Skip to main content

What Really is Invisibility?

The idea of "invisibility" is key to the novel Invisible Man, which comes as no shock to anyone who actually read the book (or read the title). However, we are never presented with a concrete definition of what "invisibility" truly means. We know that certain characters are described to have it, such as the narrator, Dr. Bledso, Brockway, and Rinehart to list a few. While we get somewhat of a description of the invisibility of each of these characters, I believe that the Rinehart sequence gives us the most insight into what invisibility really means.
The narrator describes himself as invisible in the prologue and gives quite a lot of information on the foundation of invisibility. He says that, "I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids -- and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus sideshows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard, distorting glass. When they approach me they see only my surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination -- indeed, everything and anything except me," (Ellison, 1). He establishes that this invisibility is something figurative and says that he is invisible because "people refuse to see him." This is our first clue as to what this invisibility is. He describes invisibility as something that prevents people from recognizing who he is and projecting his surroundings onto him.
The next major example of invisibility is Dr. Bledso. The difference between the invisibility of the prologue narrator and Dr. Bledso seems quite vast, but they appear to fundamentally the same thing. The narrator describes Bledso's invisibility in the terms of his manipulation of others. This is similar to the idea that no one sees his true self and instead they can only project his surroundings on him, but the difference is that he utilizes this and manipulates people with it. However, we have yet to get a real grasp of what it means to not "see someone" and "project their surroundings on them."
The Rinehart sequence is where all of this is finally cleared up. This entire sequence comes off as somewhat of a fever dream, as a priest being a pimp seems awfully unrealistic. However, this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of the story, because the takeaway from this dream is the way his invisibility is portrayed. Everyone knows his name is Rinehart, but they all associate a different identity onto him based on their previous interactions with him - their surroundings, to some extent. I believe this sequence right here shows exactly what invisibility is: everyone associating an identity with who you are, but never truly seeing the full picture. The real Rinehart was all of those things, but no individual person knew that. He was invisible to all of them.

Comments

  1. My view on the concept of invisibility changed throughout the novel, and it's really interesting seeing your perspective as shown through the Rinehart scenes. I definitely think there's some overarching societal messages about how we don't truly see one another or something like that. In terms of the narrator, though, I think he feels like nobody truly understands him. We never see anyone grasping all the different events and traumas he's experienced, and I don't think even the narrator fully processes it until he's writing it all down (like in the introduction).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Significance of Dana's Arm

At the beginning of Kindred , we are thrust into a confusing situation with Dana explaining that she lost her arm on her last trip. Obviously, this does not make sense at first, but by the end of the book we see the events leading up to the loss of her arm. But the question remains of why she lost her arm, both from a narrative perspective and from a story perspective. In class, we talked about how Butler herself said that she had Dana lose her arm because she couldn't come back whole from an experience in that time period. It needed to have some sort of permanent mark on her character, and she decided to represent this by her losing a limb. However, I believe that there is another interpretation. Her losing the part of her arm that was grabbed by Rufus represents her cutting off part of her past/bloodline. Throughout the entire story, she has had a kinder view of Rufus because he is her ancestor and because she has seen him grow up. But when she decides to kill him, she is putting...

Mumbo Jumbo: History, Fiction, or Mythology?

 In class, we discussed whether the alternate history presented in Mumbo Jumbo  was historical, fictional, or mythological in nature. I personally think that it existed in between all three of these categories. The usage of Egyptian mythology and historical/religious settings and characters makes it so that placing Chapter 52 and Chapter 52 in a definitive category difficult. Some people may say that it is easy to say that it is not historical because none of these events have been documented or have any basis in reality as far as we know. However, under a postmodernist interpretation - specifically either Maza or Doctorow - one can argue that these chapters represent their own view of history. Maza would say that the lack of evidence does not disprove it, but rather makes this as a valid alternative account of historical events. On the other hand, Doctorow would say that the "fictional" nature of the characters and events does not make it less real, pointing towards the fund...