Wright isn't always right!

My favorite part of any English class is reading and responding to literary criticism. After we've spent weeks discussing and dissecting a novel, I love the opportunity to read what other scholars and critics have to say about the text. However, in this class I've been frustrated to note that most of the literary criticism we've read on foundational works such as Native Son, Invisible Man, and Their Eyes Were Watching God focuses on narrowly defining literature's role, rather than responding to the texts themselves.

First the (white) critic Irving Howe insists that black writers cannot possibly "think or breathe, without some impulsion to protest", and then Richard Wright slams Zora Neale Hurston for failing to "move in the direction of serious fiction." Both Wright and Howe subscribe to a rigid insistence that literature is merely a tool with which one can realize political goals. This insistence frustrates me because, in my opinion, literature is undefinable except for its broad scope. Just as the human experience is richly varied, literature too must encompass all genres, styles, and topics in order to accurately mirror our lives in all their complication and beauty. 

Additionally, I find Wright's attachment to "serious fiction" problematic because of the assumption that works by and about women cannot contribute to real social action. Despite the fact that not all literature must be inherently political, Wright's dismissal of Hurston's downright revolutionary protofeminist and anthropological work seems misogynistic and narrow-minded. Who is this man to assume that feminist literature isn't worthy of "serious" attention? Obviously Richard Wright's own works achieved political and social change, but I would argue that Hurston's work similarly sparked important conversations about race, colorism, and female empowerment. Both authors achieved groundbreaking success with their very different works, and I don't think either form of literature can be labeled as inherently superior.