STUDENTS' RESPONSES TO HOUSTON BAKER ON RALPH ELLISON
Baker's comments on the topic of black male sexuality as portrayed in the Trueblood episode reminded me of Bakhtin's ideas on carnival culture and grotesque realism as topics in Rabelais. The idea of a trickster character seems to be an extension of the carnival caricature of the fool, whose stereotype has been constantly reinvented in modern literature. (Chris Schatz)
Baker seems to be something of a contra-Derridean: in his essay, meaning is not an innate and natural characteristic of literature and criticism, but a product of the symbols invoked by the artist himself. (Chris Schatz)
Perhaps Ellison is fully aware of the problems present in his folk art/high art polarization, and even uses them to his advantage in Invisible Man, crafting a novel from which both forms will get a nod. Having not read the whole book, I would be very intrested to see how Ellison's style might further nourish these genres. Is Trueblood the only means by which he gives body and voice to the folkloric, blues-and-narration aspect of the African-American literary heritage? (J. P. Mohan)
There is for me something almost sad (Baker says it's "gut- wrenching" [241]) about the fact that an artist like Ellison must "extend the value of Afro-American folk forms by combining them with an array of Western narratives and tropes" (245). I can't help but wonder which of these--"folklore" or "Western narrative- -is "outer" and which is "inner" in Baker's model. And I also can't help but wonder if the only way for an Afro-American artist to appeal to a white-dominated audience is by moving "without movin'," by veiling Afro-American forms under Western narrative. (Steve Rodgers)
Unfortunately, the themes in Invisible Man and Baker's essay are all too familiar. It has been fifty years since the novel was published, and African-Americans are still put into positions of entertainment by white American culture. For example, the whole gangsta-rap culture has turned from an expression of reality into a neatly-packaged, mass-marketed cookie that white suburban teenagers can eagerly gobble up with their milk. (Reed Haslach)
As I began to read this selection, the distinction in the artworld between "kitsch" and "high art" seemed to parallel the distinction between "folklore" and "literature." In terms of a canon, "kitsch" always falls short of "high art" and is never taken as seriously as "high art." Indeed, "kitsch" is either used to lovingly condescend to a craft (not Art!) or it is insultingly used to write off a work, an artist (kitschy!) or even an entire movement. (Reed Haslach)
Commodifying art and human worth is nothing new. When has art not been a commodity? That art cannot be purchased is the world's greatest myth. Da Vinci hardly painted the Sistine Chapel for free. One of the reasons Van Gogh went crazy is because of his lack of financial stability. (Natasha Breen)
You know, Norton [in Invisible Man] thought that he was helping. In fact, he most likely was, though his action may have been inspired by fear or guilt or ego-boosting. I guess people just have to learn to be aware, to learn to question their own motives and concepts. If every action is suspect (as Norton's motives must be after the Trueblood episode), then what should we do? What should we say and write? Inaction is hardly the solution. I guess the only thing that can be done is to act--and to fail. And through failure--gain the knowledge that will allow actual progress. I wish there was an easier, less painful process. But the truth is that the most uncomfortable, most painful things are usually the ones that need the most direct attention. (Natasha Breen)
What next?