Invisible Son vs. Native Son

    Though I do not attempt to speak definitively on the validity of either novel, I would like to give my opinion on both sides of what has shown itself to be a controversial topic.

    I tend to be mistrustful of critics of black literature. I think they often analyze black narratives differently than white literature and fail to make valid critiques. Black characters are either expected to be model citizens or vague stereotypes. Critics on both sides are quick to critique when they don’t see black characters behaving as they believe they should.

    Invisible Man: One thing I found strange about the novel; all the Narrator’s life-changing moments happened because of outside sources. Whether that was getting removed from the college, Mr. Emerson revealing the letter, or getting forcibly lobotomized, most of the narrator’s maturing he had little to no part in. However, the Narrator was a complex and ever-changing character, representative of what real people are like. There’s no doubt that in terms of character development alone, Invisible Man blows Native Son out of the water.

    Native Son: I find Native Son lacking in many ways; however, I think its naturalist argument is interesting and worth exploring. Systematic racism is often ignored or forgotten. White people struggle to notice inequality when they are not affected by it.

    I think Invisible Man was able to talk about similar issues, though to a lesser extent. In the same way that Bigger was destined to fail because of his environment, the Narrator was similarly destined to “keep running”. The difference is that Bigger’s story was hopeless. He had no capacity to even attempt to change his circumstances. The Narrator was able to actively work to change his position and experienced a much happier (though somewhat incomplete) ending.