Literary Fiction by People of Color discussion

Today starts our discussion of the African American classic, Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. I know that many members of our group have read this book, perhaps more than once, and others are reading it for the first time. I am looking forward to reading everyone's comments!

PBS'a American Masters series featured Ellison in 2005. Here's a link to their site:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmaste...

Here are some reviews from the NYT when the book was first published:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/books/...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/06/20...

Here is Ellison's obituary from the NYT in 1997:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/books/...

Here's a brief bio of Ellison:

Ralph Ellison

Writer

Born: 1 March 1914
Died: 16 April 1994 (pancreatic cancer)
Birthplace: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Best known as: Author of Invisible Man
Ralph Ellison won the National Book Award for his first novel Invisible Man (1952), the story of an alienated and isolated black man living in racially repressive urban America. Ellison grew up in Oklahoma and aimed for a career in jazz music. Instead he moved to New York City in 1936 and turned to writing, encouraged by other African-American writers including Langston Hughes and Richard Wright. During World War II he served in the Merchant Marines and published short stories. The remarkable success of Invisible Man made Ellison famous worldwide and he was suddenly considered one of America's most important writers. Reluctant to assume the role of a representative for his race, Ellison always maintained that in writing his book he was pursuing art more than he was pursuing racial justice. Although he lectured and published collections of essays (Shadow and Act in 1964 and Going to the Territory in 1986), he worked for forty years on a second novel without finishing it. His literary executor and friend, John Callahan, put together the manuscript after Ellison died and the novel was published as Juneteenth in 1999.

There has been much more written about Ellison and about Invisible Man. I hope that you will all share your resources with the group.

Happy reading!

Thanks Wilhemina. Although I haven't commented on any of the group's selections in many months, I'm about to jump back into the discussion (But I read every selection). I read "Invisible Man" while in college & didn't like it. It's the most difficult book I've ever read - and I enjoy the challenge of a difficult book!
This time I will read it with an open mind and participate with the goal of truly understanding this piece of art.

Who all have read this classic in American literature? How important or relevant is it today? Does it hold up well since its release in 1952? This book is often compared to other books about race written by African American authors namely Wright's Native Son among some others. How does this book compare?

I read this incredible book twice about ten years apart. The first time around 1991 and I was in my African American lit classics phase . I thought it deservedly received all the praise it garnered through the years. I read it again around 2002 for my book group and it was like reading the book for the first time. I've enjoyed reading bits and pieces about the seemingly reclusive life of Ellison and the many, many essays written about him and this classic in American literature.

I joined this group in November and have been following the monthly discussions, but this is my first time participating. I'm looking forward to it because I've noticed this group has some lively discussions!

I read Invisible Man once before many years ago (maybe the late 90's) and I thought it was very intense, but I remember being kind of lost at the end. I'm glad to hear someone else call it a challenging book!

I've just started it again this morning. I'm hoping to get even more out of it this time, and hopefully I'll be able to understand the novel better by participating in the discussion.

Wilhelmina, I appreciate all the background information on Ellison and the book. The preface in my edition talks about how originally it was going to be a book about a Black pilot in a Nazi prisoner of war camp. At first I was surprised because it seemed like such a different novel, but as he described the premise I realized that grappling with issues of invisibility and identity can take place in any context. So as to Columbus' question about relevance, I am sure it is still very relevant today, although I'll have to think about whether the historical context dates it at all while I'm reading.

I haven't read this book since the 1980s but I believe the themes are relevant today as they were in the 1950s. Can't wait to start rereading it to see if it still holds true.

I too read it many years ago and I am looking forward to revisiting it and our discussion.

Just picked it off the shelf today and read the first couple of paragraphs. I like the writing and am looking forward to reading it when I'm finished with work.

I will be more of a lurker this month as I read this book back in the late 1960s and I am not much of a re-reader.

Hi Mina,

I couldn't resist the group discussion. I did read The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison, but I think a reread with a group would help me. It isn't the easiest book in the world in my IMO. I still remember different parts of that novel. You have reminded me that I've always meant to read a bio of Ralph Ellison. I see you have many links above. So excited to be here. Have been looking for another good book club, and just what I want is beside me. I can be so blind. So thanks to all of you for being here and allowing me to take part with you. It's like I've made a new discovery.:)

Beverly wrote: "I will be more of a lurker this month as I read this book back in the late 1960s and I am not much of a re-reader."

Maybe some of it will come back to you as the discussion progresses, Beverly. Also. I'm certain some of the discussion will pertain to issues as a whole and rather general and not specifically about the book itself.

Normally one would applaud a book that has remained relevant through the years - particularly one that has been released over 60 years ago. But, would the same rule apply to this book? Aren't we living in a "post- racial society" since '09 where the relevancy of this book would be diminished quite severely? I wonder what would Ellison himself think about that.

well, it's been about 40 years or so since I first read the book back in college. so, I've been looking forward to reading it again to see how much of an impact it would have on me now. it certainly did at the time.

As for living in a post-racial society, I doubt Ellison would have believed such a possibility existed in America, and I for one would tend to agree.

Well, I wouldn't celebrate the post-racial society just yet! I'm assuming Columbus chose 2009 as it marks Barack Obama's inauguration as our first African American President. Right away I am thinking of two ways President Obama's fame has raised issues relating to the "visibility" issues in Ellison's book (and I've only finished the prologue). The first is the "visibility" of multiple racial identities. Before 2000, people of multiple racial backgrounds were made "invisible" by the census, since they could not check more than one "box" for their race designation. This relates to President Obama as he has a Black (Kenyan) father and White (American) mother. On the one hand he can be defined as biracial, yet on the other hand he is still considered African American, at least by the popular media, who call him our first Black President. It has always been something of an irony to me, that if he had had similar success in his father's country of Kenya, he might be considered their first White president. What of Mr. Obama is being "seen" and "not seen" in those contexts???

The second issue is the obsession, hopefully now defunct, in Barack Obama's birth certificate. The challenge to his right of citizenship, and the existence of said birth certificate, can on some levels be interpreted as a challenge to whether Barack Obama exists at all. Now how invisible is that??

Anyway, I suppose it is a matter of degrees, as I don't think there are many people who would argue the state of affairs has not improved in the 60 years since Ellison's novel. But I am glad the question was raised, because it has helped me see how at least some of the concepts of the book are still relevant in the analysis of current events, even "post-racial" ones!

Yes, I assume the same reasoning as well, more or less. certainly, American society has become multi faceted over time and it took quite a while for our standardized government forms to catch up to that. For most of American history, society didn't really distinguish between being African American and being of mixed race. and in fact, for almost the first hundred years, there were few African Americans in any legal sense, as citizenship wasn't officially extended until after the Civil War.

But is Obama's racial identity merely a matter of the media, or a question of his personal preference as a politician or a person, or general American society's continued proclivity to see mixed race children of partial African heritage as Black?

The issue of Obama's birth certificate will never be entirely defunct,although it's becoming increasingly less important now that the second election is behind us. It's become more of a faith based belief as it continues in spite of all evidence to the contrary, all of which is rejected out of hand. I'd say the real problem is that Obama is not invisible as president of the US, he is the public image of America on the world stage and on TV, in living color, and that simple fact can't be ignored or dismissed no matter how hard one may wish to try. So, to me these are efforts to magically return him to a state of invisibility, so this can all turn out to be some sort of bad dream.

Since I was born in 52, the year the book came out, I would absolutely agree that the state of affairs is greatly improved from that time, just not as much as one would hope or hope to eventually see. I think a lot of people wanted to accept that Obama's election and the advent of the media-proclaimed post racial society meant that we could now assume that to be true and we could now just stop talking about all these things under the assumption they are now somehow permanently solved. The post-racial society isn't quite as ephemeral as the Age of Aquarius proved to be in the late 60s, but it's still very much a work in progress whose success is not certain.

I read Invisible Man the first time in the 60's, somewhere between the insurrection in Watts, and the one in Newark, and before Angela was America's Most Wanted. Then I read it again about 10 years ago, remembering the kid I was when I read it the first time. It's still relevant. I haven't bought into "post-racial" considering how the Boehner and his boys had as an agenda to make the President fail.

Columbus wrote: "Normally one would applaud a book that has remained relevant through the years - particularly one that has been released over 60 years ago. But, would the same rule apply to this book? Aren't we l..."

My jaw dropped after reading this comment. Surely, Columbus, your "post-racial" remark was factitious or devils advocate to get the discussion started...

One cannot read this today without remembering the time that it was written. I believe that this book was considered "classic" at the time because it pleased White conservative powers of the late 40's and early 50's. At the time, post WW2 industrialization was taking hold, Blacks returning from war learned of the egalitarian concepts of communism, socialism and labor unionism. WEB DuBois and Paul Robeson and others were emerging with new ideas and the masses were demanding the equality they experienced overseas at home, while reading books, magazines and party polemics of justice and radicalism. James Baldwin, Richard Wright and many others were holding the power structure accountable for past and ongoing sins. Urban northeast liberal whites are lending a sympathetic ear.
Along comes this tome. Without too many spoilers, it savages the hoity-toity intellectualism of HBCU's, clowning those pioneering educators as not much more that pompous fools once removed from their farm roots, describes communist and all labor organizers as bloodsuckers and betrayers, and liberal whites as the absolute worst of the Black mans enemies.

The thing of it is, it is a good story, well written and engaging. But, it was one that was desperately needed by white conservative america at the time; to stem the tide of radicalism and militancy in the Black community. I firmly believe that if Invisible Man was not the "antidote" to the firebrand tomes of the times this would not have half the accolades it has received.

One cannot read this book without the realization that it is a political tract that ultimately affirms the inherent goodness of american democracy, capitalism and, dare I say it,? exceptionalism. If it were released today I'm sure that communists would be replaced by Muslims and judge Clarence Thomas would gladly write the forward.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Invisib...

Interesting essay, by the way. thanks for including the link, Wiliam.

Wow, some really good comments and responses here from everyone. Just so we're clear on this, feel free to jump in with any questions, commentary, quips you have regarding the book. Let's just travel along in a linear fashion so we don't jump too far ahead for those still reading. I thought I had a copy here at the house but unfortunately I do not. I'm heading to the library this evening to pick up a copy. No personal copy of Ellison's Invisible Man?! How blasphemous!

Chapter 1

Wow, I have no memory of the battle royal scene from when I read it years ago. My blind spot seems significant. I'm thinking I blocked it out in some sort of cowardly attempt to pretend it didn't happen. To pretend we White people are not capable of that, when I know that we are.

Some questions: I can see that this is in an historical context, and hopefully this couldn't happen today in America (???). But I'm not historically versed enough to know whether Ellison means this to be shocking to the readers of 1952. If he does, is it disturbing because of the events themselves, or because he is describing something that normally happens behind closed doors, or because he is describing events from the perspective of himself, a Black man victim to the forces at play here? I think this goes back to the question of relevance, in that it may be hard to interpret the scene based on societal "conventions" 60 years ago. I'm wondering if today's readers may have trouble identifying with his situation, because it is so extreme. I realize we can translate to some extent his situation of being at the mercy of those with the power/money/privilege, but it is hard to understand why he is so complacent, and hard to know to what extent his complacency is the exception or the rule in that time period, without being more familiar with those conventions, expectations, and even dialect.

Those questions aside, it is an incredibly powerful scene, and I kept thinking how this recreates in a very visual, physical way, the indignities faced by people of color on the emotional/social spectrum: being forced to compete for scarce resources, to fight each other instead of risking the wrath of White retaliation, while blindfolded and denied access to information, and then to be asked to speak, but not listened to, and then rewarded for saying what they want to hear. I think the most disturbing thing for me in all this, is to see how eager he is to continue to participate in this madness. I was very unsettled.

Oh, and maybe I am getting my dates wrong, if he is saying this happened 20 years ago then maybe this is supposed to be taking place in the 20's or 30's?

Don't recall ever reading a book with 2 epigraphs. What's the purpose and what do you think of the two selected?

Michael wrote: "Chapter 1

Wow, I have no memory of the battle royal scene from when I read it years ago. My blind spot seems significant. I'm thinking I blocked it out in some sort of cowardly attempt to preten..."

yes, that battle royal scene is too much! Reading the book the second time back in '02, I did recall that scene from reading it ten years earlier. I thought it was pretty surreal or bizarre in the beginning and then when I started getting deeper into it I started to understand the purpose of it. I can't go in depth without the book in front of me but I do recall how that scene served to set up the rest of the book. The "invisibleness" of the books title.

Is it only blacks that see the title character as invisible? Why is the title character nameless?

William wrote: "Columbus wrote: "Normally one would applaud a book that has remained relevant through the years - particularly one that has been released over 60 years ago. But, would the same rule apply to this b..."

Yes Mr. Ewell, that was used to sort of wake up the room --stir the pot sort of.

I have a "technical" question: if we are discussing certain incidents in the book, should we use spoilers? What is the convention for talking about plot details?

Michael wrote: "I have a "technical" question: if we are discussing certain incidents in the book, should we use spoilers? What is the convention for talking about plot details?"

Absolutely, Michael!

Since the book is not broken up into parts per se, we'll separate it by chapters as follows:

Prologue thru Chapter 8: Discuss to Feb 10th
Chapter 9 thru Chapter 16: Discuss to Feb 18th
Chapter 17 thru Epilogue: Discuss Feb 19th thru the end of the month

Please let me know if there's a more sensible division of chapters based on the reading and we can make the change accordingly.

Thanks!

Thanks for the essay, William. I get the sense I won't be completing it this month.

While the blindfolded "entertainment" scene is shocking, I'm still reeling from the grandfather's death. I completely forgot about his dying words and how they created our narrator. In it, I see how his fear, shame & belief set the stage for his invisibility & where/who it really came from. It reminds me one of Chris Rock's earlier performances when he says the most racist people on the planet are old Black men. Smiling, dancing, yes-ing in front of whites, but as soon as they leave, they're spitting vitriol behind their backs.
Is the narrator saying that the survival skill of displaying meekness in front of your oppressor is also a weapon? Is that what fathered more radical means of revolution? It seemed to have created some insanity - but what else could a person be after a lifetime of suppression, torture & terrorism?
As far as the shock value of the blindfolded scene, I think it was more to expose the lack of humanity in those white men. Strip them, blind them, round them up like cattle, then abuse and torture them for entertainment?

What are your impression of some of the characters in the book? Particularly Barbee, Emerson, Wheatstraw & some of the others?

Also, Ellison makes subtle and not so subtle references to the developmental or cultural differences in the North and South. What do you make of this? What do you think of the metaphors and symbolisms used by Ellison in this book. Is it overkill?

How are you enjoying the book thus far?

I read Invisible Man my senior year of college (which wasn't that long ago), and I didn't care for it. To me, it read like a poor imitation of Richard Wright's Native Son. I know Ellison was influenced by Wright, but it just seemed too similar to me. Did anyone else feel this way?

I certainly think that the relevance of this text both in the time it was penned (or the time is was written to reflect which to my read of Ellison's interviews was the 30's or pre-Depression era 20's) is unquestionable. The politics of invisibility will remain relevant so long as the politics of marginalization and resource inequity continue to plague society. In spite of the gains made by the Black community since period covered by the novel, there is still a marginalization and invisibility which occurs in the urban communities lacking inadequate fresh produce, medical care and educational resources. Hence the discussion which circled about the Sandy Hook shooting about where was the gun legislation concern when urban neighborhoods were descending until virtual war zones.

The symbols in Ellison's text remain as rich and necessary as ever to sharpen our analysis of the conditions which impede bringing invisible and marginalized populations to vanguard. There still exists a vantage of liberalism which borders on paternalism rather than building equal partnerships and full transparency.

To the discussion occurring about the superiority between Invisible Man and Native Son, I think those questions are better left to individual preferences of narrative, politics, storytelling and other elements. These two texts both prove themselves pivotal and while their is not the appearance of the brutal conditions from which Bigger Thomas, it is not because they don't exist. Bigger Thomas was the original invisible man. He was not seen and his opinion was not considered. His presence was only necessary to assuage liberal guilt by assuming that they had given someone an opportunity who would not have otherwise had one. These texts are twin sides of the same experience.

Delighted that I have finally found at least one of my reading treks in line with the book discussion. I am rarely in a position to add to my reading schedule when the new titles are announced.

I think both authors should be applauded for writing incredible books that have stood the test of time and are still being heavily discussed today. That being said, Invisible Man just seems to be on a league of its own, entirely. The themes, issues and questions it raises are still so relevant today.

Irving Howe, the noted literary critic and social activist created a firestorm of criticism with his essay, "Black Boys and Native Sons" written for his magazine Dissent in 1963. This article talks about both books and includes major contribution from James Baldwin.

Please note, this essay includes some information from the book we have yet to cover and may or may not ruin your reading pleasure.

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilrei...

Well, I had been planning to post more often in this discussion but I had forgotten how involved this book is! Every few chapters he changes up the entire context so I have to keep switching gears and figure out what new set of issues he is critiquing.

I did figure out one thing, though, and that is that his writing at times reminds me of Shakespeare. The moment it dawned on me was during the exchange on the bus leaving the school:

"I'm sorry, Crenshaw," the vet said. "I thought that as a man of experience..."
"Well, I ain't had that experience. I went North of my own free will."
"But haven't you heard of such cases?"
"Hearing ain't 'speriencing," Crenshaw said.
"No, it isn't. But since there's always an element of crime in freedom--"
"I ain't committed no crime!"
"I didn't mean that you had," the vet said. "I apologize. Forget it."
Crenshaw took an angry bite from his candy bar, mumbling, "I wish you'd hurry up and git depressive, maybe then you won't talk so damn much."
"Yes, doctor," the vet said mockingly. "I'll be depressive soon enough, but while you eat your candy just allow me to chew the rag; there's a bit of substance in it."

On the one hand, I suppose comparing him to Shakespeare is a compliment, if you believe the hype, on the other hand, I find I have a lot of trouble following the themes of the storyline, just like I have trouble with Shakespeare. They are so clever with the wordplay and the allegories that I get distracted from the main thread of the story. The only Shakespeare I've read and liked was Romeo and Juliet, and that was because a) the love story was a pretty basic concept, and b) I had footnotes and a junior high teacher to explain it to me as we went along!

So, for example, in Chapter 16 of Invisible Man when he starts his speech on the "uncommon" people, his puns on uncommon/common make it hard for me to see what he is saying about the people's predicament. Are they uncommon because they are resisting, or uncommon because of all they have tolerated? It seems that he is saying both. It makes my head spin.

I'm still thinking on Columbus' 2-weeks-old question about the character's invisibility/namelessness, so I will post something on that later. And I know I will probably have some big questions at the end. I'm up to Chapter 19, the end is in sight!

Interesting thought, Lori-linell. The idea of an African American woman as the protagonist in the book. How would it have been different? Staying with that subject, what do you think about the lack of a strong female presence in the book? How are women treated in the book? Should Ellison receive a pass here or is it even about that? I'm certain this question was posed to Ellison at some point and curious as to his answer.

Michael wrote: "Well, I had been planning to post more often in this discussion but I had forgotten how involved this book is! Every few chapters he changes up the entire context so I have to keep switching gears..."

Michael, interesting Shakespeare comparison. I have to think about that a minute. But, Romeo and Juliet always appeared to be the most accessible Shakespeare for me. Apparently for Jeopardy producers as well because you can guarantee it being at the top of the answer board (read: easiest question) and you can always get that one correct if nothing else.

I'm now thinking that I should also compare him to Lewis Carroll, or at least this book to Alice in Wonderland. As the circumstances in Invisible Man got stranger and stranger it kept reminding me of the phrase "down the rabbit hole"... I admit I haven't actually read Carroll's book, but have seen enough movie versions and reviews to know there is a lot of satire and puns/allegory going on throughout. On some level it seems Alice is invisible, too, as the characters mostly talk at her and not to her.

As to The Woman Question (sic), I will say that I definitely noted the dearth of female characters in the book. Two moments that seemed particularly striking were during the Battle Royale scene, where the only woman was naked and being tossed about the room, and during his time in the Brotherhood, when everyone kept calling everyone Brother, making any sisters in the movement quite invisible. I made a relevant note in the early scene where they are talking to the sharecropper who impregnated his daughter - "wow, no matter how bad the men in a community have it, it always seems to be worse for the women". In general throughout the book, whenever women appear it is almost always as sex objects/love interests or to make a point about the men at the center of the action.

All that said, I'm tempted to cut Ellison a little slack for two reasons. First, because he is telling a story about the relationship between the narrator and people in power. The main characters - the founder, the president, the trustees, the bosses, the committee - were all men, but that is pretty much where all the power lay during the time the story took place. Second, he did include women which were important to the story, even though they were not in charge: the elderly evicted woman, the landlord Mary, and the woman who introduced him to free love, for example.

On the other hand, I do feel Ellison missed some good opportunities to have women take a more active role. Although the free love woman and Emma both were involved because of their political ideology, neither of them were given a chance to discuss their views, they were just leveraged to critique sexual circumstances. And although many of the trustee secretaries were women, the juicy role showing "harm by good intentioned white people" was given to Emerson, a man. I can just as easily picture this as a white woman, either secretary or trustee's daughter, who felt charity/pity and tried to help the narrator by not seeing him.

I do love Lori-linell's idea of an Invisible Woman, I am curious to see how that would play out. I can't help but think such a book exists, though maybe not of this epic nature. Does anyone have any ideas of a book/books by an African American woman or other woman of color that analyzes these themes?

Well it's the last day of the month, and I finally finished this book yesterday, so I thought I would check in with some more thoughts.

I thought he summed up the history/invisibility theme really well with this line after his discovery of Rinehart: "Outside the Brotherhood we were outside history; but inside of it they didn't see us." I instantly thought of the notion of how the victors always (re)write history. If you want to be a part of the history that is written, you have to align with the victors and go along with any lies told. If you are a part of the defeated group it is as if you never existed (since your true story will never be told).

This was reinforced by Dupre, whom the narrator discovered during the riot. Because the riot was encouraged as part of the desired "history", Dupre's role is valuable and visible. The narrator realizes that Dupre was actually there all along, but it was only when he was useful to the machinations of The Brotherhood that he actually ventured into the spotlight of history.

As to the notion of "yessing them to death", does anyone have any thoughts on this? I remember Tiffany asking about its use as a weapon earlier. The narrator seems to have decided that this doesn't work because when he tried "yessing" the Brotherhood, it gave them a free pass to orchestrate the riot. ("My grandfather had been wrong about yessing them to death and destruction or else things had changed too much since his day.") But is it possible it works somehow in certain situations, and if so what does that mean? It seems crazy on the surface, but now I am thinking that if you act like you agree with your own oppression they won't pay you any attention and then you can sabotage things behind their back. But it only makes sense to me with the corresponding sabotage, which we didn't hear anything about with regards to the grandfather. Is there another explanation?

As to Columbus' original question about invisibility, it seems like a trick question. The original example from the prologue was of a White man on the street not seeing the narrator; it seemed there were strong examples of both White and Black persons seeing the narrator as invisible. In fact, I want to say that in some ways it was a Black man, Bledsoe, who was the only person who actually saw him. Not at first, but after the Golden Day incident Bledsoe realized the narrator was a threat to the system, which he was, just for his potential to stray outside the smoke and mirrors, and so he destroyed him as best he could.

As to the narrator's namelessness, I think this works both to reinforce the narrator's invisibility, and also to reinforce the fact that he stands for all of us ("Who knows but that, on the lower frequencies, I speak for you?") That final line brought a tear to my eye. For me as a White man, this resonated twice, first because of various contexts wherein I have felt invisible, (not necessarily for my Whiteness, though I will have to ponder that one), and second because of the moments when I look through other people, as I have been trained to do. I found his final words to be overwhelming, as it turned his one story into a million stories.

Thanks to everyone who contributed in the discussion on this literary classic. Remember, a new book discussion begins today but this thread never really closes. If you have more comments or questions feel free to add them as you like. Thanks again and....

Happy 100th Birthday, Ralph Ellison (born March 1, 1913)!

At first I found it hard to get into this book and I realised that sometimes Ellison is using metaphors more than actual situations. I'm glad I stuck with it because I really enjoyed our nameless protagonist when he hits the streets of Harlem. He took great care in the writing, that's plain, however it seems a little overly described lots of times. Still, a true classic and I am glad to have finally read it !

Michael wrote: "I certainly think that the relevance of this text both in the time it was penned (or the time is was written to reflect which to my read of Ellison's interviews was the 30's or pre-Depression era 2..."

Wonderful assessment, Michael! I just finished my reread & wanted to come back & troll among the comments. Yes to "the symbols in Ellison's text remain as rich and necessary as ever to sharpen our analysis of the conditions which impede bringing invisible and marginalized populations to vanguard."

I noticed in the news a North Carolina school board voted to ban Invisible Man from Randolph County schools (http://courier-tribune.com/sections/n...). One of the board said as the reason "I didn’t find any literary value."

Wow. Maybe we should direct them to this thread!

Some commentary and a slideshow of important quotes from Invisible Man is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09...

Color of Change started a petition if anyone is interested here: http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/Inv...

"Invisible Man" is a challenging read to say the least. One requiring a certain maturity to fully understand it. Obviously, this school board is lacking, just lacking.
Between this and Ohio's school board banning Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye" - which she went on record saying she resented the action - I have less hope that American education is improving.
Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC challenged her viewers last week to read a banned book from the list compiled by www.bannedbooksweek.org.
I'm waiting for "Catch-22" to arrive at my library branch.

Tiffany wrote: ""Invisible Man" is a challenging read to say the least. One requiring a certain maturity to fully understand it. Obviously, this school board is lacking, just lacking.
Between this and Ohio's schoo..."

That's a great idea to use the banned list as a reading list. I love it!

Yes, I signed the Color of Change petition and will send it to friends. Unbelievable!

The pressure must have worked because the school board rescinded its position.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entert...