Native Son
question
Class Struggle
Jack
Jan 18, 2013 10:51PM
Native Son, by Richard Wright, was an outstanding book. Now i'm not going to spoil it for anybody that hasn't read it, but this should totally be part of the curriculum. It is a similar book to Catcher in the Rye by J.D Sallinger, however it is more exciting and was definitely a better read for me considering that I read them both at the same time. Bigger Thomas, the protagonist, is like Holden in that he is isolated from society. However this is not his choice. He is African American and is surrounded by white, thus surrounded by segregation. All the added pressure and stress it seems made bad things happen to him. Sometimes he was at fault in the end, but they still happened. Throughout the whole novel, readers do not see a full change in Bigger #SPOILER ALERT# until the last page when refers to Jan, and Boris by their first names. This is the first time he sees them as individiual people instead of as one big group of people. My question I want to raise is for any book dealing with the struggles between different classes of one society. Do you think that segregation, from its less violent forms of today to its original form in the 20's causes the people being treated poorly to act out like Bigger? If so, is that why certain communities are still worse than others as far as economy and violence - because those areas have never had a way out. Because I believe that if certain things didn't happen at the beginning of Wright's Native Son, Bigger would have never gone down the path that he ended up on. Maybe the segregation at that time, in a way, fueled either positive rebellion (MLK), or depression and a feeling of loss. Let me know of your thoughts, and please use other books as examples to prove your various points.
reply
flag
I struggle with my opinion on Native Son. I think it was an important piece of literature for its time but I do not like the idea that Bigger Thomas was somehow a product of his environment. It can certainly be true, but it can also be extremely dangerous to rationalize his actions in such a way. He made choices. Poor choices that many others from the exact same circumstances do not make. Saying that feelings of isolation due to prejudice and segregation led Bigger to make those choices victimizes him illegitimately, imo. I don't like the idea that Bigger is somehow a victim and therefore not completely accountable for his actions. James Baldwin actually talks more extensively about this in one of his essays from "Notes of a Native Son".
I read this book many years ago. It was part of our sophmore English class. Unfortunately I can't comment because I've forgotten alot of it. It would be interesting to go back and read it now and see if I still liked it as I did then.
I think the point of the book is to raise that very question you asked: is it nature or nurture? It's both. There's a certain inevitability to Bigger's actions. It was expected of him to act out/to destroy/ to lust after a white woman simply because he's black. That's something that the society thrust upon him.
Even when Bigger makes it to trial, remember the focus of the trial? Remember what Bigger is really tried for in the courts? It's the one thing he didn't do which was to rape the girl. But society couldn't believe that a young black man could see a white girl and not take advantage.
At the same time does this absolve Bigger of his actions? It doesn't. It just shows that society was and in some ways still is unfair to the minority and that does have a negative effect. Bigger still made poor choices but he himself believed that those choices were expected of him. It's an interesting and very real look at how how society can shape the psyche of a people.
Even when Bigger makes it to trial, remember the focus of the trial? Remember what Bigger is really tried for in the courts? It's the one thing he didn't do which was to rape the girl. But society couldn't believe that a young black man could see a white girl and not take advantage.
At the same time does this absolve Bigger of his actions? It doesn't. It just shows that society was and in some ways still is unfair to the minority and that does have a negative effect. Bigger still made poor choices but he himself believed that those choices were expected of him. It's an interesting and very real look at how how society can shape the psyche of a people.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
