I’m sure many of you have wondered the same thing: why didn’t Ellison show us what happened after the narrator returned to civilization? He could have used this as an opportunity to strengthen his argument that the narrator has benefited enough from his refined perspective; enough that he now has capacity to propagate his newfound knowledge to the masses. Why not mollify our ambivalence and show us how he would “speak for us on the lower frequencies”?
The answer may be simpler than it appears: perhaps Ellison doesn’t give us a verdict because he simply doesn’t know the answer himself. As much as he claims that his novel disseminates universal truths applicable to human beings throughout the spectrum, maybe Ellison, as a member of a dying generation, simply can’t imagine a world where people effectively resist basic categorizations. His personal life is a testament to this--Ellison was often accused of elitism by members of his own race, even though it had been his life’s work to be identified purely for his craft--he, like his character could not escape the implications of his phenotypic qualities. Who’s to say that by elaborating on the narrator’s renaissance, Ellison would be stirring up additional controversy? In the opinions of black nationalists, Invisible Man’s seemingly passive ending was already offensive; to have this enlightened narrator then expose and expand these perversions to the public could instigate even more censure.
But there is yet another angle to explore: what if Ellison is leaving it up to the reader to decide what happens? Could this omission be a blessing? It would certainly eliminate some of the heat he would receive, but more importantly for the reader, his open-endedness is generous, allowing us to personally define the protagonist’s newfound independence and how he would employ it in the real world. Was his retreat into the basement even his last disillusionment? Ellison took a chance by offering this ambiguity, a stylistic choice that makes him both generous to his readers and vulnerable to his critics.
I personally think the story of the narrator is almost like the story of Bigger Thomas in that they both are examples of life cut short, men who suffered at the hands of the system and ended up (literally) underground. The tale of Bigger's life was an example, and he was the face of millions of other young black men in the same environment with the same wish for escape and for meaning in their lives. His death helped bring to light the need for change so that the cycle can stop and the same themes don't keep appearing. In the same way, I think the STORY of the narrator's disillusionment and eventual return to the basement has more significance than his life itself. He got spit out the bottom of the system and there might not be any way to bring him back outside, but the tale of how he finally found himself and became free is a powerful "wake-up call" for the millions who might be trapped in the same web of lies as he was.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant to my post, but I am willing to be openminded! I see what you're saying with the comparison between the eminence of Bigger's fate and what the narrator realizes during his hibernation, but what do you mean by "the STORY of the narrator's disillusionment and eventual return to the basement has more significance than his life itself"? I suppose I'm just more interested in learning why you think Ellison omitted the narrator's return to civilization than what is significant about him deciding to return in the first place.
DeleteI have a few thoughts on this as I have been asking myself the same thing. First, perhaps the narrator never returned to civilization at all. Maybe he spent the rest of his days living in the cellar writing his story. You could argue that by "living" in the cellar he would have to return to civilization to get food and stuff like that but is that really an actual return to civilization?
ReplyDeleteSecond, maybe it could be like you said, by cutting it off like this it leaves it open for interpretation for any reader. This way it appeals to anyone who reads it because they can each formulate their own ideas about what happened afterwards.
Well, I don't have the exact quotes but in the Epilogue I do believe the narrator tells us that he is done living in isolation and ready to take his knowledge to the outside world. Additionally, he has written his entire memoir up to his hibernation, so it wouldn't make sense for him to spend the rest of his days living in the cellar writing his story, since there is literally nothing left to write. As for his basic needs of survival, we are aware that the narrator doesn't spend 100% of the time in the basement because in the prologue he talks about stabbing a passerby.
DeleteEllison what's the book to be a lesson, and what other way to learn a lesson, but by going out and experiencing it yourself. I feel that Ellison intentionally didn't give us "the answer" because he wants the reader to discover it for themselves, or more importantly, discover themselves by themselves. Especially with this question, there isn't one answer that would fit everyone. The question that Ellison asks is pretty personal, and Ellison also leaves it up to the reader to decide for themselves, whether or not they want to be "enlightened". The reader has to choice to take Ellison's advice, or they can choose to ignore Ellison's words. Free-will FTW
ReplyDelete