger Thomas' murder of Mary was inevitable, that his circumstances and life have led up to this moment? Or do you think he did this out of his own free will, an act of rebellion against white oppression and a way to erase his feeling of inferiority, if only for a short time?
ReplyDeleteOne very interesting point of comparison you brought up is how we see the environment's affect on Bigger right away with the huge rat attacking him on literally the first page. On the other hand, it takes a while for the narrator of Invisible Man to really awaken and realize what's going on around him. In fact, he hasn't even fully reached that point yet as of chapter 5. This difference speaks to the varying approaches Wright and Ellison take to make their points. Wright, with Native Son, is much more direct in his story telling, and he shoves the problems into our face without really making us think a whole lot about their implications, at least on a basic level. Ellison takes a bit more abstract approach. He doesn't give us much information outright and he makes the readers really think about what's happening to the narrator and why he's reacting how he is.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Bigger and the narrator are personifications of their environment is interesting. Growing up in Chicago (which i believe was the north at the time) you would expect is be much easier than growing up in the south where racism was at its greatest. However, in this case it's not about which is 'easier' or 'harder' but how these two individuals respond to their situation. Bigger hides his feelings while the narrator hides his person. Perhaps it has more to do with each person's perception. Bigger is well aware of the racism going on but the naive narrator seems almost oblivious to it. In one way this ignorance helps the narrator because he's able to blend in with society but at the cost of his individuality. Either way like you stated, both characters are greatly influenced by their environment
ReplyDeleteI think its interesting how this environmental influence manifests itself in Bigger's and the Narrator's emotions and actions. Like Anthony mentioned, the scene of the rat depicts the first instance of Bigger's blindness. The rat, much like bigger and his family, is attempting to survive in a society that teaches people rat's are trying to kill them in their sleep and get them sick. The rat itself isn't thinking of murdering Bigger in his sleep, its just thinking about survival. Bigger fails to see this because of the stereotypes surrounding rats. Each of the rats characteristics in the book play into the fear Bigger and his family experience, disguising the fear shared by all.
ReplyDeleteGreat observation. I think the similarities that you found between the narrator from Invisible Man and Bigger are interesting, especially in the sense that they are both products of their environment. In my opinion, I think that Bigger is a much more prominent example of someone who is a product of their environment. His actions and violence mainly stem out of the unjust and discriminatory society around him and I think as Adit said, Bigger is much more aware of the racism and the general unfairness of it. For example, when Bigger sees the planes flying he wishes he could do the same, but knows that because he is black, he is not given that opportunity. On the other hand, like you said, the narrator from Invisible Man, although he seems to be aware of the "unspoken" rules of society such as being submissive and polite to white people, seems to be much more acceptive of the racist society and just tries to go along with it and advance through it. I think this contrast in personalities and reactions is super interesting and I am glad you pointed it out.
ReplyDeleteThis almost role-reversal is quite interesting. One thing I'd like to add to your final observation: yes, the narrator of "Invisible Man" is willing to conform to society. However, he also has the underlying guilt of not doing more to fight against what is expected of him, because of the shadow of the grandfather's last words hanging over him. I think he is critical of his situation, but not because he wants to be. He would like to conform, but he doesn't feel like he can because of this knowledge that his grandfather, his role model, was hiding behind a mask of conformity. He has a constant internal struggle, because he sees everything in one dimension where everyone else sees in two.
ReplyDeleteNow that we're deeper into _Invisible Man_, it's clear that one of the ways that Ellison seeks to expand on Wright's model is by putting his narrator/protagonist into a wide variety of environments that all work on him in different, often contradictory ways. The dominant question comes to be, What is this character *apart from* all of these overlapping environmental influences? Is he only what he is to these other people? Does his "new identity" with the Brotherhood seem importantly different than the identity imposed on him at the Battle Royal?
ReplyDelete