tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post7664053613467048329..comments2024-03-26T22:47:45.276-07:00Comments on Intro to Critical Reading: Melville's Influence on the Nature of Blackness and Whiteness in Invisible ManAdamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-70861808900056513642012-04-14T09:04:02.423-07:002012-04-14T09:04:02.423-07:00In the second paragraph, the thoughtful claim that...In the second paragraph, the thoughtful claim that we need to think of the light as artificial has lots of further potential. What does this have to do with race? With religion? With technology? Can we read it through Marcuse? It's a rich claim, interesting in itself, with plenty of room for further development.<br /><br />The third paragraph on negativity is also good - and also fertile ground for incorporating Marcuse, whose whole book is about negativity and the need for negativity.<br /><br />The following paragraphs are fine, but stick a little closely to class discussion. I wasn't unhabppy with them, but they would have done for me if they had more clearly continued your discussion of negativity and artificiality (or, alternatively, if you had begun with Melville and developed these thoughts further, instead of discussion artificiality/negativity). I feel almost as if the essay has two identities at this point - both of them good, but both of them in need of further focusing.<br /><br />The closing paragraph is fine, but a little generic - emphasizing the point that there's a degree of indecision here.<br /><br />I only read Dean's comments after completing all the above - the fact that we are so close in our views on the essay, I think, underscore the points we are both making about the duality of this draft.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16302919444091859459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5425514987715337437.post-57729137852709812892012-04-11T17:42:29.762-07:002012-04-11T17:42:29.762-07:00Allison –
This is very well written, and these a...Allison – <br /><br />This is very well written, and these are strong parallels you are drawing out between Moby-Dick and Invisible Man. However, you seems to have two arguments that are being conflated here and I think you could benefit from parsing them out – or losing one of the two altogether.<br /><br />The first is the difference between the symbolism of white and black – and how that difference is often more complicated than the dichotomy we sometimes ascribe it. There are strong portions of both novels that support this; Ellison illustrates the complexity and multi-faceted nature of racial relations in the 1940s – how economic factors among others occlude easy racial categories – and Melville follows the concept of whiteness through beauty to terror. <br /><br />I would be wary of the paragraph in which you initially introduce Moby-Dick and begin to make your comparison. I think the comparison between Ishmael’s story telling and the Invisible Man’s having history in his own head is on shaky ground – of *course* both are related in this way – they are both narrators in novels and you could make the same connection between either and Viktor Frankenstein, Kinbote, or any other first person narrator. That isn’t to say that this isn’t an interesting area to pursue, but just that you need to dig deeper to be effective.<br /><br />Your second argument seems to be concerned with the difference between authenticity and artificiality. There exist parallels between your two arguments, however, I don’t see many being made. You should strive in your revision, to either combine these arguments, separate them more effectively (or at least recognize their difference), or drop one.<br /><br />Hope this helps,<br />DeanDean Matthewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10317050215775698939noreply@blogger.com