Editing Native Son (section)

==Analysis==
David Bradley wrote in ''[[The New York Times]]'' that, in his first reading of the novel, while he strongly disliked the work, "It wasn't that Bigger failed as a character, exactly" as Bradley knew of the author's intentions to make Bigger unlikeable, but Bradley felt the author did not succeed in making Bigger symbolize ordinary black men.<ref name=Bradley>{{cite web|last=Bradley|first=David|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/07/magazine/on-rereading-native-son.html|title=ON REREADING 'NATIVE SON'|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=1986-12-07|accessdate=February 22, 2021}}</ref> Upon reading an edition of the book with an introduction, Bradley stated "Suddenly I realized that many readers of ''Native Son'' had seen Bigger Thomas as a symbol".<ref name=Bradley/> Upon researching other writings from the author Bradley interpreted Bigger as Wright's autobiographical view of himself, and Bradley changed his own view to see the work as a tragedy despite Wright initially not meaning for this.<ref name=Bradley/>

Clyde Taylor, an associate professor of English at [[Tufts University]], criticized Bradley's view, claiming that the analysis failed to perceive how the work "disrupted the accommodation to racism through polite conventions in American social discourse".<ref>{{cite web|last=Taylor|first=Clyde|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/25/magazine/l-on-rereading-native-son-659987.html|title=On Rereading 'Native Son'|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=1987-01-25|accessdate=February 27, 2021}}</ref>