The South is not easily separable from its past. It is well known for its many racist procedures, from slavery to Jim Crow. Yet, despite its very present past (or, in this case, present), three very different characters with very different ideas about it have come up in our books so far. In Native Son, it is revealed that Bigger actually hails from the South. However, this fact actually doesn't come into play very much. And for such a naturalist book, this seems a bit out of place (Shouldn't his birthplace have had some effect on his development?), but it's non-importance seems to signal a specific stance that Wright takes: the subtle northern racism had just as much, if not more effect on Bigger's personality. Certainly, this is a strange statement, considering that Bigger's childhood years seem to be given the short end of the stick when they have a much larger and longer-lasting influence on his life. Despite this, Wright seems to merely shrug its impact off, and moves on to what he cares about more.
Invisible Man is a little different. It spends a lot more time looking at the South, and it certainly gives it a much larger impression on the narrator, but something still appears off about it. The truth is, the narrator seems to be an outlier for the South, one of very few people who actually get the game. And, once he understands what is going on, he's already in Harlem, nightmares of Dr. Bledsoe and his grandfather long gone. So, in exchange for giving the South more importance, the book shortchanges the black people that live there somewhat, making them not much better off than those from Native Son.
But, after these two books that place a heavy emphasis on the North, we get Their Eyes Were Watching God. Here, we get a rich variety of characters all from the South, and it becomes greater than a simple birthing place for revolutionaries. So, what's wrong with this display of black culture? The problem, at least to those like Wright, is that the past for them is something to be forgotten just as it is for the South today. The South and its people, at least in Hurston's book, show off something that Wright would just as soon leave behind. And Hurston didn't cheat the people in her story; they aren't characters from some minstrel show but real people depicted living the way they live. And while it's understandable to be ashamed of one's past, sometimes its just better to let the bad feelings go, and others will reciprocate.
You're right that by the simple fact of portraying the South as a place black people aren't tripping over themselves to escape from, Hurston is doing something radical and unusual in 20th century black literature. Of course, she herself was a part of the "Great Migration," but the characters she depicts are perfectly happy with their sphere being the state of Florida.
ReplyDeleteOne way that Bigger's southern heritage does arguably leave an imprint on his character is the fact that he and his family fled to Chicago after his father is killed in a race riot (which, at the time, typically signified angry mobs of whites invading black neighborhoods and burning, killing, and destroying). Would you see his fatherlessness--which is connected to the fact that he feels forced to provide for his family--as a significant aspect of his environment?