Skip to main content

Speeches

In Invisible Man, the narrator seems to have a natural talent for public speaking. He begins speaking during his school years before the Battle Royale and has had a speech during the home eviction. He has also been drafted into the "Brotherhood" to do more public speaking. He seems to have a talent for rousing crowds, even if that was not shown in his Battle Royale speech. After the home eviction speech, he thinks of himself as a famous speaker akin to Booker T. Washington and takes pride in that.

Now to the main point. Is the author fond of speeches because it makes him more individual? During his speeches he is separate from the crowd, able to show his views on matters and not be just a cog in a machine (as Norton calls it). Even if he may not be truly visible, his unique existence cannot be fully denied. Is not being able to make speeches why he has retreated within his "hole" during the prologue? Is writing this book and sharing his views and experiences how he proves his existence and doesn't feel like an invisible entity? What do you think the significance of the narrator being good at, and presenting, speeches?

Comments

  1. ZonaSeptember 14, 2018 at 12:48 PM

    I find this to be a really interesting point of conversation because even if evidently he goes into his hole and stops making speeches, he is still writing this narrative and expressing his ideas. Perhaps that's something that is consistent about this narrator; he finds writing or giving speeches as a way of expressing his individuality. But what is the difference between a speech and writing? He was at one point in public, but now is invisible - but more he realized his invisibility. Then how much were the speeches an expression of his individuality, if he was invisible the whole time?

    ReplyDelete
  2. SolomiaSeptember 14, 2018 at 7:54 PM

    This post really made me think, because you’re right, it’s weird that somebody claiming to be invisible would have such a passion for speeches which seem to put them in the spotlight. I don’t really know what it means for the narrator, but a thought that came into my head was that a successful speaker has to connect with their audience somehow. If an audience is completely foreign to the ideas in a speech, it won’t be receptive to them, and so the speech will be bad. A good speech takes feelings people already have and molds them into points to take action on. Maybe, in this way, the narrator has to make himself become part of the crowd (and so invisible) to make speeches that can appeal to a large audience? This is just a thought though, I’m not sure if it’s relevant at all. Regardless, great post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Annemily HogansonSeptember 15, 2018 at 4:42 PM

    Nice post! I really like the idea that the narrator makes speeches to be less invisible. I wonder if it's also connected to his uncertain sense of self. Maybe since he isn't sure who he is or what he wants in life, he feels drawn to express himself in speeches without definite content rather than in more definite actions? Right at the end of chapter 12, the narrator says he was drawn to make speeches and that "While walking along the streets words would spill from my lips in a mumble over which I had little control." This really stuck out to me because it seemed like the narrator really wants to express himself but isn't sure enough about who he is to know what to express.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ayah JaberSeptember 15, 2018 at 8:14 PM

    Interesting....
    I think that the speeches are more about the narrator not having his own individual ideas and just sharing thoughts to his audience that he believes they want to hear. Brother Jack realizes this and want to use that to his advantage and mold the narrator to spew out the Brotherhood's rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Educational Naturalism

Throughout Native Son, Bigger makes choices. Many of these choices cause him to tumble down a continuous spiral to his eventual trial and execution for the murder and supposed rape of Mary Dalton. While reading this book, I thought at many times to try to call out to Bigger, and give him a bit of guidance because I could see where some of his actions were leading. I realized that I was using education that I had received in my schooling years that Bigger was not fortunate enough to have, and that Bigger's environment hadn't prepared his foresight enough to prevent him from making several fatal mistakes in a row. So is the true culprit Naturalism? I believe that Wright was trying to achieve the same response I gave to seeing Bigger make those mistakes. I believe that his Naturalist "lab" (for lack of a better term) was designed to show how much education can play into the choices we make. And I do not mean only the education you receive in schools. If Bigger had seen...
7 comments
Read more

Dialects in Literature

In the most recent novel we are reading in class, Their Eyes Were Watching God , the characters all speak in a distinct dialect of English that is non-standard. "I" is changed to "Ah", verbs are shortened, there are double negatives, and so on. Though for some this may be hard to read and understand, especially in a book where most of the story is delivered through dialogue, but I feel that these kinds of literary quirks can really differentiate a story. Not just in a narrative about African Americans, but in other literature with other English dialects. People can usually tell the difference between British English and American Standard English when spoken, but when written as dialogue they very rarely show any of the differences in the dialects. Given, those two are very similar but the same kind of logic can be applied to other dialects of English. Authors usually wrote their dialogue in standard, and they would use a different dialect if the character was "...
3 comments
Read more