The Secret Life of Bees is the second book in my mandated summer reading collection.
I wrote about The Catcher in the Rye a few posts ago and I thought that post would be balanced by this one, much as the two choices my school made in selecting these books balanced out each other. It’s interesting that these two books were selected, and after reading both of them, I’m sure that they were not selected independently of each other.

The Secret Life of Bees is decidedly a “girl book.” I hate that term, but it’s certainly a book to which a girl could more easily related. Indeed, for the first one hundred pages or so, every male in the story is evil. The plot follows Lily Owens as she leaves her abusive father in pursuit of her mother, about whom she knows very little, except that the death of her mother may be her own fault. Following a clue on the back of a picture Lily’s mother had in her possession at the time of her death, Lily travels to a town in South Carolina where she and her African-American nanny are taken in by three sisters who run an apiary, also African-American.

I feel justified in labeling this a “girl book” because of how central femininity is to the plot. A group of women calling themselves the Daughters of Mary, led by the sisters, worship Mary as opposed to Jesus. Lily finds her home in a community of women and her contact with males is extremely limited, though she does find a love interest by the end of the book. Lily even mentions issues that arise as she matures, certainly something to which males cannot relate.

Despite the fact that I don’t seem to be the author’s intended audience, it was not a bad book. Especially for the author’s first novel, it was remarkably complex and I’m interested to see what my classmates (and anybody out there who’s read this) think of the book. The story was engaging and the bees provide a perfect metaphor for the turmoil in Lily’s life.

But the “girl-power” aspect of the book was still bothering me. I don’t mind books about girls, nor do I mind feminists, but it seemed odd that my school would pick a book so blatantly “girly” that some readers would be completely bored. I finally realized how The Secret Life of Bees balances The Catcher in the Rye. I hadn’t realized it before (being male myself), but The Catcher in the Rye could be labeled a “guy” book. It follows a male and is entirely focused on that male’s messed up world. While the gender association doesn’t seem as clear with The Catcher in the Rye as it does with The Secret Life of Bees, I imagine one of my female classmates would say the exact opposite. The choices make sense when viewed in light of gender association. Two books, two characters, two genders, two perspectives.

I’m surprised (and a little annoyed) that it took me so long to figure out the combination was likely a conscious decision, but I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks about this.

I don’t like the way The Catcher in the Rye is written. I really don’t.

The Catcher in the Rye is one of the books I knew I’d have to read eventually for school, so I didn’t even bother to read it before. I’m never sure if I would have liked something better had it not been required reading, but it’s too late now!

My first problem with The Catcher in the Rye is about style. I’m a bit of a writing snob, to tell you the truth. I don’t always write as well as I’d like to, but I recognize good writing in others. The Catcher in the Rye is not well written, but it’s saving grace is that it wasn’t intended to be a great specimen writing style. Most of the writing in the book is structured exactly as the first paragraph of this post is. It’s jarring and disturbing to the reader.

“It has a very good academic rating, Pencey. It really does.”

“They can drive you crazy. They really can.”

“I don’t blame them. I really don’t.”

You get the picture. I understand the author’s desire to make the book conversational, but Salinger sadly over-conversationalizes. Nobody talks like Holden does in the story. Used sparingly, it might be effective (and partially forgivable because it was written over fifty years ago and I don’t know how people had conversations those many years ago), but Salinger liberally used this particular device, which Holden would probably say was “annoying” and “depressing” were he to read his own story.

The plot is…meandering. Holden’s adventures across New York City are unpredictable, but quite odd. It’s hard to empathize with a character who is so “out there.” If I were to run away from school and bumble about New York, I would probably reserve a room at the Waldorf instead of stumbling into a cheap hotel. The lack of purpose to Holden’s time in the city is indicative of how screwed up he is. (I used “screwed up” because, according to Wikipedia, the novel popularized that phrase).

My last issue is with the over-use of “annoying” and “depressing.” I cannot accuse Salinger of innacuracy here. Indeed, fifty years later, the words “annoying” and “depressing” are still among the most-used words in the vocabulary of an average teenager. For precisely that reason, the novel annoys me. Much of my free time is spent playing therapist for friends who need assistance. It’s a task that I don’t mind at all, but hearing the constant cries of annoyance and depression, then reading about it becomes too much.

Yet somehow I can still muster some fondness for The Catcher in the Rye. I respect the book, even if I don’t like the writing. The book’s weaknesses may not even be weaknesses. Salinger was not trying to create a coherent plot or write a refined story. It appears to be his style, which I happen to dislike. I’m a very logical person (it may not seem like it, but I am) and this type of disorganization is unacceptable from a novel that’s trying to be a perfect specimen. Salinger is just willing to be imperfect, I suppose.

I’m also inclined to like The Catcher in the Rye just because it’s one of the most banned books. (The thirteenth most challenged book between 1990 and 2000, according to the ALA). The book is really not as bad in terms of language and adult topics as I had been led to believe. It is certainly no worse than what one would hear walking down the hallways of an average high school. Book censors are very strange, but that is an entirely different blog post.