Throughout the novel, Native Son, Richard Wright portrays Bigger's character in a way that makes him so hard to like. Often in novels, the portagonist is our friend or someone that we're rooting for throughout the novel. Many novels we're familiar with feature the hero as the portagonist. In this case, Wright must have made Bigger easily distainable for a reason right? I've been pondering that since Bigger first began making awful decisions and acting crudely in Book One, and since Mrs. Elliott briefly spoke to my table about it, alluding that it must be of some imortance. I'm still unsure if I have an even close to right answer but this is the best conclusion I could come up with on my own. I think that Wright wanted us to feel distain towards Bigger because he was trying to prove that the racism and hatred of white society had led Bigger to become the sterotype that white society thought he was. Because Bigger and other members of his race were not given opportunities to become more, they eventually lost hope and became the sterotypes the whites thought they were. Therefore, Wright wanted us to turn our dislike towards white society, as Bigger embodied the sterotype they helped to perpetuate. This is evident in other characters, for instance, Bessie constantly pities herself and says how all she does is work and tire herself out, and then drinks so that she can escape. She doesn't see herself as ever having a better or happier life because she feels that would be impossible because of the barriers the whites set. In her time, she really didn't have much of a choice, so it's easy to understand why she became who she was and simply pittied herself because unfortunately, there truly was no way out of the life she had in that time period. I don't know if this makes any sense so tell me your thoughts because this is driving me crazy! :) Why do you guys think Wright made Bigger so hard to like as a protagonist?
-Hillary D.
I personally think that this book was hard to really get into, at least harder than the Invisible Man, and that puts us as a reader, indifferent to whatever the author presents. I think it's not a matter of dislike towards the protagonist, it's more of a matter of apathy.
ReplyDelete-george
George,
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that anyone could feel apathetic toward Bigger. He is such a strong personality that it seems he would evoke an equally strong response. I think Hillary's question is a good one -- what is Wright's purpose? And perhaps, who is his audience??
Indifference is certainly not Wright's motive. He wants us to feel upset about what is happening and upset on a variety of levels. Bigger is the kind of guy we should fear. Like a cornered animal, he is the kind of guy who strikes because he feels he has no alternative. I don't know about you, but I'd like fewer of those people walking around. And I certainly don't want to contribute to the creation of more. But, do I have any chance of that?
Is my privileged position in society so comfortable that I am unable or unwilling to make sacrifices for the betterment of others?
Hillary,
ReplyDeleteI actually totally agree. The decisions Bigger seems to make are consistently hurtful and awful to not only him but to his family, friends and people that surround him. I feel like Wright wants society to see that what they make of people with stereotypes is horrific and leads these people to make awful decisions the way Bigger did.
-Allaura
Everything is say is very true and easy to agree with. Bigger Thomas is a despicable character with no redeeming qualities. It's very disturbing to read this novel and hear some of the things he thinks and feels. His decision making process is very warped and sick. Wright made Bigger this way on purpose. He wanted to paint a picture of inner-city youth's anger and oppression. The central and insipid theme of the novel is that hate breads more hate.
ReplyDelete-marian
Well at first I wasn't sure if I was going to read your blog (because it was long) now I am glad that I did, because I was pondering the same question, and after reading your blog I feel that I now have a better understanding of why Bigger is so hard to like.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that in the third book: Some of the people who were most impacted by Biggers cruel actions realize their injustices and attempt to makeup, also Max Biggers lawyer brings up points in his speech that shout out the injustices that have been committed to apprise the audience of the evils are not only being committed by Bigger though by both sides.
--Josiah K.
I read Invisible Man, not Native Son, but from what I read from this post, I can see where you are coming from, and it reminds me of another book I read called "By the Light of the Moon" by Dean Koontz. The protagonist was extremely hard to try and like!
ReplyDeleteI kept asking myself this same question when I was reading Native Son. I mean he has ambition and dreams to have a bette life but the way in which he acts throughout the entire book is just repulsive at times. From raping to murdering he continuallly proves to the reader that he is a bad person. But I think Wright probably wanted us to see that bad people can actually have good intentions but that if society forces them into a cage, they are driven to do bad things.
ReplyDelete- Jacob S.