Jack's Eye

So what's up with Jack's eye? And, more importantly--since it is (yet another) instance of the surreal symbolism that defines this book--what's up with all the stuff it represents? (And there's a lot)
After a heated discussion with the narrator, Jack's glass eye pops right out of his head. Knowing Ellison, the meaning of this incident goes a little deeper, but the gravity of what the eye represents for us and for the narrator takes some looking into.
First, it represents the fatal flaw of the Brotherhood. The speech Jack gives that leads his eye to detach from his face tells all. The flaw comes from within; from among the leaders, who, however open minded and rational they pride themselves in being, will argue till their eyes pop out if their authority is challenged. They claim to be "brothers", but, like the narrator points out, act more like fathers, who refuse to acknowledge that they might be wrong, and more importantly, refuse to give the narrator any power of his own. Remind you of any/everyone else?
The speech also shows how they fail to take emotion and individual importance into account in their tactics and internal affairs. Jack makes it clear that when Clifton sold the dolls, he became completely dead to them, and his actual death was of no consequence.
There is a sentence a couple of pages before the eyeball incident in which Jack mentions that the Sambo dolls could "explode" in the "face" of the brotherhood. The narrator assures them that their faces are safe. He's wrong. A couple minutes later, Jack's face literally explodes, but it's not the dolls that are at fault, it's Jack's own inappropriate response to the narrator's speech.
Most importantly, the eye represents blindness. Though the narrator's realization of the blindness of the others around him is gradual, it culminates in the moment he sees Jack with no eye.
Like I said, he works up to it: In his speech about Clifton he tells people not try try to understand Clifton because there's no way they can see him fully. Just before everything comes together in his head, he sees into the dark half of the room for the first time--I don't claim to fully understand this, but something is happening in his mind-- and then, POP! It all comes together, he blabbers for a paragraph and comes out realizing that Jack's lack of sight is not only literal.
The blindness it represents gives us a new look at what Jack likes to think it represents; sacrifice and discipline. Jack lost his eye fighting for a cause, which he sees as a display of his virtue, but it could imply that to completely follow a cause, one must become a little blind. Certainly it could imply that to follow orders thoughtlessly causes and/or indicates blindness. Sure enough, after the narrator has his epiphany--thanks in part to Jack's glass eye--he starts to stop following the Brotherhood's orders.

Circus of the City

In addition to being a really interesting in itself, Circus of the City has a lot of themes in common with Invisible Man, so I thought I would try to expand on what we covered in class. Really, I think we just scratched the surface of the relevant stuff going on here. Rather than dissect the poem, I'm gonna try to tie it in with stuff from Invisible Man.
Similarities:

•  The poem is about hidden, misunderstood enlightenment of a sort; everyone's wrong but a select few who are shunned for their wisdom. One cannot be both wise and successful in society which seems to be the case in Invisible Man as well. In the book it's clear that, if you're black, and choose to be a part of society, you can be both lucky and immoral (Bledsoe), or you can suffer (grandfather, dispossessed people). The poem addresses this too, devoting a paragraph to those who fit in, but at great cost to their integrity (businessmen and indecisive women), and paragraph to those who have been destroyed by the city (the walleyed beggars and birds tie-dyed with soot). 

• In the book, those who reach an understanding of what's really going on (older narrator, vet) don't bother acting for others, making them come across as really weird till you listen to what they're actually saying. Like in the novel, the only truly wise character is the local "crazy", Mary. All these people are pushed from society in one way or another. They become invisible in that no one can take them seriously or see how they really think. 

• The path the narrator of the poem takes is similar to the path of the narrator of Invisible man. They both start off like most people, looking down on those considered "crazy", and end up admiring them

• Of course I have to mention the dream themes going on.  In the poem, "dreaming" represents the (potentially dangerous) oddities of human nature and our blindness to them when we all do them the same. Everyone is dreaming because we all do irrational things, but Mary dreams openly, while the city is said to "dream itself awake." In Invisible Man, the narrator's early life comes across much like a dream because of how he's pushed around with little control or awareness of the strangeness around him. He believes, of course, at this point, that he is completely awake. Recently in our reading, in the midst of a very dynamic stage for the character, he mentions he is half asleep and half awake. He was directly referring to his state upon waking in the morning, but Ellison hides stuff like this all the time and I think there's a deeper meaning. As the narrator becomes aware of his surroundings he seems to be dreaming less and less- in some ways. He's more lucid and seems to be making more decisions, but his life remains super surreal. I imagine this is something like what Mary (in the poem) experiences.
• Mary's unique point of view allows her a lot of freedom, and even some power. She is able do what she wants, when she wants, without shame. She is also immune to the "deep voiced commands to go away". She can "beat the air into obedience" and always make her words "come out right". The vet and the older narrator seem similarly free.
• Both have "white is right" themes. The poem seems to portray people's rejection of Mary as similar to their rejection of black people/culture. The narrator mentions how her family (like Mary) was less concerned about fitting in than most people in her city. 
• A character named Mary. Native Son too. 

Though there are many similarities, I think that Invisible Man's criticism of society kind of ends at racism, (and its related blindness and lack of opportunity) while Circus of the City's extends to any sort of irrational societal distinction between a right and a wrong. Normalcy and weirdness are not concepts that an enlightened character gives any thought to in this poem. In fact, those who claim to be normal, and seem to be harmless; "businessmen benign" have evil within them; "malignant interest rates". The rejection of normalcy is not quite so present in Invisible Man, I think. It shows up, but Ellison is not explicitly telling us to not worry about fitting in.

The Game

In class we keep talking about this "game" that the characters are playing, so I've been thinking about the story in these terms. "The game" is more than just the obvious game of life that everyone has to play, it's sort of the journey through society that the characters have to take. Society (and therefore the white men that dominate it) makes the rules, and all the different characters react to these rules in different ways. So far I think we've covered the basic possible points of view for a black person to have towards "the game".
First we have the narrator in the early chapters. He's completely oblivious to the game, even though people remind him over and over of it's existence. He knows the rules but does not think about them explicitly (as is probably true for most people of their society's encouraged behavior). He just follows the rules obediently, taking the strangely unlucky hand he's been dealt honestly and without question.
The narrator's grandfather has done one step better. He's aware that the rules are unfair, but he plays the game honestly nonetheless (although he's quite good at bluffing, but I suppose that's allowed).
Bledsoe has moved beyond this even. He is extremely aware of the rules and using this, bends them (and almost undoubtedly breaks them occasionally) with ease. He's cheated to get to a place he's really not supposed to be, and lied to disguise the fact that he's there. He would never admit to the white people that he has control over them because that would earn him a considerable point deduction, but he's aware himself. He even tells this to the narrator who, through an amazing feat of denial and blinding optimism, manages to remain completely in the dark about the whole thing.
And on the far end of things we have the vet and future narrator who have dropped out of the game entirely. Upon realizing the corruption in the rule book (instead of cheating their way into a fair game or sucking it up and pushing forward) they just quit. Which, honestly seems fair enough when you've been dealt such a terrible hand. They have distanced themselves from their society and its confining, twisted rules, and come out with an (admittedly strange) sense of freedom and happiness.
I'm not sure that the last option is exactly what Ellison is recommending to his readers, but he does seem to convey his thoughts on the matter largely through the vet, and portray these characters as the happiest and most enlightened. In Native Son the "game" was just a maze- one way in, one way out- but in Invisible Man it's made a little more complex. Though none of them are really ideal, there are more options. The game-and by extension, in my opinion, the book-becomes a little more interesting.