Run by Ann Patchett (spoilers)

I am finding this novel quite hard to review. I generally enjoyed it, it was a quite gentle read with some good characters and plot twists, and I love Patchett’s writing style, but at the same time I found myself feeling quite dissatisfied with a few aspects, maybe this was because I enjoyed State of Wonder so much and found this paler in comparison.

The novel explores family relationships between Bernard Doyle and his three sons (Sullivan, who is his biological son and his two adopted sons Tip and Teddy) and Tennessee and her daughter Kenya, and what happens when Tennessee and Tip are involved in an accident. Although Tip, Teddy, Tennessee and Kenya are black, I would argue that the novel doesn’t go into race issues in any depth. The fact that Tennessee and Kenya live in a housing project and she is too poor to afford medical insurance is glossed over, as are Bernard’s previous political aspirations and life as a mayor. This would have been interesting to explore in more depth. 

 I can’t say that I felt particularly engaged with the characters, perhaps this was due to the number which meant that their stories were spread quite thin.   I agree with Leah Hagen Cohen’s  remark in her review in the New York Times suggesting that the characters ‘ultimately feel less real than symbolic, as wooden as the Virgin’s statue’ (September 30^th 2007). The problem seems to be that there is a sense that they are defined by few characteristics, particularly ‘sweet’ Teddy and ‘clever’ Tip. Father Sullivan and his namesake, Sullivan are more interesting characters in comparison, but again, Father Sullivan’s apparent healing of two women is not really explored, it’s sometimes as if she’s thrown everything in but not really found time to explore it or tie it together. 

The final issue was the clunky anaesthesia-induced reunion of Tennessee and her friend Tennessee Alice Moser. I understand why she did it (to reveal a secret to the reader that the rest of the characters weren’t supposed to ever learn), but I found it a bit of a cheesy plot device.

 In comparison, I thought the motif of the statue of the Virgin Mary was handled nicely and the ending was quite satisfying; it gave the novel a nice kind of symmetry and a sense of progression. Overall, I liked the plot as well.  I feel as if I’ve mostly written about the negative aspects, even though I didn’t feel that negatively towards it when I was reading it. Overall, it’s an uplifting, entertaining book, and I am probably judging it too harshly for what it isn’t rather than what it is. 

References

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/books/review/Cohen-t.html

State of Wonder by Anne Patchett

SPOILERS. 

Awesome, but not the winner of the Orange prize.

I loved this book, I thought it was amazing. One of those wonderful discoveries of literary books that is also completely readable and enjoyable. I wanted to read it again, study it and pick it apart to discover all the nuances that I missed, or join a book club just to discuss it. I found the plot surprising yet satisfying and I liked the portrayal of the characters and the way that they seemed to develop throughout the story.

It concerns the journey of Marina Singh to the Amazonian jungle to discover what has happened to her colleague Anders Eckhart. Marina reluctantly undertakes the journey prompted by the entreaties of Anders’s widow and the insistence of her part-time boyfriend and boss Mr. Fox. 

Marina begins the novel as a particularly hesitant character. Although she is at ease in her work and projects a capable image to the outside world, she is haunted by the loss of her father, a particularly distressing caesarean she performed which ended her career as an obstetrician and by her feelings towards Mr. Fox and Anders. Marina seems to fear intimacy with other people and she does not seem to have any friends outside her workplace, this fear has caused her to focus on her career which has in turn led to feelings of loss of her opportunity for marriage and children. She has trouble asserting herself and a lack of certainty about her own identity, spending much of the first part of the book wearing other people’s clothes and allowing people to boss her around. Her experience of travelling gradually ‘strips away’ Marina’s issues and allows her to experience a re-birth where she deals with the issues that have affected her life and settles on a proper identity. 

Marina meets with her former supervisor Dr. Swenson, who is researching both a cure for the menopause which will allow women to continue to be fertile for their whole lives and a cure for malaria. This raises interesting questions about when fertility should end for women and how big a role science should play in prolonging it, as well as the way that medicine is funded and what priorities it has (Dr. Swenson realises that only by pretending that she is researching the miracle fertility drug which will lead to big money for Dr. Fox’s company will she be able to research the cure for Malaria which may save thousands of lives but is worthless to Dr. Fox as it is unprofitable). 

Dr. Swenson and Rudd (her former mentor whom she describes but has been dead for some time in the book) are both portrayed as being unafraid, uncompromising, controlling characters that are admirable in their achievements yet not particularly likable characters. Dr. Swenson attempts to hand-over her life’s work to Marina, but Marina is resistant. She also provides a kind of absolution, allowing Marina to forgive herself for the botched caesarean. 

Mr. Fox is also not a particularly likable character – he doesn’t seem to care that much about Marina, interferes with Dr. Swenson’s work and only seems to care about the potential fertility drug. It is unsurprising that Marina seems to realise that she is not in a relationship of any worth with him by the end of the novel. She hasn’t confided in him about the end of her career as an obstetrician. 

Dr. Swenson bravely tests the fertility drug on herself but proves that unlimited fertility outside the jungle is not viable by giving birth to a sirenomelian (mermaid) child. Swenson is not that concerned about the death of the baby as she has focused her attention on her deaf foster-son, Easter, whom Marina also looks at as a potential foster son. Marina also tries the miracle tree bark which is supposed to prolong fertility and finds that it fills a sort of void and she feels addicted to it. 

It is only once she has discovered what has really happened to Anders that she is able to leave the jungle and return to her life. She finds him living amongst a cannibal tribe and rescues him, but in the process loses Easter, whom Dr. Swenson had ‘kept’ after treating him for the disease which led to his deafness. Dr. Swenson is furious, as like Marina she sees Easter as some sort of compensation for giving up the chance of having children for the sake of her career. Experiencing a brief moment of intimacy with Anders ends Marina’s addiction to the bark and she can finally move on. 

The book leaves the reader with plenty of questions to speculate on. I found some in a review which I would like to write about: 

1)Did Easter escape the Hummoca tribe and return to the Lakashi and Dr Swenson?

No. I don’t think he did, he stayed with his parents or his tribe as he didn’t belong amongst the Lakashi or with Dr. Swenson. The ironic thing was that Dr. Swenson believed that people should leave things as they are as much as possible, she just wanted a child but on her own terms – she was never really bothered about babies. 

2)Was Dr Swenson unethical in her keeping of Easter and not returning him to the Hummoca? Was Easter better off with the Hummoca? Should Singh have acted differently in the exchange? Dr. Swenson’s feelings were understandable, but she never really asked Easter or the Hummoca what their feelings about it were, she just acted as if she knew best, which is horribly colonial way of looking at things. I think Singh acted in pretty much the only way she could in the exchange. 

3) Did Singh return to the Lakashi and Dr Swenson? Did she tell Mr Fox the truth about the research? Did Anders tell Fox the truth? Should they?

No, I have a feeling Marina went and looked for another job as soon as she got home, and Anders possibly did as well.  I think they both re-assessed their priorities. Anders spends more time with his family and Maria leaves Mr. Fox behind. I don’t think they should tell the truth either. 

4) Were the mushrooms physically addictive as a narcotic as Singh came to suspect?

Yes. Nothing that pleasurable comes without a down-side, if it doesn’t, it should do or else we might as well just spend our entire lives high as kites robbing mushrooms off each other.  

5) Was it ethical to deliberately give the male Lakashi malaria without their knowledge?

It was unethical, but arguably the ends justified the means. It was another example of Dr. Swenson’s racism treating the natives like monkeys. Some reviews questioned the portrayal of the ‘natives’, but I think that it was deliberate because that was the way Singh saw them and the book was from the point of view of the white scientists not from their point of view.  

6) Who was the father of Swenson's unborn child?

Probably one of the scientists, although I don’t necessarily think that it would bother Dr. Swen to use native sperm it might have mucked up her experiment. Or perhaps she got Rudd to ‘contribute’ although that probably would’ve taken more forethought, planning and equipment than she probably had. I don’t think it was Anders unless he didn’t know about it, I think it would’ve freaked him out. 

Anyway, I look forward to reading some more Patchett in the future.

The Secret Life of Bees and the Problems of Race

I have to say that since embarking on this project I am trying to be a bit more selective in the things I read, not all the time, but looking at lists of the best books is making me a little more discerning, at least when I go to the library. This book came up on the additional bucket list of books by women writers (on Bookriot) and I saw it at the library so I thought I’d give it a go. 

Like many of the books on the list this is not particularly literary, although I would have to say I thought it was nicely written with some good imagery. I particularly loved the scenes of the religious ceremonies of the Daughters of Mary complete with their fantastic hats.  The main narrator (Lily) had an appealing narrative voice and I liked the characters, particularly the three sisters. 

It is the kind of book I would like to give to a girl of about the same age as Lily as I think it’s easy to read and contains some rather well-put homespun wisdom about themes such as forgiveness, the role of the mother and about becoming a woman. The overall message is one of hope and the ability to reconcile yourself with past mistakes.

Reading the reviews I see that although the majority of reviews were positive, criticism was levelled at the author for her portrayal of T. Ray as being wholly negative, for the black characters being stereotypes and for the ending. For the first point, I would argue that the portrayal of T. Ray is not that important, for the first place he is portrayed that way because we are viewing him through Lily’s eyes, by the end she is starting to understand that he behaves that way towards her because he is punishing her for her mother leaving him (and probably for her role in killing her mother) and that actually, by removing himself from her life rather than forcing her to return home with him he is somehow showing some sort of care for her, however, as a fourteen year old girl she is probably not going to give a balanced account of the man who is abusing her, particularly as she practically hero-worships her mother.  In the second place, he is acting as a catalyst to the plot, perhaps he is a one-dimensional catalyst, but the book wouldn’t work without her deciding both to leave her home and to stay away from it, and this also ties in with the ending in that there is no tearful reunion with her father, but at the same time he doesn’t drag her away from the sisters or Rosaleen, Lily is where she feels she belongs with people who care about her. 

I found the question of whether she used stereotypes more difficult to answer. I am aware that I don’t read nearly enough writing by PoCs and I am only starting to analyse media portrayals of ethnic minorities and disabled people. I did a lit theory course on post colonialism, but it wasn’t that in depth. I could do with educating. 

I read an interesting article on Challenging the Stereotypes in Kids Books (by Mitali Perkins). She asked the following questions:

Are the non white characters too good to be true?

The author of this article cites The Secret Life of Bees as an example of a book where the author is overcompensating by portraying characters as ‘a wise elder dispensing advice’ that assists a white character to attain spiritual and moral enlightenment.

How and why does the author define race?

SMK has chosen to set this book in the 1960s during a time of racial tension which has an impact on several of the characters of the book.  The incident of Rosaleen getting attacked moves the story forward, forcing Lily to leave home, although this would have worked equally if Lily had had some other incident that made her leave, albeit she would probably not have gone with Rosaleen, whose role within the book seems to be more as acting as some sort of conscious to Lily rather than being an interesting character in her own right – she does not really have her own plot as such, although she becomes friends with May this is never really explored in any detail and May very quickly commits suicide.  SMK does manage to explore the issue of Lily’s unconscious racism, her belief that no black woman could ever be as intelligent as she is, her embarrassment at what she perceives to be Rosaleen’s bad manners and her shame at laughing at jokes about black people.  Black people are ‘the other’, something she has obviously been encouraged to believe and she is surprised when June doesn’t immediately want to admit her into the Daughters of Mary.

Another criticism of the book is that SMK has chosen to give the women ‘white voices’ rather than using dialect. I think that this would be the hardest part of writing authentic black characters, the ability to make them sound authentic rather than as stereotypical southern black characters. Arguably, this could be down to using Lily as a narrator or portraying the women (aside from May and Rosaleen, who speaks in more of a vernacular) as college educated. As pointed out in A Critical Study of Sue Monk Kidd’s The Secret Life of Bees (Joy A. Herbert, 14^th July 2007, Georgia State University Digital Archive), this does not explain the Standard American English dialect spoken by the Daughters.  

Is the cover art true to the story?

Whereas the film poster is covered in pictures of the sisters and Rosaleen (as well as Lily), the covers of pretty much ALL the editions of this book (aside from the film tie in) have pictures of bees on there, pictures of Lily or pictures of a pot of honey with the black Mary on it. No illustrations of the sisters.

Who are the change agents?

Lily tries to change her own life by leaving home. Rosaleen gets attacked and arrested on the way to register to vote, leading Lily to leave home, the implication being that Lily has to ‘rescue’ Rosaleen from jail, incurring the housekeeper’s wrath. Zach is determined to become a lawyer by going to ‘white school’ but he is mainly helped and encouraged in this endeavour by Clayton, the ‘good’ male character. The sisters are the agents for change in Lily’s life, but it is more the circumstances of Zach’s arrest that cause June to get married and the death of May.  The worrying thing is the implication that because the sisters have chosen to stay single and not to have children, that somehow Lily has become the child that they were unable to have, something that has disturbing implications for both a post-colonial perspective (the use of the ‘mammy’ stereotype of the motherly black woman existing to bring up other people’s children) and from a feminist perspective (that a single, childless woman is somehow suffering from a kind of void that needs to be filled). As the book is narrated by Lily, SMK can show that from Lily’s perspective, the women are acting as her mother, there is no way of properly exploring if this is reciprocated or how the women feel about adopting her.  

How is beauty defined?

Rosaleen fits the ‘mammy’ stereotype very well in her physical appearance; the three sisters have a brief description of their physical traits but nothing about whether Lily thinks they are beautiful. Lauren Grobman in her article Teaching Cross-Racial Texts: Cultural Theft in The Secret Life of Bees (College English 2008), has remarked on the sexlessness of the woman, how August is ‘completely uninterested in sex and sexuality’ but her ‘feminist awareness [of marriage denying women freedom] is tainted by her complete devotion to caring for others and by the erasure of her own emotional and physical needs’.  I would be inclined to agree, even June’s relationship with Neil is bypassed, all the characters seem to do with one another is argue.  

Zach is attractive to her because he doesn’t look like what she considers a typical African-American. The only things that we know about the way that he looks, however, is that he is handsome, has a one-sided dimple, a good body and short hair, there is no proper description of his features.  

   

Conclusion

She tried and it’s good that she did, particularly with showing Lily trying to change her misconceptions and prejudices; however, there are elements that could be considered problematic within the novel. Interestingly, Grobman points out that quotes on the cover and inside the book are firstly by white women authors and secondly focus on her powers as a storyteller or narrative voice rather than using terms like ‘black’ or ‘African American’.  In her article, she argues that we should ‘give Kidd the benefit of the doubt’. Final conclusion – I read it, I enjoyed it, but it’s not a book to borrow racial attitudes from.