Having a name implies having an
identity tied to other relations. Parents
give their newborn children names to indicate claiming and possession. To have a first and last name implies
relations that care enough to come up with a title for the child and that there
is a need to have something that others can use to refer to them by later in
life. In both Moby Dick and Invisible
Man, Melville and Ellison have narrators whose personal identities follow a
different pattern of naming. The lack of
a specific name for the author in Invisible Man can be interpreted as Ellison taking
Melville’s technique as a way to show the narrator is a nameless member of a
unit rather than a distinct individual.
In Melville, the narrator tells the
reader what to call him in the famous “Call me Ishmael” (Melville 1). This seems to be perhaps for the convenience
of the reader to have a name to which to refer to the narrator throughout the
reading and is not referring to any familial relation. Additionally it may be interpreted as Ishmael
removing his previous relation, showing his personal transition to a whole new
identity with new ties, best defined by a chosen Biblical name himself rather
than a name given by relatives. Another perspective is that Ishmael throughout
Moby Dick is not the driving force, and tends to dissolve entirely at points to
give way to the more influential characters on the ship, specifically Ahab and
to perhaps a lesser degree Queegueg.
Ishmael happens to be the only one who survives the crash at the end and
comes back to relay the story to others in society. Telling the reader to call him Ishmael, may
be a way to tell the reader that his identity is not important. This may be related to the descriptions given
in the text about how the ship is a machine, with Ahab as the central calculating
unit and the others as cogs doing his bidding.
The members of the ship other than Ahab become living pieces of the
machine, and in Ishmael’s case, nearly nameless. One quotation that directly relates to this
is: “They were one man, not thirty. For
as the one ship that held them all; though it was put together of all
contrasting things […] all varieties
were welded into oneness, and were all directed to that fatal goal which Ahab
their one lord and keel did point to”(Melville 636).
In
Invisible Man, the narrator does have a name but it is not (yet?) explicitly
given to the reader. The narrator does
talk about family relations, most
influential being that of his grandfather but this seems to be more haunting
him than anything. There are numerous
instances in the text, when a person asks the name of the narrator including
secretaries, Mr. Emerson’s son, Mr. Broadway and the doctors in the factory
hospital yet in all of these case, the narrator does not reveal the specific
name to the reader. In the specific
example of the factory hospital, the narrator after the electrical treatment,
can’t recall his own name: “Who am I? It was no good. I felt like a clown. Nor was I up to being both criminal and
detective - though criminal I didn’t know” (Ellison 242). This specific passage is interesting as it
brings up aspects of naming present in Moby Dick as well. Here when the narrator can’t remember his
name, he suddenly thinks of himself as a criminal. Though he doesn’t understand the connection
at the moment, it makes sense as part of being in prison is being referred to
by numbers and not by a name. The prison
metaphor as well as the machine metaphor are very present in Moby-Dick as the
men on the ship are in an enclosed area with no women, and the majority are
there out of financial necessity – perhaps a reason why a number of people are
in prison.
Another
interesting connection to Melville on the subject of naming is the interaction
with Mr. Broadway and the narrator in regards to what to call him. When the narrator meets him for the first
time, he calls him by his first name Lucius and he frowns and says “That’s
me-and don’t come calling me by my first name,
To you and all like you I’m Mister
Broadway…”(Ellison 207). Late Mr.
Broadway discusses his importance to the factory and the fact that his
knowledge of the machines is really what makes the Optic White paint the
best. From the beginning of their
interactions, it is established that the narrator is replaceable and is in a
position not necessary. This relates to the
fact that Mister Broadway has earned the right to be referred to with a title
of respect, whereas the narrator is referred to by Mr. Broadway as “Boy.” A quotation that directly relates this to
Melville is spoken by Mr. Broadway when he discusses his work on the plant as “They
got all this machinery, but that ain’t everything; we the machines inside the machines”(Ellison 217). This mechanical analogy relates rightly to
the one in Melville about the ship, in that the workers are simply an extension
of the machinery. Mister Broadway, in a
way, like Ahab, has earned a higher position in the mechanism to gain a title.
Yet Ishmael and the narrator in Invisible Man are expendable and their names
are not important to the functioning of the machine. In this way, they individuality does not need
to be referred to and their previous relations are not important. Their importance comes from being part of a
unit and thus there is no need to have or remember their names.
I like the ideas you have in this, but I think the execution is somewhat lacking (I understand some of that might have to do with being so close to the end of the semester). The connection between Ishmael and the narrator in Invisible Man is fairly obvious, but I like where you go with it (i.e. the concept of being part of a unit > being an individual). I think it would benefit, however, from some research on the history of naming in general and not just in a common-sense type of way (which is how you address the idea of what names mean in the beginning). Also, I was a little thrown by the addition of the connection between Broadway and Ahab towards the end of the essay. Even though you mentioned it very briefly, the connection could be an entire paper on its own, which contributed to the somewhat scattered feel of this blog. The way you include the theme of prison was a strength to me, but I would like to see it fleshed out. Overall I enjoyed this comparison between Ellison and Melville, and (although I know you probably already chose your final project) this would be an interesting piece to revise.
ReplyDeleteI like your reading of the Moby-Dick in particular; you have a succinct and interesting take on the meaning of Ishmael's relative namelessness, although it would be stronger in the context of the name that he *chooses*. Thus, even though this isn't a comprehensive take on Ishmael's name/namelessness, it's an interesting one.
ReplyDeleteI think your reading of Ellison's narrator's namelessness is good, too. Unlike Alison, I thought the point of greatest weakness was in the leap between the two. Ishmael chooses a name (other than his real one), arguably to signify his variety of powerlessness. The IM does not give us his name, in order to emphasize his invisibility, even from us.
These are closely related concepts, and you're right to bring them together - what bothers me (and really the only thing that bothers me - I thought that it all flowed rather well) is your lack of attention to *difference* here.