Final exam

The exam will be open book and open notes--but of course that means that I expect more from your answers than on the mid-term exam!

You will write one essay in response to a question on Invisible Man. This essay will be similar to the ones you wrote for your mid-term.

You will write a second essay on what it means to call someone a major American author. This will be an argumentative essay in which you provide evidence to support your claims. Some questions you may want to consider: What are the criteria for applying that label? Who gets to decide who is and who isn't major? Other than an accident of geography, is there some quality or attitude that makes someone a specifically "American" author? Should we still have a "Major American Authors" course at UNC? What do we gain from reading major American authors? Do their texts give us something that other authors don't?

You must cite and analyze at least 3 examples from our readings this semester: one of those examples may be a counterexample (e.g., "this scene illustrates that X is NOT a major American author because..."); the other 2 should be examples that support your definition. When you're providing your evidence, be specific and detailed. Your examples should be specific passages, scenes, or characters, not the entire text. In other words, these would be poor answers: "Emily Dickinson is a major American author because she wrote beautiful poetry" or "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym proves that Poe is a major American author because it's an important and interesting novel."

Thoughtful, creative, and/or original answers will be rewarded. Snarky answers may or may not be, depending on my mood. Don't forget your blue book.

I

The narrator's search for his identity is the main them of IM. One of the things I noted in the last bit of reading was the narrator's collection of significant items. Someone mentioned in class to pay attention to the brief case, which contained his diploma, his scholarship, the broken bank, and his brotherhood name. He also adds to his collection when he gets the paper doll from clifton, the anonymous letter, his rinehart-glasses, and brother Tarp's chain link. His entire struggle to find his identity is in his briefcase and i feel like the items symbolize something; old slavery and new racism, and the falseness of bledsoe and the brotherhood. The narrator undergoes a transformation when he falls through the manhole and is trapped. He is haunted by visions of all his former leaders/mentors and then decides he's going to stay in the hole and plan from there. We know by the prologue what happens and I wonder if the narrator has taken up a more nationalist mentality? He denounces the white leader of the brotherhood and we know from the prologue that he attacks the white man in the street. What is his new role in society? What faction does he fit into? Is he more like Ras the Destroyer than he thought?

Easy to Relate to

My first thoughts throughout reading this book revolved around the narrator making everything way more dramatic than it actually should be. The concept of invisibility and his struggles with it were drug out incredibly far. However, I never hated it. Ellison has such a great way with words that he writes things in a way for many people to relate to. Upon reading the narrators struggle with identity towards the end of the novel, I really saw that I could relate. The best place to really explain this is in the range of pages 506-512ish.

racism is not the central theme; identity is.

Ralph Ellison the motivation speaker, like our narrator the motivational speaker, would say "I'm riding the race I'm forced to ride" when talking about the presence of class conflict and the oppression of african americans in Invisible Man. Racism is not the theme of this novel; it is ubiquitous because in the context of the time, it was inextricable and extremely relevant to the theme: the lifelong search for self-aware identity.
Ellison asks questions about class struggle through his characters - how does one ask a black man to sing without offending him? or, if the Brotherhood is not acting on behalf of the black race, what are they doing? - to lead the ruminating reader to wonder if the class struggle is more than about elevating the black race. (a ruminant is literally an animal like a cow that lives on something with negligible nutritional content like grass, and to compensate for low calories, protein, fat, vitamins, et cetera that you need to run a huge animal like a cow, the cow has to eat all day and have four stomachs to rip apart and combine everything. the ruminating reader must sift through questions and digest a lot of diverse incidents in Invisible Man to find any answers.) Recurring examples of identity crises and the progression of the narrator in relation to racism make me believe that Ellison writes about class struggle as another system of taxonomy for ones identity.

The narrator struggles with his self perception because he is comfortable in many systems that name him, instead of naming himself and letting his actions follow. He is a part of various institutions: 1.the south 2.college 3.blacks 4.the brotherhood. For the first half of the book, the Narrator's actions are determined by others because his position requires him to be vulnerable to circumstance. It can be argued that his entire life progress to New York City and beyond was determined by others - he went to college because he had a scholarship, he drove Mr. Norton to the Golden Day, he went to New York because Dr. Bledsoe gave him the letters. (I think that the deprecating letters were another of Ellison's and Bledsoe's hints to take a stand for yourself. They were written after the Narrator had resigned himself to his absurd fate without a fight, agreeing not to be bitter.)
The narrator's life of circumstance ends after a circumstantial hospitalization and strange rebirth scene. What is purged from his system is his affiliation to everything, he is a clean slate. And though he is without drive or purpose, he is not without history or education. He is reminded to be earnest in Central Park when he tastes the orange sweetness of loyalty to his upbringing. He summons forth his refined competence for the melodic cadence of speech writing from years of listening to talented sermons (practice and listening is how one develops jazz improvisation! - I can hardly see how speeches are different.) A man with a wealth of talent was once crippled by the obligations his role was expected to fulfill, and when he lost everything, he created the space to seek success that is not gilded. After biting the sweet potato the narrator asks, "What and how much had I lost by trying to do only what was expected of me instead of what I myself had wished to do?" (the person who read my book before me put a check next to that, so it must be important.)

The funeral speech struggles along and falters like Narrator's raw and shifting emotion. For this reason it is the most accurate depiction of the author's genuine sentiment. In a series of speeches for the brotherhood, the conflict between extemporization and prescriptive, deliberate, scientific speech making recurs. Faced with another institution of questionable morality, the Brotherhood, the narrator finally has enough self-assuredness and clarity to buck the system. He is moved to fight on behalf of the negro race not because another person demands it, but because the narrator's own morality demands that he fight for freedom of expression in any manifestation.
nyssa collins

Glass Eye

I feel that Brother Jack's glass eye is significant. Jack states that the glass eye justifies his authority and shows the sacrifice he has made for the Brotherhood. However, the narrator later retorts that the sacrifice of the leaders is of their own doing and is justified as they have authority and knowledge of their own actions. What is not right is the sacrifice of the lower members who do not have say (kind of like taxation--> taxation of senators is definately justifiable as they are the one who spend the money, while taxation of those who are not represented is wrong because these people have no say in government and do not benefit, but give all the sacrifice).
More importantly the loss of an eye represents the white perspective towards their black conterparts. Jack's half-blindness causes him to compensate for his handicap by predicting people's action and having the authority to know where people are at all times. The narrator did not know this until it was too late. In the same way, the white leaders of the Brotherhood appear to be all seeing and empathetic to both the white world and the black world, but rather they only see one perspective--the white perspective on racism--just as Jack can only see through one eye, even though he pretends to see out of his dead eye just as the white leaders pretend to see the black perspective. Furthermore, the white leaders place extensive authority on the black brothers, wanting to know their whereabouts and motives, not because they actually have interest in the movement, but rather so they can promote their own interests and have full confidence in their power.

Burn the past, find your future

For me, the most pivoting scene in all of Invisible Man comes when the narrator is forced to burn everything in his briefcase for a few brief moments of light. Never in my life have I come across a scene with more symbolism than this one. Although there are many ways to take this scene, readers can get just as much out of it without ever even considering the metaphors explicitly. It needs no analyzation; it is a simply beautiful portrait of the narrator’s last moments as a visible man.
However, it is certainly able to be analyzed. Obviously, all of the items being burned are the narrator’s most prized possessions. These possessions comprise the narrator’s past; they are souvenirs of a naive life, a life in which he thought he could be the catalyst for change. Ellison writes, “I realized that to light my way out, I would have to burn every paper in the brief case.” With multiple people chasing him literally to death, the narrator’s only way to find the path to survival is the burn everything left behind him. Although sometimes we survive by fighting, many times, we survive by “yessing.” We must accept what has been given to us and docilely let go of previous battles... we must become invisible.

PUPPETS!

I guess I am still really moved by the scene of Clifton’s death. The irony and the tragedy of the scene left me really feeling some of the betrayal and confusion that the narrator lives with. I think Clifton’s death is really symbolic and intense because it shows that a very smart and capable young man can “plunge” into the bottom of society, become the very characture he is fighting against, so quickly. The doll exemplifies the worst of racist thought in being a dancing sambo, but more interestingly I think is that the narrator carries it around in his pocket. Because he now has the chain that was given to him and this sambo doll, which I feel like shows that he is still tied down (or “chained” down…) to this racist depiction of blacks. Also the dolls points out how dependent the narrator still is on the (I think) white organizers of the movement, and how both he and Clifton were just pawns (or puppets!) for Brother Jack and others. The puppet symbolizes not only the racist idea of all African Americans are entertainers (ie the singing scene) but also that Clifton and the Narrator are puppets of society and of the Brotherhood.

L'Homme Invisible

The most fascinating aspect of Invisible Man is, for me, the issue of identity. It's so pervasive throughout the novel, and, arguably, the very crux of the Invisible Man's issues-- obviously, invisibility implies a lack of presence and attention, and that's something that comes along with a solid identity or idea of where you fit in the world. I'm just astonished by how eloquently and (seemingly) effortlessly Ellison weaves themes relating to identity into his complex and true-to-life characters... The nameless narrator seems the most difficult to identify, while characters like Dr. Bledsoe and regulars at The Golden Day seem to jump off the page (cliché, I know, but it's the best expression I can use to describe how real each character seems). 

On top of their multi-faceted, multi-dimensional personalities, the characters (as previously mentioned) each seem to struggle with a different issue related to identity. Bledsoe initially appears as the epitome of strength and self-assuredness, but his true identity lacks any nobility or genuinity whatsoever; he represents identity misconstrued.

I welcome any counterarguments to this one because it's more of a theory in process, but Brother Jack represents the aggressive battle that ensues when you're uncomfortable with your own identity; whereas Dr. Bledsoe merely conceals his and embraces the multiple stereotypes and ensuing roles that accompany being an African-American, Brother Jack is hasty to abandon anything he deems antiquated or stereotypical, even if these things are integral to his own identity. When he's disdainful of the old African-American evicted couple, I sensed that his scorn arose from a fear of association and a subsequent treatment as an inferior.

Fast pace...

The part of this book that stood out most to me is how much it made me concentrate on it and read at a fast pace. Before I knew it, I would be 50 or 100 pages into the reading and feel like it had only been 10 or 15 minutes. I find it rare that a book is able to hold my attention that well, as with most of our other readings I have had to force myself to pay attention and finish the readings. I also notice that I read it with a beat in my mind, similar to what the presentation group played in class on tuesday, but still faster than that. This book reminds me slightly of the movie Forest Gump. It is essentially a nobody who is involved in a number of historical actions. He is part of medical testing, when he is injured in the factory and they are trying to use him to replace the ice-pick lobotomy. At the end of our reading he is part of what I assume to be a socialist rally, at least from the context of the book, and the presentation of the group that mentioned Eugene V. Debs, a socialist candidate for president in the early 20th century.

just a couple of things

I found it interesting, as i got towards the meat of the book, that there has been a distinct change in writing style. It wasn't a right away thing - meaning his writing style didn't change between chapters. Just, as i was reading i suddenly became aware that i wasn't 100% sure what was going on all the time and apparently hadn't for pages on end... but i could never turn to that exact point. His more erratic writing style is coinciding with the narrator's loss in identity. As he becomes less 'visible' he seems to allow himself to be open to many more possibilities. It seems like he is using his anonymity that whites have forced onto him to undermine the Sambo stereotype he has been living up until this point. Also, as we talked about in our presentation, his writing style is influenced by Jazz so what appears 'erratic' maybe just 'improvisational'. I guess what i mean by that is it's adding to the book, not taking away from its meaning.


Another thing:

What an absolutely bizarre 're-birth' scene. I suppose it was not unlike how we are brought into the world today... bright lights, lots of strangers overhead, and incredibly disorienting. I could not even imagine what it would be like to be even somewhat cognitive for that sort of thing. Its also a testament to how far medicine and psychological treatments have come over the last century. I mean i know that shock treatment is still readily available (especially for depressive cases) but for that to be the go to solution... geez.

What happens to a dream deferred?

Throughout the Invisible Man’s interview process, I kept hearing the words of Langston Hughes in my head. “Does it sag like a heavy load, or does it explode?” He goes through each emotion in the book – he is terrified as he goes to Dr. Bledsoe’s office that his dreams are ending – he is then hopeful as he moves to NYC only to be struck down again by the letters of “recommendation.” His final explosion to Brockway in the paint engineering room signals a turn for him. His rage at his lost dreams climaxes in the shouting fight of the boiler room.

Stylistically, I’ve been so impressed with Ellison’s use of imagery. I look forward to reading blocks of sentences without dialogue because I know it will hold a very vivid description of the Invisible Man’s surroundings. Each time he describes the scenery, he muses in an almost prose-like fashion and creates the emotions I’m not sure the Man knows how to express. For example, the setting of Mr. Emerson’s office, tranquil and ornate, is a stark contrast between the greasy, oily grime of the engineering room to where the Man must go. In the abrupt change in scenery, the reader feels not just what emotions the Man says he’s feeling, but also a deep sense of undeserved irony that helps communicate the futility of the black educated man in the workforce at this time period.

Referring back to the class discussion on Tuesday, I’m not sure it’s possible to classify the book as solely artistic or solely political. Whatever Ralph Ellison intended, I feel like anyone who reads this book and feels the emotion in it will be stirred to action of some sort.

Ellison's word choice

Something I find incredibly interesting about this book is Ellison's word choice and style of writing. When I read this book I feel like it's one of those endings really built up that you're anxiously awaiting just to see what happens. I can't decide if it is because the narrator has built up he post-invisible life and how he got there so much. He'll go on and on about something and then say something the the point of, "but that was all before I was invisible" and you're kind of back to where you started.
I'm also somewhat surprised at the disconnect between the north and south and the little that the narrator knew about the north. He was so surprised to see Harlem the way that it is which kind of made me surprised to believe that he was surprised. I almost wasn't sure if he was being too naive. When he was discussing Harlem he tried very hard to connect it to the South such as on page 164 when he says, "They reminded me fleetingly of prisoners carrying their leg irons as they escaped from a chain gang." The idea of city traffic is just beyond him. He makes little references to slavery like this quite often actually. He'll try to describe something in a way that hints towards slavery when really it doesn't have much to do with slavery. Another example is on 167 when he says "there was a command in the extended hand, and I obeyed it." There are plenty more throughout the book. It's almost as if choosing to say one word is what makes him say something in a different light than anything else.

Lights and invisibility... and speeches

(Sorry the title isn't clever...) Ok. So i couldn't help but notice that there were a lot of ties back to the beginning (some boomeranging, if you will) when Invisible Man is giving his speech for the socialists. The most interesting to me was the fact that the story kept going back to the lights being in his eyes, etc. Obviously, anytime eyes and light are mentioned, the reader needs to start paying closer attention to what he or she is reading.
Like Linnie (I really hope that that is spelled correctly...) I am completely fascinated by the light thing. I, too, was still hazy on its significance the first time I read it so I am really trying to pay closer attention anytime that the lights are mentioned. on page 341 he says, "The light was so strong that i could no longer see the audience, the bowl of human faces. It was as though a semi-transparent curtain had dropped between us, but through which they could see me..."
I wonder if this doesn't have something to do with why he has so many lights in his little cave. The light allows him to be seen. He is making his presence known: even if he is not seen by the public, he knows that he can be seen because he retreats everyday into the light.
Also, the light allows him to remind the world that he exists.
Also, another thing that is boomeranging is the "white lines" (p.343) idea. he ways that they are blind "So now we can only see in straight white lines." In the beginning, when he is driving Mr. Norton, the white lines play a very significant role; before he is in trouble (or when he is paying attention) he strictly follows the white lines or lets them guide him. However, when he is shaky, the white lines are blurred. I think the white lines are pretty clearly standing for the white people who have any power in general...
Anyways, I hope that this makes sense. It's just an idea. There is a lot more to it but unfortunately the idea was formed a few hours before this blog, so... some of it has been forgotten!

music, identity, lobotomy...

Sorry this is so long, I didn't realize it until I posted it!

After reading over half of Invisible Man, I thoroughly like the book because of the historical references, the symbolism, and the descriptive language. This story is a coming of age novel and also “a man on a journey” (a radio story term) story.

1. Throughout the story, the theme of music and reality vs. the dream world is present in the text. In the prologue, he describes listening to Louie’s jazz as a time stopping sort of out of body experiment (he’s high too). Music is also present in many forms during instances in which he is happy or struggling; the descriptive voice of music comes through and reveals the undertones of the situation the invisible man is in. When he enters Mr.Emerson’s office, which is the elaborate export company office, the exotic birds make shrill noises. This also reflects his mood; he is nervous in anticipation. Another example: As he is reflecting on his discovery of Dr.Bledsoe’s true intentions, he hears a man singing “O well they picked poor Robin clean…Lawd, they picked all the feathers round from Robin’s rump…” (193) In another instance, he was hearing Beethoven’s Fifth too (232). Music doesn’t only play a part in the mood though, it is part of his cultural identity. More specifically, Jazz music is through the Harlem Renaissance that is happening in New York City during this time. When he attends the meeting with Brother Jack, a drunk brother wants him to sing the ‘down south’ songs, revealing that to the outside person these songs identify him (this is on page 312).

2. While the references to music helped me to connect with the text, I was intrigued by the lobotomy performed on him while he was a science experiment for the doctors at the factory hospital. Last week, I listened to a radio piece in my Journalism class about a man who had a Lobotomy as a child… The procedure started off with the doctor sticking an ice pick (yes an ice pick) through the middle of the patients eyes… The link is at the end of the post, and it’s a true story. These procedures were said by those performing the procedure to fix the severely depressed and those with behavior problems. This man always felt there was something missing in his life emotion-wise.
This change in emotion was reflected in the invisible man’s initial reaction upon entering the hospital office and leaving the hospital. He was loopy and out of it, and his emotions were going every which way.

3. There is the constant search for identity. I thought he was closer to finding it after I read tonight’s assignment.. but he is still somewhat lost. It seems to me that the lobotomy symbolized a mental change (not literally though) and the literal change was his rise to action as the old people were being evicted. The following quote showed me that he is becoming a man with his own beliefs who isn’t stuck in the Southern way of obeying his power-hungry leaders. A show of his transition from humility to action: pg.291: “Oh, no, brother…You’re not like them. Perhaps you were, but you’re not any longer. Otherwise you’d never have made that speech…You might not recognize it just now, but that part of you is dead! You have not completely shed that self, that old agrarian self, but it’s dead and you will throw it off completely and emerge something new. History has been born in your brain.” But then he’ll flounder back again to his search as evidenced through his want to find purpose in his jobs: “What was I, a man or a natural resource.”
Lastly, he’s in a group full of white people who call him brother BUT something is still missing. “It was as though they hadn’t seen me, as though I were here, and yet not here.”
Here’s the link to the Lobotomy, it’s a sad story but worth listening to:
http://www.soundportraits.org/on-air/my_lobotomy/

"This is your new name......< >."

So many different terms and vocabulary used in the book have struck me as interesting. Whether it is a vernacular term because of the jazz era and the time period, or as a term of endearment for each other, the word brother stands out to me. In terms of finding oneself and identity, the word brother seems so weird to the narrator at first on page 294. The word Brother implies closeness, and family, while it seems as if the narrator is invisible and has none. In this sense it is different to him to call someone brother. The second idea that struck me during this reading was the idea of identity on page 309. Brother Jack states "This is your new identity", when in fact, it was his first one. It is a bit frustrating to never know the name of the narrator. Even when his name changes, we don't know what it was or what it is now. As a technique in the book, it is important to the plot of the story and overall an artistic theme which relates to the human aspect of the book. Another example of this invisibility was when the narrator was referred to as "an unknown 'rabble rouser'" on page 331. The overall invisibility is something that all people can relate to and the terms such as "Brother" seem awkward and strange. But possibly, the narrator will feel more comfortable using the term.

The Invisible Man is a very intriguing book. The narrator presents many metaphors throughout the book that symbolize many things about his life. After leaving the hospital, the narrator goes on to live with Mary, who somewhat nurtures him in order for him to be able to find who he is and what he stands for. Mary seems to me to be a sort of mother figure because she does not complain about him not being able to pay rent and she helps him as much as possible.

The narrator going to get the yams, which reminds him of his southern heritage, makes me think of him as a kid. He is truly enjoying them so much, it is like a euphoria. When he sees the couple being evicted from their home, he comes of age and finds a calling for himself. He realizes that through speech, he could be helpful the cause. Through his speeches, the narrator also realizes that this would push him further away from the ideas of Booker T. Washington and what the older blacks believed. I do not know if the brotherhood is truly what the narrator his looking for in regards to the path that he wants to take, or if the group is just a means to an end. It will be interesting to read the rest of the book to see where this new life takes the narrator.

Repelling and fascinating

I may be out on a very much extended limb with this post, but I cannot help myself.

While the speaker in Invisible Man was watching the men and women outside of the eviction in chapter thirteen, he says "I saw them start up the steps and felt suddenly as though my head would split. I knew that they were about to attack the man and I was both afraid and angry, repelled and fascinated." Whether or not this is an intentional allusion, it reminds me of an article I read in a religion class entitled "The Ambiguity of the Sacred" by Roger Caillois. In Caillois article, he discusses how religious experiences are both positive and negative. He says "It both repels and fascinates. It is taboo and dangerous. It suffices that one desires to approach and possess it at the very moment in which one is keeping a proper distance from it." The speaker is afraid of the crowd and the events that will unfold, but he is also captivated by the entire situation.
The relation of these quotes makes me believe that this scene in the book is a religious experience, or sacred event of sorts. It is sacred in that it differs from what the speaker is used to and he acts in a way that is not like how he had acted previously in the novel. This scene is intense in a way that the rest of the novel is not, and I feel like it was put into the novel as a very significant event that serves as a turning point in the speaker's life.

I am not positive that Ellison intended this scene to evoke a sense of sanctity, but my interpretation of it leads me to believe that it is definitely out of the speakers realm of "everyday".

Feeling Pretty Visible

I really like the twist in personality the narrator is starting to take. The scene with the eviction really displayed a new side of the narrator, a peaceful side which had never really been made prevalent before. The narrator breaking up the brawl over the eviction was incredible, seeing as he had dreams of killing people as well as the violent battle royal (which was then followed by a speech of peace?). Ultimately, I think the change in personality from violent and bitter to at least desiring peace reflects his true inner struggle to find an identity, whether it be by testing two polar opposite roads. Also, I wonder what the significance of the freedom papers being trampled is, as well as the black negro bank getting smashed?
But I think the reason the narrator (which, probably is the most vague sense of identity ever, I mean even Henry Adams would at least title himself "the Young American or Young Secretary, maybe conveying that Adams didn't feel necessarily invisible, just useless , but let me get back to the point <-- Gertrude Stein Style) eventually joins this sketchy brotherhood, which doesn't appreciate his ideologies at first, is because he finds a sense of visibility and identity with the. They see him as a brother and he feels as such, which is probably why he was so threatened when he assumed Brother Clifton to be interested in his position. At least at this point, I feel the the narrator has at least some sense of visibility, whether it be real or not.

P.S cabbage smell funky
P.S.S yams are gross

Yams = Bliss? For a moment.

Like some of the earlier posters, I found the scene with the yam to be entirely captivating. It seems as if, for once, the invisible man is truly happy as he is doing something he enjoys. I found it interesting that he happened to find this release through food. Food is something that is experienced sensually and it is hard to fake a reaction to food. Thus, by trusting only his senses and not some sort of artificial social code or protocol, the invisible man is able to find something he truly enjoys. The food imagery and the IM's reaction to it also reminded me of the presentation on Tuesday, where we learned that Ellison wrote the book to jazz music. As we learned in class, Jazz is a style of music that is supposed to be emotive, pure and raw, much like the reaction IM has when he eats the yam.
The end of this scene was just as poignant as the outpouring of pure joy. When the Invisible Man takes his last bite and finds that the yam is frostbitten, it is a reminder that this pure joy, life of yams, is not yet attainable for the Invisible Man. As we see in the eviction scene, IM is driven quickly back to his reality and is again unsure of his place in the world where everyone seems to have a purpose for him.

"you want 'em buttered?"

Ellison's Invisible Man depicts the radical change within a young man as a direct result of his experiences. In the first half of the novel our narrator is a young student with the utmost reverence for public figures and especially prominent white men. His enchantment with southern society is evident in his thoughts, speech, and actions; however moving to Harlem signified a momentous change within this character. The most pivotal point in his development was catalyzed by the simple craving of a baked yam, and by indulging in such a southern comfort the narrator was able to cast aside the unconscious shame he had been harboring for years. It was step towards recognizing and accepting his new identity and realizing that he must embrace his own thoughts and act for himself, rather than for the approval of others. After devouring three yams the narrator exclaims, "what and how much had I lost by trying to do only what was expected of me instead of what I myself had wished to do?" (266).

The small victory within himself sparked a sense of empowerment, and spiraled into the provocation of a riot after he witnessed an elderly couple being evicted. The transition to this new identity is complete when he is given a new name, new clothes, and a new address by the mysterious Brotherhood. Who are these men and will the narrator continue to morph into a new and unrecognizable man? What events lead to the situation described in the prologue? The journey has been interesting and thought provoking thus far and I am interested to see how our Invisible Man develops.

"I yam what I am."

In class, we were talking about Invisible Man being a reflection versus it being art. I've found the book to be very multifaceted and therefore cannot peg it as just one, but during this week's reading I'm finding more and more evidence that it is a reflection upon a life thoroughly lived. The main scene that comes to mind as proof of this is when our main character stops at a street vendor to buy yams. I love the imagery, and it is almost as if we are physically transported back to his childhood. Upon biting into the first yam, he is hit with "a stab of swift nostalgia" that results in a reminiscent view of his past. "At home," he narrates, "we'd bake them in the hot coals of the fireplace, had carried them cold to school for lunch; munched them secretly, squeezing the sweet pulp from the soft peel as we hid from the teacher behind the largest book, the World's Geography." If this is not a reflection then I don't know what is. These vivid memories show that the main character still remembers where he comes from, and it is interesting to see how this affects his future.

Another flashback occurs when he is watching the old couple get evicted; he sees a vision of "my mother hanging wash on a cold windy day...her hands white and raw in the skirt-swirling wind and her gray head bare to the darkened sky." This mental image is meaningful for him, and it is likely what spurs him to action when he decides to stand up and speak to the crowd. Our character seems to be heavily influenced by his past, including his grandfather's final words as well as thoughts of his family and childhood life. I think that Invisible Man is an artful reflection coming from a man whose past will always be permanently weaved into his future.

This is my second time re-reading Invisible Man so I feel like I am better able to "catch the jazz rhythm" since I really don't have to focus on the story. I think its interesting how during certain scenes the activity builds and builds and builds until a "peak" like in music. Then it goes back down but the activity picks up again soon and it is like a never ending cycle. Ellison put so many distinctive little episodes in the novel that it could almost seem TOO full except that he ties them together beautifully. I didn't realize until after class Tuesday and our discussion on jazz music that this is sort of like what jazz musicians do. Many people do not like jazz because "it's just a big jumble" but if you listen to old recordings there is definitely an undulating pattern that correlates to Ellison's writing style.
The particular scene that sticks out in this week's reading is when the old people are being kicked out of their apartment. It starts off intense, with the narrator not knowing what is happening but a large crowd gathering. Then it calms down a little as the narrator is speaking and then picks back up again as everyone rushes into the apartment building with the couple's things. The scene is extremely tense when the narrator is running across the rooftops and when Brother Jack taps him on the shoulder. Then it calms down again in time for them to drink coffee and eat cheesecake. This showed to me the undulating patterns many music pieces have.

I have also read Invisible Man before in high school, but I don't have very vivid memories of the book. I'm actually surprised that I remember the general characteristics of the different characters when they are mentioned. And I actually remember general themes throughout the novel (light and dark, visibility, etc).

What I am excited about in this second read is how different I am as a senior in college than a senior in high school. I think that the experience of having gone to a fairly diverse and liberal arts school (one of the more liberal southern schools) has impacted me greatly in how I interpret society. I've changed tremendously throughout these 4 years, and I've been in many, many classes that have discussed racial inequality in America and in the South. Now better educated and better conscious of American society and all in entails, I think that my experience reading this novel will be even more impacting than it was the first time.


Ellison puts readers into the moments that he is living through. I think he does a great job engaging readers to really understand and feel as if they were there experiencing it with them. He is so descriptive and some of the events seem so bizarre (since society has changed so much since then) that it creates this surreal and dream like feeling. I think this style succeeds because it helps connect the reader into the narrator's experiences.

After starting Invisible man, I’m interested in the multiple ways in which Ellison implicitly develops themes. Instead of bluntly outlining the main character’s feelings for us constantly, he describes actions and surroundings in an implicit manner which not only allows us to get a feel for what it is like to be this character, but let’s us analyze these descriptors to decide his true feelings. I really liked the paragraph on pg 22 that starts with “Blindfolded, I could no longer control my emotions,” for this purpose; the main character focuses much more on describing his fear implicitly than merely recounting his state in an explicit manner.

The fact that much of Ellisons’s meaning is written in an implicit manner also highlights the fact that his main character is ‘invisible’. The narrator would not be able to just walk in somewhere, say his opinion, and expect to see it put in place. Instead, he must try to do what his grandfather suggested and weasle his way in slowly (sadly by degrading himself to be a ‘yes’ man) and try to influence change from the inside. The scene where he reads his speech, but is ignored and/or laughed at for the most part is a good example of this.
He wasn’t able to successfully affect most of the white men at the same time, but the superintendent did recognize his gift and, while it was tainted with racist sentiment, gave him a scholarship and promise that he would go on to do great things. I believe that at the time, however, the superintendent believed that the main character would influence the rest of his race to fall in line and submit to the white men, as the narrator had done that night.

what does invisibility mean?

The character addresses the central conflict of self-identity with assured clarity. This conflict is that one can only define themselves in comparison or relation to others. It is very easy to analyze other people and to typify them, much easier than typifying yourself – Henry Adams and Gertrude Stein show us how the manageability of their characters is facilitated by using third person. First person characters suffer from lack of dimension because they are overwhelmed with interpreting all of the story and other characters and therefore experience no removed analysis of themselves. In fact, this is how every person must live their lives – I exist in relation to other people. I gauge myself based on their reactions and then measure my setting using myself as a constant.
Our speaker holds his hand up against life’s inevitable format: I refuse to consider myself in relation to my wake. He realizes his invisibility - Think of an earthquake that is invisible and is reflected by the memory of the damage it inflicts – and wonders if he exists at all if he lives in a state where he causes no reaction. Does a tree falling in the forest make any sound? “I…did not become alive until I discovered my invisibility,” (11) he says, framing the progression of the story.
“The end is in the beginning and lies far ahead.” (9)
The exposition is crucial to our unraveling of the purpose, which is obscured by very vivid imagery. Though everything makes little sense now in a linear way, it reflects the speaker’s own self-discovery. As he removes himself from society and becomes more self-aware, his poignant sentences will become more sensical. We should remember to hold on to tokens like “ ‘To whom it may concern…keep this nigger boy running’ ” (35) until later.

Invisible...Maybe Maybe not

Even though I am not one to follow a crowd, I agree that I really like this book. One of the first things that I noticed when reading the book was the statement made by the protagonist, “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me,” (3). While it is often incorrect to assume a parallel between the author and the protagonist, especially when the work is written in first person, I wonder if people really choose to ignore “Invisible Man” or if he is invisible by choice.
I was also really intrigued by Ellison’s continual repetition of color. In the prologue, he mentions “What did I do to be so black and blue?” in two different pages. This seems to potentially have a double fold meaning. While he could physically be “black and blue” from different events that he went through in his life, it could also be his way of highlighting Jazz, which was an important aspect of that time period, especially to the African American community.
The fighting scene was really impactful. The men are exploiting both “Invisible Man” and the others that are a part of this act. In that chapter, a reference is made to the circus, which parallels the animalistic characteristics of the fight. It also acknowledges the fact that the mean are being made as a part of a freak show, just to be exploited and made fun of. Because they are chasing after gold coins, I think that it indicates the issue of race as it relates to social class and standing.

Now You See Him, Now You Don't.

To echo what many others have already said, Invisible Man is one of my favorite books (a qualifier: I read a lot and have lots of favorite books, but still, it's up there). 

I've obviously read Invisible Man before, but each time it seems like the social relevance and symbolism become increasingly vital and complex. The theme of light and lightness is always so intriguing and after my second read, I still can't say this symbolism is completely clear to me. Maybe that's the point-- It would be pretty boring if all of the relationships and metaphors throughout the book were surface-level and effortless to comprehend. But still, this post is basically going to consist of two things:

1. I'll explain what I think the symbolism could be/is

2. I want somebody/some people to tell me what they think

This might be best facilitated in a classroom with multiple opinions, but let's give it a try.

1. To steal the unnamed narrator's words, "Perhaps you'll think it's strange that an invisible man should need light, desire light, love light. But maybe it is exactly because I am invisible. Light confirms my reality, gives birth to my form" (6). So, my guess is and has been that light represents both visibility-- or the end of his invisibility-- and power. From an anthropological perspective, the possession of fire (which casts light) was incredibly crucial to human survival and power structuring. Electricity itself was once reserved for the aristocratic elite. Is the narrator's secret acquirement of light symbolic of his process of building up power in his hibernation before he finally takes action? The process he has of tapping the building's wiring seems like he's secretly building up an ammunition of power for later action, although based on the plot, this is a contestable view.

2. Weigh in. Andddd go.

Tranquil Treachery

I just realized that after 150 pages of reading I don’t know the name of the main character. Of course, this makes sense, seeing as the protagonist is considered to be “invisible”, but this occurrence is also similar to similar memoir, “The Autobiography of the Ex-Colored Man” by James Weldon Johnson which was published in 1912. The fictional novel basically tells the story of a biracial character who struggles to find his place in society. He is finds that he is either “too black” to be white, and “too white” to be black leading to feelings of displacement and not belonging. In the same way the character of “Invisible Man” walks a thin line between passive “treachery” in which he is composed and respectful in the white society or insurgence towards the injustice placed on him.
A comparison between the veteran physician character and Dr. Bledsoe helps to define these concepts. The vet states that Norton thinks of the protagonist as nothing but a “mark on the scorecard of your achievement” and that the protagonist looks at Norton as “a God, a force”. He reveals that the relationship between “white and black” does not appear to have changed much from the master-slave relationships of 85 years ago. One the other hand, Dr. Bledsoe, who appears to portrays himself as inferior to the Founders, in actuality, believes that it is his responsibility and right to carry on this lie of humility to get what he wants. He says,” The white folk tell everybody what to think—except men like me. I tell them; that’s my life, telling white folk how to think about the things I know about.” In other words, he acts a certain role in order to gain status and power. This concept of acting inferior to gain superiority is conflicting to the ideal of the vet which is to publically break loose from discrimination.

The truth is the light and the light is the truth

This being the first time I will read The Invisible Man, I am thus far extremely pleased with the book. Ellison's diction and writing style are easy to follow, yet lack nothing in substance or meaning. From the start of the prologue I found myself immersed in his story and glad to find the pages turning so quickly. The narrator's description of his struggle to obtain an identity and be recognized as a human being was coherent and refreshing. I felt like his plan to undermine the Monopolated Light&Power company, which I felt represents the whole society that he is being oppressed by, offers evidence to his intelligence and conviction. The narrator's enormous amount of fortitude is displayed later on in the book during his quest for whiskey at the Golden Day. The narrator's behavior at the bar and during some of the other threatening situations he encounters, and his actions against the Monopolated Light&Power company and the blonde man he describes attacking conflict with each other. In one situation, the narrator acts in a way that his grandfather suggests and he keeps his head down and becomes a "yes man." In another he takes direct action against his oppressers. This fight between explicit and implicit action reminds me of the battle between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B Dubois and I look forward to seeing which method is more effective for the narrator and which method he follows.
There were some other interesting aspects I noticed within the novel. I think that Ellison's choice to keep the narrator nameless, and in a sense "invisible" is very clever. It effectively keeps the character from acquiring his own personal identity, and instead highlights the struggles of blacks in general during a time when Jim Crow laws denied blacks basic rights. I thought the names of many of the characters in the book were also interesting in that they contrast so sharply with the nameless narrator. Ras the Destroyer, Trueblood, Rev. Barbee, and Dr. Bledsoe are all very odd names and I wonder if there is a purpose behind some characters having such extreme names while the main character has none at all.

Invisible Everyone

Invisible Man is one of my favorite books of all time, and I never get tired of hearing people interpret Ellison’s exquisite language and storytelling for themselves. For me, Ellison’s thoughts can be summed up in his first paragraph of Invisible Man, where he writes, “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.” Although directly related to the race of the narrator, this idea of passing and invisibility is timeless and universally relatable. In many ways, we all have intricate pieces of ourselves that remain invisible to most only because people do not want to see them... if that makes sense.
In the first 100 pages are typically quickly turned by readers, but there are many bizarre pieces. The contrast between the fight scene and the narrator’s speech is absolutely haunting and largely unrealistic. Mr. Norton, particularly in his interactions with the vet inside the Golden Day, is an extremely mysterious character. Personally, the story of Jim Trueblood absolutely fascinates me; despite his unforgivable misgivings, I am always inclined to feel a twinge in my heart for him.
In addition to the overarching theme of social choices, Invisible Man plays largely on human consciousness, psychological experiences, and personal identity. I have explained on a few occasions how I believe Steinbeck to the the great American novelist, but I believe Ellison is the great human novelist. Invisible Man is triumphant in the unifying idea of individual consciousness and identity.

Art is art is art

I must say that this book has been one of my favorites so far and I have only read the first part. Last year in my art history class we discussed the 20th century trends etc but I just remembered that one of the artists we studied, Jeff Wall, actually recreated the preface of Invisible Man and made his hole with all the light bulbs, in 2000. I am very interested in this because it really gives an accurate depiction of what the hole looks like and I also got excited because it ties into Gertrude Stein a little (stay with me) because she collected art, and here our next protagonist has had art made after him.

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/jeffwall/image/roomguide/rm6_invisible_lrg.jpg

“In my hole in the basement there are exactly 1,369 lights. I’ve wired the entire ceiling, every inch of it. And not with fo]florescent bulbs, but with the older, more-expensive-to-operate kind, the filament type. An act of sabotage you know” (page 7).

Anyways so I ended up going through my notes and the significance that I found for this exact piece of art was that it is an example of the rejection of straightforward reality that many Postmodern photographers were attracted to at that time, so the camera was made to lie. Photography not a recorder of reality but just constructs our concept – we are forced to see what the photographer sees. But I am really intrigued by this idea of the rejection of realty that the post modernists were attracted to because it definitely mirrors the protagonist’s alienation from society and his conviction of his invisibility.

Paper 2 assignment

You have now read two unconventional autobiographies, The Education of Henry Adams and The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas. For your second paper, you will write your own 4-5 page mini-autobiography, emulating or adapting the style of one of these books. You will also write a 1-page writer’s memo reflecting on the process and comparing your autobiography to Adams’s or Stein’s. The directions for each part of the assignment are below. I encourage you to schedule an appointment to talk about the paper before you hand it in.

Mini-autobiography

In Adams’s and Stein’s books, personal and national—or even international—converge. The authors discuss significant events in American history, but they examine them from an individual perspective, which subverts or complicates the typical interpretation of the event that you might find in a history textbook. Their unusual narrative voices (3rd person for Adams’s autobiography; 1st person for Stein’s pseudo-autobiography) draw attention to the overlapping registers of personal and national by obstructing the easy identification between reader and writer encouraged by many autobiographies. Your mini-autobiography will follow this pattern. Choose one nationally or internationally momentous event (you will not have space for a full life story in 4-5 pages) that you have lived through and write about it in the style of Adams or Stein.

Just as Adams and Stein provide unique perspectives on well-known and much-discussed events, you will want to think carefully about how your personal experience speaks to a larger audience. How does your individual experience complicate the mainstream or generally accepted view of the event you’ve chosen? How does your story enhance, challenge, revise, or contribute to the national narrative? Does your particular perspective allow you to generate some insight about the relationship between the local (e.g. you, your friends, your family, your community, etc.) and the national or international?

Writer’s Memo

After you have written your mini-autobiography, reflect on the writing process. Think about the narrative voice you chose: how did it shape your explanation of the event? How did it facilitate or limit the meaning your autobiography conveyed to the reader? Why do you think the author you chose to emulate wrote the way she or he did? What are the benefits and disadvantages of that style?

Think also about the task of writing an autobiography that is more than just an individual’s memoirs. How did you make your perspective meaningful for a larger audience? How did you find connections between your story and a larger national narrative? How did you incorporate those insights into your autobiography? Did you spell them out for your reader, or did you leave them implicit? Why did you choose to write about the event in the way that you did?

These questions are prompts for reflection; you won’t have room to answer all of them in your memo, but they might help you get started. Your memo should be an analytical document, not a mere transcription of your writing process.

Due dates:
4/14 draft due in class (minimum of 3 pgs)
4/21 final draft due

Love it!

What a relief. This book is definitely a page turner. I have found it so much easier to engage in, unlike some of our previous texts. The narrator is very interesting. Not only am I intrigued by his invisible identity, I am amazed at the life he has given up to be in that invisible state. Though I do not know yet why he lives in an abandoned basement without a real identity now, I am extremely curious as to what happened to make him go there. It seems so far, that he was a very intellectual student who had a lot going for him. Although, I felt a lot of the time he was very anxious like when he kept saying to Mr. Norton that they should leave Mr. Trueblood’s house soon and how he was worried about Mr. Norton dying and him being at fault. This is definitely my style of writing. One of my favorite books I read along time ago was The Color Purple and this for some reason reminds of it. I like the style of writing and am really intrigued most of the time. I liked the way the narrator talks about his invisible identity only slightly and then goes back in time and gives us a story of how it all went down. His use of imagery is great and his work creates vivid illustrations for the reader. I really really like this one so far!!

If Gertrude Stein composed music...

...according to Sarah, this is what it would sound like. I love it!

What is this invisibilty about?

From the moment I opened Invisible Man and began reading I couldn’t put it down. The plot advances quickly and automatically hooks the reader. As I read about the journey of the boy and Mr. Norton, I was on the edge of my seat. I was so interested in what was going to happen- was Mr. Norton going to be okay? Was the boy going to be expelled from the college?
I also found myself asking questions about the theme of invisibility. I am already wondering why the author chooses to make the main character “invisible.” The novel opens with the boy talking of his invisibility. He is invisible he says because “people refuse to see me.” Has there been some event in his life that has made him feel invisible? Invisibility for the boy is also aided because the author chooses to keep the character’s name anonymous. Though the reader can identify with the boy, not knowing his name makes him somewhat invisible to the audience. The effectiveness of being invisible has not yet become apparent to me, but I know it is very significant to the main character’s story and to the novel as a whole. I don’t know yet if it is a depressing invisibility or something that is happily accepted by the boy.

Homework for Thursday

We will not have class on Thursday, but your blog posts and comments are still due as usual.

1) Read Ellison, Invisible Man, p. 1-97.
2) Group B post on Invisible Man by 9am Thursday.
3) Group A comment by 11:59pm Friday.
4) Read the assignment for paper 2 and think about what event you want to write about. I would rather not read 30 papers about September 11, so try to think of a different event if at all possible. The first draft of your paper (at least 3 pages) is due in class on 4/14. The paper is due on 4/21.

She paints with words

The thing I noticed most about Stein's writing style is that is feels messy. While I'm reading, I get the feeling that her writing is very informal, almost like a diary. Her jumping from place to place reminds me of Poe's NAGP in that it could stand for more organization and could be more thought out. Her dialogue has a chatty air to it and sometimes I get the feeling that we are simply one of her friends she is having a conversation with. One of the things I was thinking about in class tuesday during our discussion was that Stein writes much like a painter paints. Her writing is not just simply black and white, but full of color. I've painted before, and the instances where she begins describing someone or some event and then stops and says she'll come back to it later remind me of painting. Sometimes you reach a certain point in your painting where you stop and paint a bit of something else and then come back to that spot. Painting is not a uniform process and there is no correct format or guidelines to follow. Sometimes we think of writing as having this process that you need to follow, and to me Stein has broken free of this process and created something different.

Gertrude Stein, Genius.

I would definitely equate this reading with The Education of Henry Adams in a few ways. They both are observing people who are famous (at least now). They both speak in a nonchalant manner about these people. Stein talks about how Picasso was usually prompt, or Matisse was disliked by the cook because he was rude. While she does mention other things pertaining to their art, the funny anecdotes surprised me while reading and gave me a different picture of some of the artists mentioned. Sometimes these anecdotes did tend to take away from the plot. They made it more complicated for me to follow the actual plot line, as Stein used the stream of consciousness and would just change topics freely.
Also something that struck me about the book is the amount that Stein talks about herself, through Alice Toklas. I realize that they had a close relationship and were partners for a long time, but I feel like Toklas should be offended because often all she did was praise Stein and talk about how much of a genius she was. Through outside research I have read that Stein apparently wrote the book for profit. While this might not take away from the literary value of the story (as we saw earlier in the semester with Poe’s Pym), I think it is possible to see that she wrote it for that purpose. Her free flowing form of stream of consciousness, in the ways in which it simply leaves points, only to return to them later, reminds me of a college student who has waited until the last minute to write a paper

If I wrote this post written here, would you would you write beneath here would you you would write here beneath this post?

My favorite part about reading Gertrude Stein is experiencing her flow of words. The way she writes draws me in as if the whole book were poetry about all-too-common geniuses and an overabundance of nascent art. Her writing surprises me and is soothing like a beautiful song.

However, like a beautiful song, I get so caught up in the words and their construction that I have a hard time keeping track of the story. I think perhaps Gertrude may have, too. When she lists off all these people she knows, I feel like they are woven in and out of her life fluidly. While Henry Adams was dedicated to concrete events and conventional grammar, Stein follows a meandering path with Toklas. At first I thought it was just the style of Toklas that Stein was imitating but perhaps there is a lot of Stein’s voice here also. Like many other posters, I am not sure where Toklas ends and where Stein begins. Also, I feel like the relationships she has with the artists is as recursive as one of her poems – the artists flow in and out of her life without making a significant impact, or am I missing something> All in all, living in Stein’s (or Toklas’s) worldwould be much more compelling if she organized it more linearly, but to linearize Stein’s work would be to take away the beauty of the meandering.

Due to the high volume of famous people talked about in “The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas” I find that I have to remind myself that this book is actually an autobiography of sorts and not fiction. However, I did not have that same problem with “The Education of Henry Adams” I guess because the famous people mentioned are spoken about on a much less personal level than those in Gertrude Stein’s novel. Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t think I like this book much more than that of Henry Adams. I am more fond of Stein’s writing style, which is gossipy in nature and therefore more interesting to me, but I feel as though thus far nothing of substance has really been said. Although not all of Adams’s intentions when writing his autobiography are immediately apparent, there seems to be much more substance in his book than in this one. So far I feel as though Stein has only written about very inconsequential events that do not particularly reflect more on the time period than a history book could as Adams’ did, nor has it so far provided a unique perspective. Perhaps her novel provides a unique perspective into the lives of the famous people mentioned, such as Picasso, as she knew them on a personal level. Furthermore, I find that her gossipy writing style is just as difficult to follow as Adams was because she tends to shift who she is talking about with no warning or transition. 

Carly, Stein post

Conversational style:
Stein’s style of conversational writing struck a cord with me. As a Journalism major in the electronic sequence (broadcasting), we are beat over the head repeatedly with the phrase “make it conversational.” Needless to say, this autobiography read much more smoothly than Henry Adams. For example, “Now he is against his will called Menalkas but he might be gratified if he knew that legally he is Raymond. However that is another matter.” (44) I found the lack of commas and colons intriguing, and I thought they were needed initially. After I while, I realized I was naturally filling them in as I read. Gertrude wanted to emulate Alice, and the conversational style went well with Alice’s continuing opinions about people. I’m not sure how many works exist that talk about the personalities of Picasso, Picassos’ girlfriend Fernande, Matisse, and the others, but she definitely adds color to their stories.
Narrative voice:The narrative voice as told through Toklas but (really) Gertrude makes me wonder if she didn’t feel like anyone would read it if it had her name on it. Like Henry Adams, she hides her voice under the mask of Tolka’s first person voice, which makes it more readable and less presumptious. I was familiar with the name Gertrude Stein before reading this book, but I didn’t know what she was known for.
Similarities between two books:Henry Adams and Stein are similar in that their life revolves around knowing important people, and they have written a book about it. Having connections during a major artistic movement and smartly buying paintings to hang in the Rue de Fleurus put Gertrude in the right place, much like Henry Adams’ situation. Also, Henry puts down Harvard and says his class wasn’t especially brilliant. Furthermore, he didn’t really learn anything at Harvard. Stein brings up a similar point when she attends John Hopkins Medical School; she laments that she is “bored” the second two years, and all but one of her teachers pass her.

Cute Couple?

As mentioned in an earlier post, I too find myself lost within Stein's stream of words. I don't know if it's her writing style or her detailed, artistic life that is making me enjoy this book so much. I do believe that the daily activities of Gertrude and Alice would be so intriguing as to attain my interest. I love the artists she meets and who she becomes friends with. Alice is so lucky to have a friend like Gertrude. She has been acquainted with Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway, and Henri Matisse. One thing I am questioning is the type of relationship Alice and Gertrude had. While Alice does go everywhere with Gertrude and sees all that she sees, I am curious to see a more intimate relationship between the two. All literature I've read about the couple make them seem like the quintessential couple, though they were gay. I find it difficult how "Alice" can recall all these moments with fame and Paris, yet there is rarely an intimate moment between the two. Let's get our minds out of the gutter, because that is not the intimacy I am referring to. I just want "Alice" to describe a time when just the two of them, Gertrude and her enjoy a moment that relates to how they truly enjoy each other's company. I see pictures of them together and they look so perfect and happy together. That is the dream relationship; they cooperate, and are in love. Or are they? I wish to see a caring couple do something alone so I can really get a sense of just how their relationship was. How can we know that’s really what they were; a couple, unless we read something circling around the idea that they were together. Odds are that at this time, being a gay woman was not a common thing, so of course publicizing their relationship may not have been her desired effect. But what made them feel as if they should be together as life partners?
Maybe it's just a romantic's desire to see more romance and mush and love, but I just feel strongly that Gertrude, or Alice, at some point needed to have said something about how she felt. Maybe what I need to read is Alice's diary, not her "autobiography".

** I am sorry I don't have much textual evidence in this, but I feel frustrated with this point. How do we know that they cared for each other? and I am sorry for being pessimistic about their relationship. I shouldn't judge or expect something fantastic about them, but I am just curious. Is there harm in that?

Gertrude Gertrude Gertrude!!!

I must say that I think that it was kind of cool and unique that Gertrude Stein decided to write an autobiography through the speech of Alice Toklas. It just brings another dynamic that I have certainly not seen before. I totally understand this book better than The Education of Henry Adams. This book throws out a lot of names just like Henry Adams does but I feel that they work better in this book because of the way that she presents them.

Her writing style, I believe people are calling in “stream of conciseness” (sorry missed class on Tuesday) is awesome as well. I like reading books about peoples past like this because it makes you feel like you are there with them. It made it very easy to follow and easier to read. The time spent in England at the breakout of the war was interesting. It had me thinking how I would feel if I were in another country while a war is going on and I could not go home. She wrote that she did not care about her pictures or manuscripts but the thing she cared about was Paris. I don’t quite understand this concept but whatever works for her. Another interesting part of the book that got me was she was talking about the geniuses that she met during her trip. It was interesting to see what these genius thought about the war, however misguided it may have been. This is my thoughts on The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas.

Too much Gertrude. Not enough Alice... amongst other things.

I feel like my initial statement will not be original; I am becoming really tired of Gertrude discussing only Gertrude Stein. While she is certainly an interesting character, I really want to know more about Alice B. Toklas than I do how much people raved about Gertrude's novel. I feel like she is kind of exposing herself as insecure rather than confident in her genius by pointing it out so much.
That said, I have two other points, I feel like toward the end of the assigned reading for Thursday, Stein started to make more of an effort to make the work more about Alice; I see significantly more "I" and a pleasant amount less "Gertrude Stein." So, thanks Gerty!
Ok, now for my most major point regarding the writing style of the novel: It, once more, does not fail to incorporate a lot of Gertrude into it, even if she is trying to take on Alice's conversational style. On page 90, there is a line that goes:
"In these pictures he first emphasised the way of building in spanish villages, the line of the houses not following the landscape but cutting across and into the landscape, becoming undistinguishable in the landscape by cutting across the landscape."
I think this is the perfect example of what we were talking about in class on Tuesday; Gertrude's style is the written form of cubism. And, inevitably, it came through in writing The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas. Just based on the majority of the work, I cannot imagine that this is a sentence Alice herself would have said. She might have, indeed, been appreciative of such a sentence but it is highly unlikely that she would have said it (in my opinion, of course).
Also, that Gertrude put in this little clue that she was writing the Autobiography is very fitting to what seems to be her personality. She needs the attention to be on her "genius." Ah!

I don't understand why she called this The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, when it is actually her autobiography. Honestly, it annoys me. I think that it makes the book unique because Stein attempts to recreate Alice's voice and thoughts while still discussing her (Stein's) actual life. However, at this point, I don't really see how it adds to the book. Stein glorify's herself by supposedly speaking through her lover, and it takes away from it, for me at least.

The stream of consciousness format works for the book, but I had difficulty staying aware of what was a flashback and what was merely going through Gertrude's life in order. There are a lot of details and names that throw me off easily, but I like the explanation offered by Stein. Her anecdotes are often very amusing, such as the one about when she was frightened out of her hiccups. I think the anecdotes add to the story and make it much more conversational and personal and an overall easy to digest book.

six degrees of separation from kevin bacon and Gertrude stein

has anyone else experienced the feeling of being completely saturated in Gertrude stein's world and for only a second be distracted by something else (telephone ringing, traffic, etc) and suddenly you feel out of place? I know it's a really weird feeling, but i keep having it every time i try to read Alice B. Toklas in a noisy place. I think it may be the way she is organizing it chronologically as well as the content matter that makes it seem that it's not her life story so much as it is one of her dinner parties. She has the book organized into chapters which represent large chunks of time (several years at a time)... but that doesn't seem to be how she's organizing her life. It seems that she is doing it by the people she knows. She'll mention person A, briefly describe them and the circumstances of their meeting and then she'll meet person B who she met through person A and the cycle continues. I remember reading today pages upon pages of just introductions of people. It's a very uncomfortable feeling because you do feel like you're meeting these people in some capacity and you feel like the polite thing to do would be to respond in some way... which of course is silly and impossible... but you none the less feel like you are being rude and will somewhere down the line get a plate of fried egg instead of omlet because you snubbed these literary figures. Never has an autobiography given me such social anxiety before! It's just a really interesting experience because it evokes the physiological exhaustion of meeting a lot of people at once but it's really just her writing style.

Oh, so witty!

I think Stein's idea to write her own autobiography as though it was the autobiography of someone else is simply genius. There is no doubt her life was full of interesting people, places, and events, and incredibly worthy to be written about; however, there are just so many tidbits of information to digest. It almost feels like a tidal wave of names hits you with every turn of the page.

It is undeniable that her writing style is innovative, which coincides with the groundbreaking generation of artists she lived amongst in Europe. One of my favorite passages so far is a critique of Gertrude's writing and her witty retort.

"Haweis had been fascinated with what he had read in manuscript of The Making of Americans. He did however plead for commas. Gertrude Stein said commas were unnecessary, the sense should be intrinsic and not have to be explained by commas and otherwise commas were only a sign that one should pause and take breath but one should know of oneself when one wanted to pause and take breath" (132).

This quote is just one of many quips found throughout The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas that exemplifies Stein's wit and ability to remain charming even when being obstinate. I think it provides a bit of insight to the inner workings of Stein's mind, and why she chooses to ignore the usage of commas, which is something most professional writers would frown upon. Obviously, Stein enjoys writing outside of the box and is throwing syntax out the window.

Her opinions are enigmatic and her anecdotes are brilliant. Gertrude Stein is unlike any other author I have read thus far, and I am really looking forward to reading the rest of this autobiography to see what education I will be able to garner from the mass amounts of information on every page.

1 more thing

the narration scheme is really cool though and different, and i really do appreciate that. points for you Stein, but not too many

Just Not A Fan of Stein

I guess its my turn to take the role as class pessimist. Though it was difficult and dense, I truly felt Henry Adams gave so much information and depth to digest that at the end of the novel, I could take a lot away. It also seems many of you enjoy Stein's "stream of conscious" writing style, but to me it really just gets frustrating to read "paintings Cezanne, oh but now ill get to the real point 10 pages later". Yet I still think small parallels can be drawn between Henry Adams and Stein, for instance they both don't consider their top-notch educations too valuable. The intricacies and politics of painters and their paintings get dull; as if I am almost listening to a gossip radio show. But digging through the random dialogue I do enjoy learning about the subtle historic progression and account from realistic art to impressionism/cubism; it is also interesting to see a young Picasso, as most of what you hear about him is a dead famous artist.

Ill try my best to keep an open mind for Stein, but its closing fast. I guess after digesting a dynamic theory of history, pondering on what education really means, and examining why women vs. machinery hold power of man, I can't really find what to REALLY take out of this book- or I guess my basic request is for Stein to explicate what is so great about herself (the oh so humble genius) and Tolkas for me to keep reading?

Form in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say it's difficult at times to understand why Stein writes the way she does. As mentioned in an earlier post, the long chapters and fragmented writing create a situation in which there is no good point for the reader to stop. The effect of this is that the book seems to be moving endlessly ahead, with little time for introspection or reflection. Since we know that Stein seemingly crafted every sentence and every word for a precise purpose, I believe that she structured the chapters in a way to project the momentum and excitement she felt at the time.

Another aspect of form I wanted to comment on was the crafting of the individual sentences themselves. Stein writes complex sentences and often removes the cues we are accustomed to using to decipher their meaning. Sentences with dialogue can be especially confusing, as there are never any quotation marks used. The descriptors she uses in the middle of the sentence are often ambiguous. By crafting her sentences in such a way, Stein is forcing us to be critical readers and to establish meaning and judgment independently. In challenging the artistic norms of the times, both Stein and Picasso are encouraging the individual to focus on form and structure, and to be more critical.

On a side note, I really liked the image on page 90 where Eve, Piccasso, Alice, and Stein are walking down the street and see the cannon:

"All of the sudden down the street came some big cannon, the first any of us had seen painted, that is camouflaged. Pablo stopped, he was spell-bound. C'est nous qui avons fait ca, he said, it is we that have created that, he said. And he was right, he had. From Cezanne through him they had come to that. His foresight was justified."

While much of the beginning of the book is filled with the possibilities (in a good way) and eagerness to be in a new different modern era, the image of the cannon camouflaged is as shocking to Picasso as his works must have been to people in that New York show discussed in class. Even though he considered himself on on the forefront of new ways of modern thinking, the world was moving quicker (like in Henry Adam's law of acceleration). Anyways, I thought it was a cool image.

Reading The Autobiography of Alice B Toklas was a new experience for me as I have never read any of Stein's work before. I really liked the stream of consciousness style and that the book felt like a conversation. This style engages the reader more and makes them feel privy to private information. I found it hard to stop in the middle of a chapter because I wanted to see each little "conversation" end and there was really no good stopping point in the middle of a story.
I also think it is interesting how Stein self-promotes herself and her work in this "autobiography" of Alice. At one point she even says that a publisher finally figured out that he should print Stein's own work and not just commentary on it. I have honestly never had an interest in reading Gertrude Stein before but after reading this book I want to look at her poetry. I think many other readers have also felt this way and Stein intentionally put "plugs" for her writing in the work.
Stein's Autobiography can also be read as a memoir of a very interesting time in the world. While some students accused her of name dropping, Stein was just writing about the people she knew. She also included Helene and other "less important" people than Picasso, Matisse, et al. However, by including accounts of everyday interactions with these famous artists Stein shows a different shade of famous men to the world. It helps the reader to understand their art better since they have a deeper understanding of the artists as people. Also, by seeing Stein's interactions with her contemporaries, the reader begins to see that Stein was not just a crazy author who could not grasp simple concepts of grammar but wrote everything a certain way for a purpose.

The Mystery of Alice

Throughout the reading, it constantly slipped my mind that our narrator was a woman named Alice B. Toklas. I kept thinking it was Gertrude Stein or even some unnamed omniscient person. As I continually reminded myself of Alice, I became more intrigued by her and wanted to find out more. Why would Stein choose her and what value does she bring to the book? Well, I did some online research and found some very interesting information on our lovely narrator. According to the hopefully reliable Wikipedia, Alice was Stein’s “confidante, lover, cook, secretary, muse, editor, critic, and general organizer.” Wait a minute…lover? Apparently the two were a couple for quite some time, but Alice was always sort of overshadowed by Gertrude and her writing. I find it interesting that although Alice is the narrator of this novel, she is still often forgotten by the reader. One very telling section of the book is on page 14, where Alice tells us of all the “wives of geniuses” she has sat with. If it is true that Alice and Gertrude were a couple, Gertrude likely considered Alice the wife of a genius (and herself, of course, the genius). In my opinion, this characterization of Alice speaks volumes about Stein and reveals her egotistical attitude. Despite her unabashed love of herself, I find Gertrude Stein’s writing very interesting and I’m glad we’re reading this book.

Homework for Thursday

1) Read Stein, p. 86-192
2) Group A post by 9am Thurs.

Here's Stein reading "If I Told Him" and several other poems.

Homework for Tuesday

1) Read Stein, p. 3-85 (I wrote 95 on the board in class today but that was a mistake--sorry!).
2) Group A comment on a blog post by 11:59pm Friday night.

Also, please see Nyssa's challenge (posted below). She makes a compelling case!

Henry Adams: Friend or Foe

I hope that everyone has been finding the end of the book much better than the beginning as I have. We have been claiming a lot that Henry is emotionless but I think that is much more difficult to argue now. He's become so much more in touch with his emotions toward the end which, in my opinion, is due to his struggle with religion. Henry is getting caught up in this battle of education and religion and I find myself feeling sorry and understanding him because I have had this same problem so many times in my life. He's going back and looking at all this education and doubting its credibility if religion were what everyone has made it out to be. The battle doesn't much allow modern science and religion to play equal roles. To me, it seemed like Adams wanted so much to be religious but for education purposes, he couldn't quite make it work it. I just found it interesting to see that he was addressing such a common issue. It goes back to what Kelly mentioned about Henry speaking to our generation. Think evolution. This is still such a problem to today and Henry definitely, if not anyone else, spoke to me.
I also hope that Henry managed to get some credit from those who didn't care much for him. He subtly admits that difficulty of reading this a couple of times approaching the end of the book and I respect him for that. From the text, you could look at the quote "With the help of these two points f relation, he hoped to project his lines froward and backward indefinitely, subject to correction from any one who should know better." Here he is basically acknowledging the fact that he goes back and forth a lot and changing his mind and talks about things repetitively but for me it became more acceptable upon reading that. I mean if Henry can recognize his chaotic writing style then who I am to judge him for it? Speaking of chaos, he also wrote about that obsessively in the last few chapters and I couldn't help but to link it to the writing style he's been pursuing. Everything is thrown about because he's trying to find a logical order but for such a subject, there may not be a good one.
Henry comes off much more human in the last few chapters. I hope some people have changed their minds!

In regard to my statement in class that we don't use the blog correctly, I issue a challenge to my classmates: Read all of the blog posts. Every single one.
My compelling argument:
1. Reading every blog post would make us better readers.
I admit that when it is my week to comment, I scan every post until I find one that works. Our professor has impressed me by her comprehension our writing that, to be fair, is sometimes as rough (inexperienced maybe) as the Edgar Allan Poe of Arthur Gordon Pym. It is a stretch of our attention to force ourselves to read something difficult, but a skill worth developing - especially when confronting something as daunting as The Education of Henry Adams
2. It would make us better writers.
When we approach blog posting as something that is going to be read instead of something that we must do to get a grade, it assumes that what we say must be worth reading. Our posts might experience a tightening of focus and clarity of delivery if we are more conscious of audience (instead of writing into an internet abyss).
3. It would give us a better education.
Henry Adams insists that education is lifelong and constant, and that the most vital component is the individual who seeks it out. I cannot blame a school or a class for a bad education, but I can rebuke myself for wasting my time by not using a resource to be educated when I have it.
We have a tool to utilize the knowledge of our peers. We are compelled to capitalize on it.

Henry is Educating us too

I actually enjoyed this part of the book more than the previous ones. Being able to focus on smaller sections allowed me to take in more of his purpose and notice things that I probably would have otherwise missed. The most intriguing chapter from this section was XXV. It really gave the reader a look at Henry Adams and more of his reasoning behind the way he thought or why he did what did certain things. He mentions that “nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts” (285). This is his way of rejecting his formal education, and focusing more on life’s lesson and the application of those. In this section, he also looked at women and their role when it comes to society and force. I think this is the first time that actually includes women in the book and thinks about them on another level, besides his interaction with his wife, although he tried to write less about that.
Overall, I think Adam’s use of third person is actually his way of making the book more applicable and not just his autobiography. This last section makes me feel like The Education of Henry Adams is also more about educating his reader about the issue of the past vs the future and how to deal with making that transition and learning new things.

POV

At first when reading through this work...I felt like his choice of 3rd person point of view made him seem very narcissistic, cocky, and self-absorbed. Since I knew he was writing this work about himself, choosing to write in third person created a distance between the reader and Henry. I interpreted this distance to come off as snobbery, that Adams was so high and mighty of what he though education was and the amazing story of his education through life was so inspiring and unconventional that he wanted to correct the world in what they interpreted education to be.

As I've continued to read, I've tried to not keep myself limited to my initial reactions to the text so I could try to appreciate other things about it. Now, I can see how choosing a 3rd person point of view can help Adams look back on his life and reflect objectively on his educational experience. Yes, emotions are removed, but that could be a strategy to be able to engage with his experiences in the most unbiased way he could have managed. This type of objective reflection could have led him to being more capable of changing who he was over the years. Because he's taking his experiences from and outside point of view, he can better detect his patterns of change in education he experiences.

I haven't read a lot of autobiographies, much less ones that are in third person, so I think that choosing this POV is an interesting tactic of Adams. The distance I feel from the character is a little discouraging to continue reading, but hopefully I will be able to keep pushing to see past these initial thoughts

Who in the world is Henry Adams?

Perhaps my problems with The Education of Henry Adams lie in my obsession with characters. Going into screenwriting, I already see everything as a film- not to be confused with seeing the world tritely, but really more that I see events with clear cut beginnings, middles and ends. Similarly, I need everyone I encounter to embrace their own character. Specifically with Henry Adams, this does not seem like to much for me, as a reader, to ask. In my experience, I’ve taken to understanding “education” in the broad sense (what the world teaches you) as strong character development. The world tells you who you are- it may generally takes a lifetime to learn, but that is what memoirs and autobiographies are for. They are very elaborate character developments.
That said, who is Henry Adams? I’m sure he was a very nice man, and clearly of unusual intelligence and perspective. But what made him tick? In one chapter, Henry is a careless adventurer, in the next he is an intense poet. Move on and Henry will become a serious politician, and even further, an always-experimenting scientist. All these opportunities that we as readers understand to yield great life lessons. But where are they, Hank? What on earth did you learn?!?

education!

I originally wanted to write about what I felt about the book but then realized I'd fallen into the trap! I agree with Nyssa that this is not the best way to go, so I'll make a real comment on the book and (try to) spare you my silly ramblings!

Henry Adams is intriguing to me in that he is taking scientific and political theories and applying them to his life, creating the most dynamic education for himself. Typically, scientific theories are used to describe science and processes separate from the mind. Adams seems to bridge the gap between scientific theories of the universe and the way humans interact with each other. Other Emma touched on it: when he is talking about theory of gases, he is relating it to the way one is educated. This depth is fascinating. While we are not getting a personal account of Henry Adams' life, we are getting so much more. Sure, we may not feel an attachment to the character that will compel us to read, but I don't think that's what Adams sets out to do. The mere fact that it is in 3rd person separates us from personal relation to the character himself. It's not "the life of Henry Adams," it's "the education of Henry Adams." Therefore, I will forgive him for not telling me all of his emotions throughout his life. Adams even says it himself: "Once more! this is a story of education not of adventure! It is meant to help young men -- or such as have intelligence enough to seek help -- but it is not meant to amuse them." (beginning of chapter 21)

I get fired up about science, so I love to hear him wrestling with these scientific theories that we take for granted. He was around when these ideas were still volatile and fresh. While we take Darwin's theories as fact nowadays, he had the choice between a lot of things to explain the way the world is. His education is not about the facts he learns, but rather what it means given his experiences. I just find those parts really cool. Overall, I think Henry Adams did a fantastic job, but I think this book is one to come back to and read snippets. It is so dense that I think it will take a while for me to fully immerse myself in it (which is unfortunate because we only gave it a couple of class days!)

The roots of Adams' chaos theory and use of third person

Like others have mentioned, I think that in this last section Henry Adams did a great of summing up his point about education. He describes the pains which men go to in order to understand the world around them in a disdainful manner and continuously asserts that the true nature of the world is chaos. It is futile to try to understand chaos. This idea connects back to the beginning of the narrative where Adams explains why he likes Quincy more than Boston. Boston represents formal education; it is structured and its focus is on memorization and rules. Quincy, however, is freedom and summertime. It represents a more natural education, where one learns through action in the world instead of trying to separate oneself from the world and define every part of it. Adams sums this up nicely as a need to enter into the chaos instead of turning away from it.
I think that Adams’ first began to concretely develop this view when his sister died. This is one of the few, maybe the only, times in the book where his narrative is openly emotional. Throughout his narrative, Adams writes about women in very high esteem. He says early on that women have always steered him right, but no man ever has. Later in the book he writes about the noble acts of women, who are wise and are greatly responsible for the creation of society. He also says, however, that women could not protect against the forces of nature, they did not anticipate the chaos of the universe. Indeed, I think that Henry Adams views the downfall of women, such as the death of his sister and his wife’s suicide, as the ultimate examples of the chaos of the universe. Despite the inherently strong nature of women like his sister, they can be easily done in by a random accident of nature.
On a different note, I found the frequency with which Adams mentioned women interesting considering that none of the other authors we have read thus far have breached that topic. I’m curious to know whether or not Adams’ opinion of women was common for his time.
Finally, in regards to Adams’ use of third person narration, I think he does this because he is making a point that not only is the universe chaotic, but people are constantly changing, too. He refrains from constantly referring to himself as I throughout the narrative to show that he is no longer that same person. Henry Adams the boy failed to learn any civil law in Germany, not Henry Adams the narrator. This is in keeping with Adams’ disposition to the psychological idea that everyone has multiple personalities in some way. He thinks it would be incorrect and unproductive to pretend that a person can be easily defined in one way, let only that he can be defined as that same being for his whole existence, and objects to doing so of himself in his autobiography.

What struck me most in our conversation on Tuesday was that many people felt that Adams’ narrative was not a good book – or good autobiography because he gave us no personal connection to his life. However, I found that through his writings he gives us not only his own views – which is extremely personal – but he also writes for the generation. His work, for me, does not seem to be about “ I am Henry Adams and I feel blah blah” but rather by writing in the third person he makes his own character the personification of western thought that is being constantly challenged and pulled in different directions. Adams writes, “ he was led to think that the final synthesis of science and its ultimate triumph was the kinetic theory of gases” (page 431 in my book). The final summary of science as the theory of gases mirrors Adams (and the time periods) constant movement of thought, just as the world was realizing all matter was in constant flux Adams points out that all thought is too, we are all never still, never concrete. Adams examines every aspect of life, religion, politics, science, history, art – all in this seemingly non personal third person, but really he is showing to us our own world and giving his observations so that we might, in our own right, be educated by his thoughts. Further I think this piece is terribly complex and deep, so much so that it seems to be applicable to many time periods, and so complex that I really am having trouble expressing my ideas. I hope this made some semblance of meaning…

Assertin' and Rationalizin'

This is mainly a response to our class discussion on Tuesday, especially pertaining to Nyssa's point about substantiating our reasoning for liking or disliking Adams' book.

That really struck a chord with me, because I feel like it's a habit we should all get into if only because it'll keep us from wasting our time on arguments that people don't take seriously.

Anyway, in terms of The Education of Henry Adams, here is how I feel (read on for the rationale): 

The assertion: I think that Adams leaves the term "education" largely undefined because he wants us to delve further into what it means on a personal level; he wants the reader to question the textbook, Webster-style meaning and further ponder whether that traditional standard has ever really served us with useful knowledge. Adams experiences a plethora of opportunities to learn from books-- studying at Harvard, teaching at Harvard, etc.-- but somehow this doesn't satisfy him or, according to Adams, provide him with skills he can use in everyday interactions. 

The (book-based) justification: Looking at the numerous opportunities Adams has to define his view of education point-blank, he has to have a reason for failing to do so. Why would an author do that? One choice that seems evident to me is the aforementioned reason (that he wants us to figure out our own notions of the concept first). Also, Adams' choice to include chapters that deal primarily with what society considers education (versus less traditional definitions, like "life experience") shows that these specific, traditional experiences are NOT what he considers practical and/or useful. All his studying doesn't amount to his satisfaction or, in his eyes, success, so he's definitely pointing to the fact that we need to realign our societal definition.

I hope this makes sense, and that the justification section isn't just a repeat of my assertions.

Au revoir.