Trueblood By Ralph Ellison Character Analysis

Through his criticism, Langman completely disavows many of the stylistic perspectives of Ellison. He mainly criticizes him for the erratic and chaotic use of humor and the varying use of style. Then he analyzes Trueblood and justifies his character, even after the incestuous rape of his daughter. He specifically focuses on the dignity and the effect of sexual impulse on men. Then he dives into the racial issues expressed throughout the novel. There is discussion of the novel in through the intentions of the narrator and how he pursues power compared to the commonly thought desire to please his peers. He complains of how the white women in the novel are portrayed as too sexual. Finally, he concludes the criticism with his issue on how the “social

rules” are not defined, implying that the book is not about race issues.

There were some revolting claims made by Langman that made me question his past and the education that he received. For example, Langman believes that the rape of your own daughter is just, claiming that “what he got to do he do.” Furthermore, while claiming the objectification of white women in the novel as too sexually indiscriminate, he reduces his credibility, thus diminishing his reliability as a critic of this novel. Aside from the overbearing misogyny apparent through the critique, he does make a few relevant claims about the narrator’s changing jobs in the novel. He explores the different possibilities of his purpose to pursue the different jobs as either malicious or pure. But like any pretentious critic, he opts for the worse claiming he only pursues his desires as an attempt to satisfy his hunger for power. Overall, this criticism contains a few gems within an ocean of ostentatious sludge.