who knows...
...but that, on the lower frequencies, I speak for you?
Yas Ellison. Love that ending king. Give us a spicy question to ponder 😍
As was pointed out in the notebook prompt from 10/12, this final question can seem like a turnaround from the initial tones and themes of the prologue. We go from a narrator caught up in his own invisibility and the peculiar facets of his experience to a narrator admitting, albeit apprehensively, that his entire tale which centers around surreal and unique circumstances could to some extent apply to anyone out there.
...What happened?! This feels almost like a halfhearted attempt to connect with the reader last-minute, maybe after realizing that the audience needs an anchor to which the muddy, dreamlike information they have learned can be attached. And I suppose that part of me is tempted to criticize Ellison/the narrator/the nellison for ending in this way, uncharacteristic of the rest of the novel.
But another part of me says, I like this pivot! I like that the nellison takes this final line to address what's been on my mind throughout most of this book - how can invisibility mean something to someone else? It's true that the narrator set out to describe his personal situation that led him to his current invisible state, but he would often address an audience, and with that kind of awareness of a group of Other People who would read what he wrote, I wished he would bring us into the picture in some way. And that he did it in the final sentence allows the explication of that thought to take place in the minds of those who did personally relate to invisibility.
I also liked that the narrator was able to delineate the extent of his knowledge, because while he did create the notion of invisibility he described in the book, he sticks rather firmly to what that means for him, and admits that he doesn't know whether and to what extent his concept applies to the reader.
It's another interesting facet of the nellison that while he studies his invisibility through other characters in the novel, he doesn't apply the possibility of invisibility to them; rather, he gives the readers the opportunity to consider it for ourselves. Unless I missed or am forgetting something.*
I have more incoherent thoughts floating around that I could attempt to articulate, but I think instead I'd like to wait to see what y'all have to think about the ones that are already on the page.
The "nellison," by the way, is the speaker of this novel who is indistinguishable between the narrator and Ralph Ellison, because (a) both share many experiences, (b) either could be said to be telling the story, and (c) the narrator is entirely a product of Ellison and thus part of him. In short, both of them simultaneously except they're the same person but not really but actually yeah.
Edit: I HAVE forgotten some things. First of all, as Maxine pointed out, Rinehart provides an excellent example of another character's invisibility. And, as Ilana mentioned, the narrator briefly mentions that Louis Armstrong is invisible in that wild ride of a prologue.
It is indeed a very spicy question!! I really love the ending and this blogpost! I also felt pretty confused about the last line at first. Like you explain, it’s really a pivot. And I feel that including it in the very last line was a compelling and also great choice. The story, as well as this idea of invisibility, doesn’t seem to have an end (the narrator himself, for example, even says that he’s about to come out of “hibernation” during the final pages). The idea of invisibility continues and it really doesn’t have a solid definition for everyone. Like you discuss, it’s really personal to each individual. Using the question as the last line of this novel kind of extends the story for me. It has a conclusion, but it doesn’t stop you from thinking about the book at all. Rather, it gets readers to ponder this idea of invisibility even more and perhaps even compare what they know now to their initial impressions when reading the prologue. I too liked that the nellison both isn’t forcing/does’t apply invisibility to other characters or to the readers (except for maybe Louis Armstrong?) but how, like you mention, he gives the readers a chance to consider it for themselves after giving them the 580 or so pages of his life.
ReplyDeleteAlso, haha, I love the “nellison”! (it’s really interesting to think of characters as part of their author as well! An awesome and compelling idea.)
That Louis Armstrong line continues to befuddle me and I forgot to take that into account while writing this post! Thanks for bringing that up!!
DeleteAnd I like your language of invisibility being personal to each individual! Invisibility is obviously very personal to the nellison, as he created the idea (to my knowledge) and builds this intricate understanding of what it means. And his mentioning that the ideas and experiences he has may speak for others "on the lower frequencies" addresses that invisibility could look really different for someone else - it could even have a different name.
I was confused by the ending initially (mostly because of the odd syntax), but now that I get what it's saying, I do think it is a good way to end the novel. Like you said, it's definitely a pivot, but I think it shows growth in the narrator--er, the nellison, I mean. Since the nellison has been focused on his own invisibility the entire novel without recognizing that other people might experience it, I think for him to extend the idea of invisibility to other people is an important step for his character. I think the fact that he has this epiphany at the same time he makes the decision to return to society is also important because he is both figuratively and literally seeing the world outside of himself.
ReplyDeletethe duality of the narrator's epiphany is AWESOME
Deletealso thanks y'all for going along with my stupid new word LOL
The ending almost felt like present-day nellison again, like he was once again contemplating his situation after telling his entire story. It's not just a pivot for us, it's a pivot for the nellison too - just another realization he's had in the very, very long line of them. I don't know how much this is supported by the text, but I also think part of this realization might have come from seeing that he never acknowledges the possibility of invisibility in other characters (except Rinehart). As the reader, left with the opportunity consider other characters' like you said, it was something I was thinking about for a lot of the novel - other people do seem invisible, even if not in the same way or to the same extent.
ReplyDelete*gasp* i forgot about Rinehart!!!! That's huge. Rinehart's invisibility is a huge formative moment for the narrator's own invisibility in the first place! Thanks so much for bringing that up. Still, that the nellison opens it up to the reader to consider others' invisibility is like, idk, being a stick figure and discovering there's a third dimension. And the nellison leaves that dimension all to the readers to explore.
DeletePersonally, I think that the ending means everyone experiences invisibility to some extent, and that the narrator's story is just a spin on all of our stories. If we take the meaning of invisibility to be the projection of identities people put on you, then yeah it applies to every one of us. This line would almost be like a wake up call, telling us to recognize our situation and be aware of this invisibility, maybe even using it to some extent. But I agree with you, it's a good ending and it leaves me satisfied.
ReplyDelete