We have done a lot in class to compare Native Son and Invisible Man. We have highlighted many differences in the attitudes and themes of the authors. These themes are summarized very well by the contrasting titles. Ellison, writing 12 years later, chooses a title that clearly mimics Wright’s for his response novel. The construction of adjective then person is visible in both, but the connotations for the words are much different.
The first word (“Invisible” and “Native”) represents a great deal of significance to the theme of the novel in both cases. Furthermore, it displays the final judgement and world views of a character in the end of the novel. In Native Son, “Native” is the basis for Max’s argument of the inevitability of Bigger’s crime. He talks about how Bigger is a crime himself due to the environment that he was brought up in. He is native to this society and it is what defines him. Alternatively, Ellison chooses to present a more complex world view with the narrator's realization of the concept of invisibility. This main theme of the novel is very hard to pin down and is never truly defined. That is why invisibility is the perfect term because invisibility is inherently mysterious. It shows a sense of free will associated with flying under the radar. The contrast of these terms in very interesting because their definitions do not show any relation at all, but in the context of the novel, they both carry strong connotations of relative freedom.
The second word supports the themes discussed of the first. “Son” shows Bigger’s existence as a direct result of his society and demonstrates a clear path of origin for the character. It also immediately defines him as a son of something bigger (no pun intended, although that could be deliberate symbolism) rather than an individual. “Man”, on the other hand, is a completely anonymous, which is how the narrator describes himself at the end. It is the term that would be used on a news headline where the identity of the person is not important. It is also much more individual than “Son” and is a successful contrast to Wright’s novel.
In conclusion, I read through both books without even noticing Ellison's homage to Native Son in the title. This represent the endless symbolism in Invisible Man that I have acknowledged that I will never fully grasp. The symbolism found in almost every line is what makes this book powerful for me and worth another read.
I never thought about the titles too much, but after reading your post I definitely agree, especially with what you said about invisibility. Very clearly the main theme, invisibility is so vague and, like you said, mysterious, and the word itself is the essence of being both nothing and everything. I can see how the title portrays how Ellison carried out this theme in his characters, and how it contrasts with Native Son's title and content. Good post!
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good way of getting at some of the basic differences in these two novels: the emphasis on Bigger as a "native son" of the United States demands that the country take responsibility for what it's produced, while Ellison depicts a character whose growth into "manhood" within that same system renders him "invisible."
ReplyDeletePerhaps needless to say, but still worth mentioning: side-by-side, these titles illustrate the male-focused nature of both novels. At this point, we're primarily dealing with black men's struggles for visibility.