In an almost James Bond-like way the narrator truly believes in what the Brotherhood says their ideals are but suspects corruption and decides to do things his own way. He keeps them off his trail by feeding the Brotherhood false information like the amount of new members they have gained since their policies changes. He even tries his hand at womanizing even though he is kind of unsuccessful because Sybil refuses to cooperate. The Brotherhood also seems to fully trust him. He is granted almost 00 status as one of their best speakers and when the riots break out in Harlem, he is the one that receives the frantic call. Although the narrator runs uptown to see what's going on, he is no longer just running because he was called, he is running toward something where he knows he has agency and can make a difference. He is no longer being kept running, but is actively running out of his own accord.
In the past, the Brotherhood was limiting the narrator's identity by literally telling him he was not hired to think and that he was supposed to blindly accept their cult-like beliefs. Once he, again, wakes up and rejects their lack of individual thought he finds that ability to express himself which he has been craving the entire novel. However, this identity comes with a catch. He can be an individual if he is not detected by the oppressing powers of the Brotherhood. He is a spy and all good spies learn to be invisible. And one more time, Ellison's genius introduces the paradox of the narrator's identity being the uniqueness of lacking one.
I think your comparison of the Narrator to James Bond is an interesting interpretation of the grandfather's message because it advocates taking matters into one's own hands. Furthermore, the grandfather explains that the most effective way of undermining the racist system is not openly -- in which case he will be punished severely and prevented from continuing -- but "undercover" is more effective since he can gain the trust of the Brotherhood and defeat them from the inside.
ReplyDeleteI like the comparison of the narrator to James Bond, it adds an exciting flare to the narrator's identity. When you talked about invisibility and working for the Brotherhood while having another agenda it made me think of James Bond wearing a wig or disguise in order to accomplish his task. I agree with Omeed in that this depiction of the narrator makes his independent actions seem like a good thing. It seems as though the narrator has finally realized and made the "right choice" and can now live ideally and freely. The similarities between the narrator and James Bond actually seem logical and almost purposeful, which makes this post really cool.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really insightful post. Like you say, it's interesting and paradoxical that the narrator seems to only gain a real identity when he realizes he doesn't have one. Throughout the novel, he goes through the process of getting disillusioned again and again, losing another part of what he thought was his identity each time until he finally sees that his whole life was a lie. It's only then, after watching everything he thought was true go out the window, that he can really define himself.
ReplyDeleteI love your comparison to James Bond, however I feel like James Bond is much more self aware. Bond is an agent possibly because he feels an urge for justice, or feels like it's the right thing to do. Our narrator is only a double agent because he's mad, and doesn't know what else to do. Certainly at the end of the book, he's much more self aware, but not as he's playing the Brotherhood. I think you bring up some great points though, about being able to use invisibility as an advantage.
ReplyDeleteI was totally with you until the very last sentence. I feel like the point is that The Narrator is not unique in being invisible, as this is the burden of black men in a white world.
ReplyDelete