The Brotherhood

The narrator of Invisible Man,  who still has not revealed his name, goes through many things while he is in New York. Everything starts to look better in his life, even though he has no job and does not recognize himself anymore; he is finding and accepting who he really is. However, things are not so great. He is offered to join a group called The Brotherhood.  I really hope those two words rang a bell in your head and reminded you, just like it reminded me, of George Orwell’s novel, 1984. Not only is the name similar, but the overall ideals and the secrecy that makes up this group are the same. I believe 1984’s Brotherhood and Invisible Man’s Brotherhood are very similar.

The first time the narrator hears about the Brotherhood is after he delivers a speech in which he defends an old couple whose house has been evicted. With his speech, he is able to make the people angry and start a riot. The police arrives so the narrator escapes. However a man follows him. The man starts talking to him and referring to the narrator as “brother”. He tells him he wants to talk to him about the Brotherhood but that they’ll have to go to a safe place. A very similar thing happens in 1984. The protagonist, Winston Smith, has been longing to get into the Brotherhood but can’t do anything about it because they are “invited to join”. He finally receives a secret message that tells him Mr. O’Brien, a suspected Brotherhood member, wants to see him.  Being part of either brotherhood is dangerous and thus the members are very meticulous in their way of acting.

Both of the brotherhoods try to fight against an unfair system. While Orwell’s brotherhood is a mysterious organization created to over throw the government directed by Big Brother, Ellison’s Brotherhood is set up to help the oppressed, black people and women. Until that point everything seems to be okay. 

Nonetheless, when the narrator accepts the job and goes to the party they are having, he hears people saying, “I thought he would be blacker”. This made me become a little suspicious. Then they tell him no one can know he is involved with the Brotherhood and that he should move out of Mary’s house without giving her an explanation. Finally he gets a paper with his new name and a new identity. This made it even more suspicious. That was the moment when I remembered that O’Brien, in Orwell’s Brotherhood, seemed to be a trustworthy person, who knew what was right and what had to be done, like brother Jack, but who turned out to be a spy who really worked for the government and turned in Winston Smith.

What if Ellison’s brotherhood turns out to be like Orwell’s brotherhood, which I am not even sure if it exists? What if Brother Jack is actually an extremist who is against black people and does something against the Narrator like O’Brien? After all, the narrator seems to attract bad things and both Brotherhoods are very similar. 

One Flew Over the Invisible Man

Recently, I started reading Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. This novel tells the story of an African American in the south and how his experiences and major life events made him become and invisible man. A man who goes around without being noticed. As I started reading it I could not help making connections with One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey. I came to the conclusion that Chief Bromden and the narrator of Invisible Man are very similar. 

The narrator, who is also the protagonist of the novel, goes through various situations in which he is mocked and judged because of stereotypes. Just because he is an African American, he is seen and treated a certain way. For example, when he goes out for breakfast and the waiter asks him what he would like to eat.  He says he’d like a coffee, a toast and an orange juice and the waiter replies, “ You fooled me, I would have sworn you were a pork chop man” (Pg. 178). The narrator feels uncomfortable because he is seen in a certain way because of a stereotype. He is actually the complete opposite. The same thing happens with Chief Bromden. He is judged as stupid and almost invisible because he is a Native American. Many times when the Chief is having flashbacks about his childhood he says that just because he was a Native American, people assumed he didn’t know how to speak English or understand it. Both of these characters have to deal with stereotypes just because of their ethnicity.

 A common theme that both novels mention is identity. While Chief Bromden prefers to pass as an underdog and be unnoticed, the narrator from Invisible Men is the complete opposite. He wants to be someone and be recognized for what he does. However, both of them have to fight against society’s standards in order to be what they want to be. While the Chief does it by acting as a deaf man, the narrator does it by searching for a job and being persistent. Both of these character’s cross paths with a person who helps them find their identity, or realize their identity is just what society tells them it is. In OFOTCN it is McMurphy who helps the Chief get his real identity and defy society. In Invisible Man, Mr. Emerson’s son is the narrator’s person. Mr. Emerson’s son tells the narrator he still has a chance to create a real identity and that he shouldn’t do it in the south. He should do it in New York where he will have a chance to progress. He opens the narrator’s eyes to the truth and hardships of society. He tells him he has a chance to start from zero and he should take advantage of that when he says, “You’re free of him now. I’m still his prisoner. You have been freed, don’t you understand? I’ve still my battle” (Pg. 192)

Both of this novels have many things in common. Not only the themes they use but the characters and how they deal with and unfair society. These two characters have many things in common. They are ethnic minorities, are judged merely by stereotypes, and have a chance to start from zero. The way they approach their problems is very similar too. They are both Invisible Men.

Proocccaaaasstiii.....

Never did it cross my mind that Hamlet was a procrastinator. I thought he just had a lot of trouble making decisions. However, as I read this article, this idea made complete sense. Hamlet is one of literature’s greatest procrastinators. As I kept on reading, I saw myself reflected on every word. This led me to a terrifying conclusion; Hamlet and I are quite similar.

I have to confess I consider myself a pro at procrastinating. I find even the smallest, most insignificant excuse to do things later. I also believed I was good at identifying other people's procrastinating skills. However, "Hamlet the procrastinator" never crossed my mind.

Now that I think about it, Hamlet’s indecision was an excuse to kill his uncle later. Thus, he was procrastinating. He was delaying something that he had to get done. Maybe the fact that he is a procrastinator, just like me, is the reason why I felt a sort of empathy towards him.

Hamlet’s greatest, yet most characteristic of procrastination excuse, was when he was finally about to kill Claudius. He didn't do it because the king was praying and that would take him to heaven instead of hell. A clever and stupid excuse to delay it. I myself have some clever and stupid excuses too. For example before making this blog post I delayed it as much as I could using excuses such as, "I better do the homework I have due for next week, so I don't have homework tomorrow". It may sound clever until I tell you that this blog is due tomorrow while the other homework is due next week. Not so clever after all, is it?

Procrastination kills. That is another statement mentioned in the article. I had heard this one before. Now thinking about Hamlet, procrastination did kill him. If he had killed his uncle when he had the chance before, he could have been alive at the end. However, he kept on procrastinating and that is the reason Laertes killed him. Procrastination killed Hamlet.

Maybe the "procrastination killing" isn't as extreme as I made it sound. I sure hope it doesn't kill me. But it does makes us look like dinosaurs, as the article author said. It makes us look like fools. Every time I procrastinate and other people notice, they probably think of me what I think of Hamlet, which isn't precisely good. Hopefully next time I'm planning an excuse to procrastinate, I'll think about Hamlet and how I don't want others to see me.

Different Interpretations

While I listened to this podcast I realized I had been to quick to judge Hamlet. Since I had first heard about the play I heard Hamlet was coward who was crazy and did not have the guts to make any decision. As I read it and analyzed the class discussions, I kept feeding this idea. Never the less, there was something that kept bothering me because deep inside I wanted to defend Hamlet but I just did not find how. However, while listening to the prisoners talk about the play I realized there is so much more to Hamlet we do not understand. 

The convicts made me realize there are so many ways of interpreting Hamlet and the rest of the characters for that matter. There wasn’t only one correct interpretation. I understood that it is the way in which you relate to the character that you understand him one way or another. For example I had never thought the ghost could be so influential to someone but it clearly was was for that prisoner who had killed a person. When I heard that story I started to comprehend why I had felt sympathy for Hamlet.

His father, who was basically his role model, had been murdered by his own brother. His mother, who was supposed to feel Hamlets pity and to be by his side, had betrayed him and his father and married his uncle. Being in Hamlet’s place, I would also become mad. I would be unable to make the decision whether to kill my uncle or not just like him.  I have been taught other wise. Like Hamlet, I was taught to be good and not to kill so I don’t think it is a bad thing he was unable to make the decision.

Unlike me, the prisoner who described himself as the Blue Whale, thought the complete opposite of Hamlet. He thought he was a coward who couldn’t make up his mind and who wasn’t able to avenge his father’s death. For him it was an easy choice; kill him with out thinking about it twice. This is the perspective of a man who had shot another person thirteen years ago.

I believe this is one of the greatest things of Shakespeare; he was able to write in a way that everyone, from the most educated to the least educated could relate to his characters. It was a way for the prisoners to escape their reality and to feel like they were a part of something. They were willing to be checked naked in order to be part of the play. They chose the characters depending on their experiences and where able to transform and leave behind that prisoner image.  Each of them was able to interpret the characters according to their beliefs and experiences and the good thing is there wasn’t a correct way. 

Men with Knowledge but no Action

Recently, in a practice test for the SAT, the prompt for my essay was which did I believe more valuable and important, to have knowledge or to take action.  To that. I responded that there are three types of people. One of those were the ones that had knowledge, and made an opinion on something but took no action. Such is the case of Eliot’s Prufrock and Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

Hamlet and Prucrock, have a similar behavior, they are men of words but no action. I believe both of them are intelligent because they are able to analyze a problem thoroughly. However, they don’t take action. Since the beginning of the play, Hamlet talks about seeking revenge for his father death. However, every time he is certain he has to kill his uncle and is about to do it, he backs off with any excuse he can find.  The same thing happens with Prufrock. Even though he has a plan for the date and knows exactly what he is going to do, he never does it. They are men of words. No actions.

Both of them have trouble making choices, which feeds their idea of self-pity. They spend most of their time analyzing if the should make something or not. An example of this is Hamlets famous soliloquy, “to be or not to be: that is the question…” In this particular part Hamlet thinks what he should do over and over and at the end finishes not doing anything. Prufrock, keeps thinking what would happen in the future if he asks his lover out or not. He asks himself  “And would it have been worth it after all, would it have been worth while…” showing how indecisive he is. It is as if both of them were afraid to make any decision because they are scared of what the outcome may be.

Another important aspect to analyze is the fact that Prufrock doesn’t want to be compared to Hamlet. He says, “No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be” demonstrating that he knows he is indecisive and he is just like Hamlet but he thinks to little of himself to be compared with the main character of the play.

Both of these characters are men of knowledge and opinions, however by not taking action, that knowledge becomes useless. And by over thinking things they end up dead, like both of them did, without achieving what they over analyzed for so long. 

The Danger of the Single Story

As I heard Chimamanda Adichie speak about the image the rest of the world had of Africa I started to think of the image people have of Colombia. A country of pure violence, drugs and illegality. That is the single story the world has of Colombia.
 As she kept on talking I realized because of this stereotypes and the entire world thinking we are a certain way, we start to believe those stories ourselves. People who have never been outside their country and have little access to literature, start to become part of that single-story-minded people.
I once heard a Colombo-japanese man talking about the mentality Colombians have that we are a poor country with no hope. People outside of colombia have created such a big image that we are a hopeless country that we start to develop this "poor mentality". We start to accept that we are a poor country and start to act according to that poor-country mentality. We start to feel pity for ourselves.
As Chimamanda said it is important that we educate ourselves with more than one story. That we start to see things from various perspectives rather than just one. We have to forget about those stereotypes that greatly influence our judgment of cultures and see things clear, like they really are.
I believe if we start to see things with a different outlook we will avoid many cultural misunderstandings that may lead to wars.

Power

We live in a society where power is one of the most important things to men.  We are in a constant search to be on top of everyone, to have the power to control everyone. Even though I have not yet been so hungry for power, I have been affected by people who are in desperate need of it … politicians, most of the time. Wanting power is not a bad thing. However , when you start abusing of it and wanting more and more, that is when things get bad. Kurtz had nothing, yet when he starts becoming powerful and finds out his talent to appeal to people, he becomes greedy and hungry for power.

One of the most important characteristics of people who have power or who are in search of it is their eloquence. A clear example of this is politicians. They are very good with words and tend to say it in a way that makes people believe them even when it may not be true. Marlow describes Kurtz report of the International Society of Suppression of Savage Customs: “it was eloquent, vibrating with eloquence.” (pg. 91).  With this document he was able to spread his word. To attract people who were wealthy and literate. The ones he wouldn’t interact with directly but that would more likely support his voyages. This is a clear strategy that anyone who wants power would use. Politicians often say what we need to hear at any given moment, even when they know it is not true. They only do this to gain trust from the people. For example, leaders like Hitler, gained power because of his eloquence. He gained the trust of people and was able to do what he did because he was great with words. 

Kurtz was poor and he had gone out to the wilderness to fight that poverty. This shows how he wanted power for something more than just ruling over others. He wanted the wealth that came with it. Once he had money, he wanted more. He became corrupt. This shows what power can do to men. Nothing will ever be enough once they have some. They start to use their power and their image to get more and more and their greed grows immensely. Lately, politicians in Colombia have been just like Kurtz. They gain power because of their eloquence and promises and once they get it, they become corrupt and let the country and the cities slip into chaos.

In the end, however, no matter how much power you had while you lived, when you die you leave with nothing. Everything material you had will be lost; the only thing that remains is what people remember you by.  Kurtz final words “The horror! The Horror!” reflects the remorse he feels for what he’s done. In the pedestal of his death he finally understands it was worth nothing. He did bad things for the company because of greed and now he realizes they were really bad and feels ashamed of them. Most of the times politicians have this same feeling, when they are caught doing shady things, or when their term is over, they feel "sorry" for what they did. once in jail, they see it wasn't worth it. However, the people, don't learn from that. We keep falling in the danger of eloquence and believing in things that are impossible. It is like if it was human nature to fall for words.