As I read Invisible Man, i was struck by how much the narrator waffled back and forth between being willing to compromise and sticking to his guns. When he does what he thinks is best, and takes the white man in his care to a black bar to get him something to drink and save his life, he is in deep trouble with his president. When asked why he did what he did, the narrator will not explain and stand up for himself, which is disheartening to read. He just takes his punishment. Then, as he is about to leave, he begins to yell at the president, trying to get his point across before he is expelled from the school. This actually works in a sense, because the man sends him to Harlem with letters of reccommendation so that he can get a job. Although this wasn't his intent, his sticking to his morals seems to have helped him at the time.
From that example, it feels like compromise is a problem, which I don't think is the case in real life. Because he was unwilling to compromise and do what would have been "best" for the white man, he lost his job and his livelihood. I wonder what Ellison is trying to say? Does he think compromise is not worth our time or energy? I don't think so. I think he is telling us that there is a balance. Compromsie at times, but when it's necessary, do what's right. For you.
No comments:
Post a Comment