Janie's "Idealism"

Janie's life seems to be unfolding in a progression that is similar to the narrator's from Invisible Man, but very different in both beginning and goal.  She has a naive (at least from the perspective of her grandmother) expectation of what love and men should be, just as the narrator has a naive expectation of what the path to success in the world will be.  Both stories are also large frame narratives, although I think we have a little less understanding of what changes Janie has gone through, whereas the personality differences between the narrator in the prologue and the first chapter are very stark.

The subject matter seems lighter than Invisible Man so far; Janie hasn't really had any strong confrontations with other characters yet, and it even seems that her naive ideal about love may be a thing of the past soon.  This leads me to believe that either the novel will take a sudden darker turn, or Janie may hold onto her ideals and give up secure situations to pursue "adventure".  Then the final question posed to the reader would be something along the lines of "was her 'adventure' and pursuit of ideals worth the less favorable final result?"  I think it might actually be a more interesting novel this way, often tragedies in novels feel contrived or just out of place.  At the same time I don't really think Janie has been established as a particularly unique or compelling protagonist, albeit being independent in many ways, so this plot-line could become boring.  

The Narrator's Max?

Something I noticed after completing Invisible Man was the complete lack of any characters that sympathize with the narrator or have an honest interest in his success.  Bigger on the other hand had both Max and Jan, although they didn't truly understand his psyche until the end of the novel.  When Bigger first met these characters and others, he was either suspicious or outright angry, unlike the narrator, who was very trusting and eager to please.
It may be that this difference is due to the motivations of the protagonists.  The narrator is more concerned with the disillusionment of his preconceptions of his environment while Bigger is trying to carve out his own personal identity.  Therefore Ellison is more concerned with the roles in the environment that his secondary characters play rather than their actual relationship with the narrator.  Native Son is a lot more about Bigger's psyche in contrast to that of what we see as weak-minded individuals.  He is able to pursue his own "accomplishment" in a way that transcends the environment, not particularly interacting with it in anyway.  This is of course evidenced by his complete lack of understanding of Max's speech in the court.  Even in the end when he embraces Max and Jan as something close to friends, it's on a very personal level, independent of the roles each character might play.  The narrator in Invisible Man, for all his resent of being labeled, only really views other individuals through the roles he expects them to fit into.  This is likely a result of the narrator's preconception of having to find success by following the rules of the system.  Was Bigger able to find personal accomplishment because he had no pre-existent illusions of what success meant?  This could be a topic that Ellison and Wright disagree on.

The True Naturalist

The Invisible Man has a somewhat opposite protagonist dynamic to Native Son.  The narrator starts out (in his life, not the novel) as a fairly average character, albeit perhaps especially submissive and naive.  He is certainly not an unrealistic or extreme character that many would label Bigger as.  On the surface, this makes him seem more relatable than Bigger was at the opening of his story, but ultimately his lack of depth ends up making the reader feel more distanced for most of the novel.  However the narrator changes drastically from this almost lack of personality to an extremely eccentric, analytical, and probably insane character by the time the epilogue rolls around.  This somewhat blank slate was formed into something very complex through Ellison's very detailed and maybe absurd environment.  Bigger however quickly evolves into a unique, impassioned character that I at least found to be relatable on a very human level.
I already wrote a blog post (and response paper) on why I consider Native Son to be more of an existentialist novel than a naturalist one; I find The Invisible Man a better fit for this category.  Ellison doesn't really care whether the reader finds the narrator to be an interesting character, just that the premise of the character is believable.  From there Ellison uses his symbol-ridden environment to mold him, thereby accomplishing his social commentary on the visibility/invisibility of an individual in society (or whatever you think he is trying to say, because really, who knows).  As others have pointed out, Ellison wants the reader to be able to imagine themselves in the narrator's position.  Regardless it seems clear that Wright is more concerned with existentialism, as evidenced in Bigger's final words, and the general lack of blatant symbolism, instead favoring character interaction.  Ellison seems to be more resigned to the power of naturalist influences, and only has ambiguity in what exactly he is using his naturalist ideology to point out.

As an aside I'd like to say that my opinion on The Invisible Man has changed, and I found the ending to be really satisfying.  I'm not saying I enjoyed it as much as Native Son, but I like that Ellison is able to portray naturalism in a non-pessimistic way as the novel closes.

Why I Find Native Son Compelling, and not Invisible Man

Native Son is such a unique novel to me because of Bigger (I've already written a blog post on this, so I won't get into it that much).  Wright focuses far more on Bigger's thought processes and sometimes unpredictable psychological developments rather than irony and "environment development".

Invisible Man on the other hand focuses massively on irony and environment/setting details.  However in my opinion it falls short instead on the protagonist.  While I don't think the narrator is undeveloped, find him a bit boring.  In the beginning of the novel, he's clearly not meant to be very relatable.  He's submissive, naive, and almost without any self-respect.  He doesn't really have any striking ideals or personality aspects that I find interesting.  Later he breaks out of this character somewhat, becoming a great deal more skeptical and aggressive.  However these personality aspects are really only noticeable because of the contrast to his old character.  As far as I'm concerned he's become an average, educated young man, still without any particular ideals or goals other than to be vaguely successful.

Now one could make the argument that Ellison's huge environmental and ironic depth makes up for the lacking protagonist, and it does to some extent, and while the constant ironies give a lot of potential for analysis, for me it gets a little old.  The plot is a bit too predictable, and you can hardly read a page without being thrown with some irony (or what might be irony).  If you combine that with the often predictable narrator, the novel often seems fairly unimaginative.  While the prologue gets us wondering how the narrator develops, I wish it didn't exist at times, because the reader not only knows where the narrator will end up (irrelevant and "invisible"), but we also know his final psychological result, which I don't enjoy knowing.

Please keep in mind that I'm not done with the novel yet, and I am quite biased towards Native Son.  I just think Invisible Man is an acquired taste that I don't quite have.

The Narrator's Evolving Interactions with Figures of Authority

One way we can observe the narrator of Invisible Man evolve as a person is to look at how his interactions with figures of authority or experience (particularly black figures) change over the course of the novel.  The narrator arrives at the college still full of naivety and submission.  However he does believe that he has some understanding for how to behave in the world to succeed.  He initially respects Bledsoe because he believes that Bledsoe has honorably and patiently made his way up the social ladder.  However after simply doing what he is told, what he always thought was the key to success, he ends up on the bad side of Bledsoe, and Bledsoe reveals that he is constantly putting on a mask and attempting to play the system.  Eventually the narrator becomes angry for the first time in the novel, and I believe that this stems from his core philosophy slowly being picked apart.

When he meets Emerson, the narrator is already uncomfortable and angry before Bledsoe's letter is revealed to him.  Instead of taking Emerson as a helpful, well-meaning man, the narrator feels insulted, targeted, and like he's being played.  The reveal of the letter only increases these emotions.  This interaction was almost Bigger-esque when he was talking with Jan.  Both characters just wanted to do their job, and these men were stepping out of their roles in a way that made the protagonists feel like they were the butt of a joke or trap.

By the time the narrator encounters Brockway, he's almost on his way to becoming the narrator of the prologue.  This impressive old black man who has made his way in the world, and clearly at least to some extent is in a position of power in the factory, who has learned everything he knows through only experience, is immediately looked down upon by the narrator.  Brockway also seems to have the same ideology as the narrator did previously where working for a respectable white man is an honor (he deeply hates the "ungrateful" union workers) and takes pride in the fact that the white factory owner needs him.  Brockway seems to be a very upfront, if paranoid character, but the narrator has already been set off into a state of perpetual anger which only accelerates his development.  This is his last interaction with a figure of knowledge and/or authority that results in his "rebirth" from the factory hospital.

Somewhat Disorganized Thoughts on The Driving Force of Native Son

As any young, poor, black man living in the 1940s, Bigger has few options in life.  Racism is unhidden and rampant in Chicago, however somehow Bigger Thomas' personality emerges in these conditions. is ambitious and proud, disgusted by his surroundings.  As I've said before, Bigger is like an idealogue without an ideal.  He wants desperately to be something great and powerful, but has no idea where to begin.  His options were closed so early in his life that he never even had the luxury to fantasize.  Like most other men in his position, Bigger is terrified and submissive around whites, and understandably so.  However his greatest fear is to be a failure, a nobody.  

This combination of his immense pride and fear causes him to become the angry and isolated character he is.  Instead of being closer to his community as a result of that fear, he lashes out at them, as evidenced by his irrational assaulting of Gus.  Bigger does not wish to associate himself with what he sees as weak failures, or perhaps associate with anyone early on in the novel.  This only drives him deeper and deeper into his ocean of fear and isolation.  Although Wright is writing from a third person perspective, it seems first person in nature.  The reader is so firmly attached to Bigger in all his actions and thoughts that to us it seems he is the only character.  Bessie is clearly just a tool to Bigger; something that exists for his immediate gratification, and when she is no further use to him, he does away with her.  When we encounter the naive but well-meaning Mary, a character with ideals that many of us share such as social equality, the reader can't help but resent her with the same hate that Bigger feels.  Not only is he confused by her seemingly unrestricted social conduct, but she associates Bigger with members of "his community".  To Bigger there is no greater insult.  

It is this isolated, angry, arguable sociopathic character that ultimately takes Mary Dalton's life.  The action was out of immense fear and impulse, and yet Bigger convinces himself that it was murder.  This was perhaps the most shocking and revealing aspect of the novel, the climax.  Not the murder itself, but when Bigger happily takes on his role of the dangerous, cold, and calculating murderer.  At this point Bigger knows somewhere within him that he has no future, and yet he hasn't accomplished his goal yet: to become something.  He does not resent fate, for he was "always killing": always killing in his head those who stood in the way of his success.  He was always prepared to die for his ambition, and to him it was a small price.

In a certain sense I see Native Son as a protest novel.  However it is just as unique in its accomplishment of this as Bigger Thomas.  Whether or not Wright intended for this to be a protest novel, Bigger represents what is in my opinion the most vital and powerful aspect of the human psyche: humanity's pride and ambition.  This is what makes him understandable to the reader, if not sympathetic.  Wright uses racism as a tool to show how society can crush ambition, and therefore, to me Bigger Thomas is a very real character despite his extremities. Wright said that there were many Biggers, more than he could ever convince us of.  I do see Biggers everywhere; people that have yet to find that outlet.  Some have said that Wright was unfair to Bigger Thomas' character.  He was too much a product of his environment, and didn't give any credit to his own individuality.  I see Max as Wright's self-criticism on this topic; Max sees Bigger as a faultless representation of something bigger, but in the final scene of the novel Bigger makes it clear that he wants his actions to be his and his alone: the actions of an individual human.   Wright didn't want to create a mere protest novel, but something that could examine the human soul.