Talk:Middlesex (novel)

Infobox incomplete?
I have deleted this message because I don't think it is true. I added fiction as the genre, which I *think* was the only missing field, because it is not in a series and was not translated from another language into english. If I'm missing something please tell me. Tartan 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Other than using "Novel" instead of Fiction - you re quite correct. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Useful links
Note to self: http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780312422158-1, http://www.indiebound.org/book/9780312427733, and http://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm?book_number=1318 contain snippets/links to a number of reviews. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Link to journal abstract. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interview – includes Eugenides' perspective on the nature vs. nurture theme in his novel. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5827124/Of-self-and-country-U.html. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article271526/Den_Goettern_sei_Dank.html (http://www.webcitation.org/625B7EUlp) – list of omens Eugenides experienced while and after he wrote Middlesex. Cunard (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit April 2010
Following a request from Cunard (talk), I have done a copy edit of this article. There are still a few issues which I have not had time to review, so if anyone has time and wish to help, please do. For FA articles, only the first mention of a word or term should be wikified. There are some words that are wikified more than once, and sometimes, they are not wikified on its first mention, but further down. This needs to be corrected. I also do not have the time now to go through the peer review. I will try to do that tomorrow. Cheers. -- S Masters (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Some general (and hopefully useful) comments
Here, as requested, are some comments on what I believe is a first-class article. I have not read the book yet, so some of my comments may seem nitpicky and naïve. They may help, however, in the final polishing stages before what I assume will be a FAC nomination.
 * Lead: It would be interesting to know who wrote The Memoirs of Herculine Barbin, and when was it written.
 * I added that The Memoirs of Herculine Barbin were published by Michel Foucalt in 1978 but don't know how to include that Herculine Barbin wrote the memoirs when she was a nineteenth-century convent schoolgirl without making the sentence convoluted. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a small point, not worth convoluting the sentence for. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Background: What was Eugenides' purpose in travelling to MacDowell Colony in New Hampshire to start writing the book?
 * I added that he liked the solitude of MacDowell Colony, which fostered productivity. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Plot summary: "After learning that Milton was killed in a car accident" should be "After learning that Milton had been killed in a car accident"
 * Reworded. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Style:
 * "Narrates the story that pre-dates his birth, he..." Something wrong there.
 * Reworded. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase "sardonic empathy" should be specifically attributed (to Mark Lawson, presumably)
 * Attributed. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrasing "Stephanides' relationship with the blacks" is jarring. In the UK "the blacks" is unacceptable, either in speech or writing. It may be more acceptable in the US, I don't know, but I would advise rephrasing to avoid giving offence.
 * Reworded to "the African Americans". My apologies for using that wording; I did not know it was unacceptable in the UK. I agree with you that it's more acceptable in the US because between 1999 and 2010, a number of books in Google Books use that phrase. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The brief statement "Middlesex also has an ironic tone" does not seem to be followed up; one would expect an illustration.
 * There is an illustration after the sentence. The source says, "Callie's grandparents learn how to become Americans in its car factories, streetcars and Greektown cathedrals; her parents fulfill the ironic mandate of immigrants' American-born children by high-tailing it out of their ethnic enclave and making a journey of their own, from hardscrabble city to leafy suburb." I've reworded the sentence to make the connection clearer. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Cal's parents go on the journey of immigrants' children..." Perhaps this should be "the typical journey"?
 * Reworded. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Eugenides frequently recounts the events that have already occurred and also foreshadows the upcoming events in the book." I'm not sure I understand what this means. "Frequently recounts the events that have already occurred" suggests he tells the same things over and over again. I leave the rephrasing to you, but is the intended meaning something like: "In recounting past events, Eugenides frequently foreshadows the book's upcoming incidents"
 * That is not the intended meaning. The source says, "throughout the first half he interrupts the story to give us portentous glimpses of coming events. Likewise, and also in the manner of the picaresque, the author takes advantage of his loose structure and has the narrator recap in spots what's happened so far, as if, in all the commotion, we might have forgotten." I've rephrased that paragraph. Is it better? Cunard (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Genre
 * "effectual": isn't "effective" more common usage?
 * Reworded to "effective". Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The last two sentences of the section both begin: "At the end of the novel..."
 * Removed redundant sentence. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rebirth: "immigrant situation"; the word "situation" seems weak perhaps "condition", "circumstances", even "predicament"?
 * Changed to "predicament". Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The American Dream: I have found that the word "whilst", which occurs here and elsewhere in the article, is widely disapproved by wikipedia in favour of "while".
 * Changed all instances of "whilst" to "while". Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposites: Alkarim Jivani is an arts magazine editor and author of a British lesbian/gay history. He has never, as far as I know, been "of BBC Television's current affairs broadcast Newsnight". The Newsnight programme runs a special arts edition on Fridays, and I imagine Jarvini appeared as a guest on that.
 * Reworded both. Nice catch! Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nature v nurture: "Science may cause people to be restricted by heredity, whilst the true cause of Cal's hermaphroditic condition is due to DNA." Assertive statements such as this need to be attributed, as well as cited.
 * Attributed. (It was already cited.) Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gender identity
 * Penultimate paragraph, we have: "Eugenides addresses how difficult it was for humans to devise a "universal classification for sex".[51] He opines that..." Is "he" Eugenides, and is Eugenides opining through a character, or as himelf?
 * Clarified. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Second and third sentencs of last para seem to be saying the same thing.
 * Removed redundant sentence. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the sentence beginning "Holmes believes that..." I am unsure about the use of "renounces". Perhaps "denies", "undermines" or similar. What does Holmes actually say?
 * Holmes says "denies". I've replaced "renounces" with "denies" and included "denies" inside the quotation. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Greek mythical allusions: "solely her grandmother" - I think "only" rather than "solely"
 * Reworded. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Incest
 * "Milton and Tessie, second cousins, are conceived during the same night, hinting to the incest of Desdemona and Lefty." Why does these concurrent conceptions hint to the incest?
 * The source says, "Milton is conceived on the same night as Tessie – another allusion to the incestuous twinning between Lefty and Desdemona", but doesn't explain further why this hints to the incest. I have my own interpretation of why it hints to the incest but am barred from adding it because it would be original research. What should I do; should I remove this sentence since it isn't clear enough? Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the sentence was challenged at FAC, do you think you could defend it? If so, fine, if not, let it go. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I could challenge it at FAC, so I'll leave it in. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose phrase is "puissant taboo"? If it is necessary to use this, rather than "powerful taboo", it should be in quotes and attributed.
 * Done. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Making love "through a clarinet" evokes some strange images! Mayne "using a clarinet which..."
 * Nice catch! Reworded. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reception - Scope:
 * Mendelsohn should be introduced at first rather than second mention.
 * Done. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably better to use "A minus" than "A-" which doesn't show up well.
 * Done. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Detroit: About 70 per cent of this short section is direct quotation. Perhaps some of this could be rendered into paraphrase?
 * I removed Professor Morris's quote, which consisted of most of the direct quoation in the article. There are two short quotes remaining. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Great American Novel: Is Professor Morris's remark really worth a verbatim quote (he merely says what you've just said in the previous sentence.)
 * Removed Professor Morris's quote and added other information from him. I can make this short section longer with this article from The Eagle (a student newspaper published by American University); however, I'm not certain it's reliable enough. The article is well-written and has an editorial staff, so I believe that it's likely reliable. Before I use this source again (I already used it in "The Great American Dream" section), I would like your opinion about this. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Eagle article is well-written but it does not have much gravitas; I'm not sure that its writer's view that "this may be the Great American Novel" is of sufficient weight to be included here. I would let the section stand. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. I won't add anything to this section from The Eagle article. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Honors etc: again, Alkarim Jivani of Newsnight ?
 * Done. Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you find these comments helpful. I will watch this article's progress with much interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the valuable critique of the article. I'll address your concerns over the next couple of days. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've finished addressing your insightful comments, which have allowed me to greatly refine the article. While researching for more information to address your concerns, I found another source added a new subsection to the "Themes" section; it is titled "Middlesex (novel)". Would you take a look at it please? Thanks! Cunard (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the new section, which I think adds something of importance. Two points: would "confirming" be better than "finishing" (the racial stereotype)? Secondly, in the final paragraph whose views are being expressed (e.g. "The novel depicts African-American poverty but never illustrates its causes" etc.) It is important to detach these assertions from the editorial voice. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article is in generally excellent shape. Please let me know when you send it FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will certainly notify you when I send this to FAC. Thanks for your help! Cunard (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit
In general, there is a lot of good material here, but I think there are some organizational kinks to work out and perhaps some sourcing. I would suggest obtaining a copyeditor after you work on these larger issues, someone who can go over each and every sentence before FAC.


 * I noticed that there are quite a few articles that have "Middlesex" as a keyword in the MLA database that are not used as sources for this article. Any reason those aren't used?
 * I don't think my library has access to the MLA database, though it does have access to http://search.ebscohost.com/ (Literary Reference Center), where I have found many useful sources. I will be incorporating them into the article. Cunard (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I listed the MLA citations below. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! A number of the citations can be accessed via the Literary Reference Center database, though a few are not there. Cunard (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The incidents that occur to Cal's..." - This paragraph should be in a section about the setting.
 * I have begun a "Setting" section and have moved this paragraph there. Cunard (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have completed the "Setting" section. Cunard (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The novel's title..." - This paragraph is marooned - is there a better place to put it?
 * I have moved this to the third paragraph of "Plot" section. Cunard (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About half of Middlesex details incidents prior to Callie's birth. - This sentence doesn't fit in the paragraph in which it is placed - it is about a different topic.
 * I have moved this to the first paragraph of the "Plot" section . Cunard (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You might consider putting the sales information from the paragraph beginning "The book was published on..." in the "Reception" section.
 * If I moved the sales information to the "Reception" section, wouldn't the sentence about the book being published by Bloomsberry be orphaned? The section title is "Background and publication", and I can't think of any other publication information to include there. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would combine the Bloomsbury sentence with the end of the second paragraph, where it already says that the novel was published. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also moved the sales information to the "Reception" section. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the "Autobiographical elements" feels a bit listy, but I don't know if you can avoid that. I think that you have paragraphs later that explain how the autobiographical elements function in the work. Is there any more material on this that you could add, perhaps from reviews?
 * I've checked the articles on Google and don't think there is any more that could be added. Is there any way that I could make it seem less listy? Cunard (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest doing a copyedit for wordiness. For example, "According to Mark Lawson of The Guardian, the narrator's tone is considered to be "sardonic empathy".[36] Critics have characterized the beginning of the novel about Lefty and Desdemona as having a comedic element" could be "According to Mark Lawson of The Guardian, the narrator's tone is "sardonic[ally] empath[etic]" and other critics have characterized the beginning of the novel as comic."
 * Condensed per your suggestion. Gingsengbomb, will you copyedit this page for wordiness? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Identity" is mentioned several times in the "Themes" section - should it have its own subsection? Could it combined with "Opposites" somehow?
 * Yes and yes. I've expanded the "Themes" section with an article from Critique (journal) and renamed the section to "Ethnic identity". Cunard (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Race relations" section seems to focus too much on plot to me, rather than on the nuanced thematic meaning of that plot.
 * The content in this section is all that I have found about race relations so far, but I hope that the sources in the Literary Reference database will have some more information about this. Cunard (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples in the "Themes" section seem to be taken from the novel itself. Are these examples you have chosen yourself? If so, that could be construed as original research. It is best to take examples that critics and reviewers have used. I usually quote examples directly from the secondary sources - that way there is no confusion over who came up with the example.
 * No, all of the examples I used were provided by the critics and reviewers. For example:"While his female classmates are turned off by the blood in The Iliad, Cal is 'thrilled to [read about] the stabbings and beheadings, the gouging out of eyes, the juicy eviscerations'.[65] Cal ponders his gender identity and how males and females associate with each other,[63] reflecting, 'Did I see through the male tricks because I was destined to scheme that way myself? Or do girls see through the tricks, too, and just pretend not to notice?'[66]"Citations 63 and 66 are to pages in the novel, while citation 65 is to a book by Angela Pattatucci Aragon. Aragon's analysis of the novel's themes included the quotes from the novel (citations 63 and 66). I prefer using quotes from the novel to quotes from the secondary source because the prose of the novel is generally clearer and better written. The wording of the secondary source is less able to convey the emotion and atmosphere of each scene. Is there another way I can make it clearer that the examples/quotes are pulled from the secondary source? Cunard (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a citation to the secondary source in the same note? So, the citations to Middlesex will always contain the secondary source as well as the primary? Just having both might help. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will work on doing that. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if the "Greek mythical allusions" section might be better placed in the "Style" section? What do you think? Also, the "Allusions" section itself is a bit of a hodge-podge. It would be nice if it flowed a bit better - it feels like a list right now. Perhaps there could be paragraphs about the narrator, the lover, etc.?
 * Yes, the "Greek mythical allusions" section is more suitable in the "Style" section, so I've moved it. I don't think there could be a paragraph about the lover because there are few sources that discuss the Obscure Object and Sapphic love. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that the subsections of the "Reception" section were not very effective, particularly as they will be quite ephemeral. I would reduce some of the material in this section and condense it to four or so paragraphs.
 * Why will they be ephemeral? I thought that breaking them into subsections would highlight the key topics that the reviewers addressed. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The key topics that reviewers highlight tends to change much more than, say, themes. So, for example, I would expect the thematic categories to remain rather static, even if critics have changing views on those themes. The topics that reviewers choose to highlight will change over time, however. To get a sense of this, simply read Reception history of Jane Austen. In general, I felt that the "Reception" section was a bit choppy and I think that five years from now, it will be more difficult to update it with these sections in place, but ultimately the choice for how to structure it is yours. Awadewit (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've raised some good points about this so I have removed the subsections. I've combined two paragraphs so that there are now five paragraphs in the "Critical reception" section. I don't know what to condense since I'm too close to the material. Do you have any ideas, or is the "Critical reception" section at an acceptable length? Cunard (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Remind the reader why this book is being compared to The Virgin Suicides (I didn't know he wrote that, too, so initially I was quite confused).
 * The lead-in sentence is: "David Gates of Newsweek contrasted Eugenides' debut novel, The Virgin Suicides with Middlesex". I think this is sufficient in establishing the connection, but is there any way I can make it clearer? Cunard (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but I had forgotten that by the time I got to the reception section (especially since I read the article over several days). You might also consider that not everyone reads very carefully. Some people skim and some readers skip to later sections. A reminder is not always unnecessary repetition. Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. The sentence I quoted above is the first sentence of Middlesex (novel). Cunard (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. One shouldn't edit when tired! Awadewit (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'm grateful for your pointers which have been helpful even when you're tired. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you find any sales figures for the book, perhaps through Publisher's Weekly?


 * Is there an audio book version?
 * Yes. This is verified by a Publisher's Weekly article that is reprinted by Barnes and Noble (it can be found by clicking on the "Editorial Reviews" tab). I cannot find a copy of the article on Publisher's Weekly ' s website so am unsure of how to cite this. Cunard (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the citation information for the PW review: Publishers Weekly; 12/2/2002, Vol. 249 Issue 48, p21, 2p. Awadewit (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citation information. I've added the audiobook information to the "Honors and adaptation" section. Do you have any information about the title and author of the review? Cunard (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all that was available. Awadewit (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stephanides' relationship with the African Americans - This sentence struck me as sounding bad. Perhaps "with the African American characters"? Could we name them so that they are defined exclusively through their race? I think that is the thing that is bothering me here.
 * Reworded per your suggestion. If I named the African American characters (Stephanides' relationship with the African Americans characters, such as Marius Grimes), wouldn't that be synthesis? Cunard (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not synthesis in the sense of advocating a new position - there is no problem with doing this. Awadewit (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. I've made the change. Cunard (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful! Awadewit (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the incisive comments. I will work on them over the next couple of weeks. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

MLA citations
Chu, Patricia E. "D(NA) Coding the Ethnic: Jeffrey Eugenides's Middlesex." Novel: A Forum on Fiction 42.2 (2009): 278-283. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Dalling, Graham. "Enfield in the Time of Charles Lamb." Charles Lamb Bulletin 34.(1981): 25-34. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Breger, Claudia. "Gen-erativkrafte: Poesie und Wissenschaft in Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex." Engineering Life: Narrationen vom Menschen in Biomedizin, Kultur und Literatur. 201-217. Berlin, Germany: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2008. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Koch-Rein, Anne. "Intersexuality-In the 'I' of the Norm? Queer Field Notes from Eugenides' Middlesex." Quer durch die Geisteswissenschaften: Perspektiven der Queer Theory. 238-252. Berlin, Germany: Querverlag, 2005. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Davros, Michael G. "Loss and Transformation on the Road in Jeffrey Eugenides's Middlesex and Don DeLillo's Underworld." The Image of the Road in Literature, Media, and Society. 148-153. Pueblo, CO: Society for the Interdisciplinary Study of Social Imagery, Colorado State University-Pueblo, 2005. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Kehlmann, Daniel. "Narrative Heat." PEN America: A Journal for Writers and Readers 9.(2008): 88-96. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Collado-Rodriguez, Francisco. "Of Self and Country: U.S. Politics, Cultural Hybridity, and Ambivalent Identity in Jeffrey Eugenides's Middlesex." International Fiction Review 33.1-2 (2006): 71-83. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Sifuentes, Zachary. "Strange Anatomy, Strange Sexuality: The Queer Body in Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex." Straight Writ Queer: Non-Normative Expressions of Heterosexuality in Literature. 145-157. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Consonni, Stefania. "'Stuck in the Middle with Eu': Genetica e letteratura in Middlesex." Nuova Corrente: Rivista di Letteratura 54.139 (2007): 145-171. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Ciocoi-Pop, Ana-Blanca. "Suicide as Affirmation and Gender as a Conscious Choice: The Deconstruction of Identity in Jeffrey Eugenides' Major Novels." American, British, and Canadian Studies 10.(2008): 80-90. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Eugenides, Jeffrey. "The Omens." Brick 73.(2004): 127-129. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Shostak, Debra. "'Theory Uncompromised by Practicality': Hybridity in Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex." Contemporary Literature 49.3 (2008): 383-412. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Sielke, Sabine. "Translation and Transdisciplinarity: Mapping Contact Zones between Literary and Scientific Practice." Cultures of Translation. 149-173. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars, 2008. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Sykes, John D., Jr. "Two Natures: Chalcedon and Coming-of-Age in O'Connor's 'A Temple of the Holy Ghost'." Flannery O'Connor Review 5.(2007): 89-98. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Womack, Kenneth, and Amy Mallory-Kani. "'Why Don't You Just Leave It Up to Nature?': An Adaptionist Reading of the Novels of Jeffrey Eugenides." Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature 40.3 (2007): 157-173. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Lee, Merton. "Why Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex Is So Inoffensive." Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction 51.1 (2010): 32-46. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 25 May 2010.

Inaccurate terminology
The article uses "hermaphrodite" multiple times. People with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency are not, in fact, hermaphrodites in any medical sense: they do not have both male and female gonadal tissue. They are male with a deficiency of an enzyme in the testosterone pathway, and so have testes and, post-puberty, a phallus. As a technical term, "hermaphrodite" refers to a vanishingly small percentage of people. As a social term, it is considered offensive, and the term "intersex" is to be preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.10.132 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The author has, in interviews, consistently called Cal a "hermaphrodite"; "hermaphrodite" is therefore the more accurate term for this novel. From an interview with The Guardian (link):"The idea was to write a fictional book about a hermaphrodite, and I wanted it to be medically accurate - to be a story of a real hermaphrodite, rather than a fanciful creature like Tiresias or Orlando who could shift in a paragraph; to avail myself of the mythological connections without making the character a myth." From an interview with Jonathan Safran Foer (link): "The book, like its hermaphroditic narrator, was meant to be a hybrid. Part third-person epic, part first-person coming-of-age tale." While "intersex" is the term preferred by some, the wording of the author's statements in interviews indicates that "hermaphrodite" is the more suitable term for the book. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many uses of "hermaphrodite" throughout the article, though, which do not refer to Cal. Although Eugenides used artistic license in referring to Cal as a hermaphrodite - because he is speaking in Cal's voice, he can use whatever term he likes, and indeed he does demonstrate awareness of the term "intersex" and the ISNA - that does not mean that intersexuals other than Cal should be referred to in this way.  The article includes the following: "hermaphrodites' anatomy and emotions," "he intentionally never met with a hermaphrodite," etc. - none of which refers to Cal.  I believe these instances should be changed to "intersex" references, and only those that specifically discuss the character should be left as "hermaphrodite."  -Etoile ✩ (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources overwhelmingly use the term "hermaphrodite", not "intersexuals", when referring to real people in the context of this novel. For example, from The New York Times (link):
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * I do understand the position that the sources may be inaccurately and naïvely using "hermaphrodite" instead of "intersex". However, I am not certain that Wikipedia should be making that call. Your proposed changes may be appropriate, but I'll ask two more experienced editors to review this discussion and give their opinions. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who provided a lengthy review of the article a year or so ago I have been asked to comment on the hermaphrodie/intersexual issue. I am not familiar with the usags or nuances associated with these terms, but I have read the above debate. The first point that occurred to me was: has anyone publicly taken Mr Eugenides to task for inappropriate use of the term "hermaphrodite"? If so, that would be a useful hook for raising the issue within the article, avoiding the issue of Wikpedia "making the call". Otherwise, if the term has offensive connotations it might be advisable to use the strategy suggested by Etoile in the above discussion. For example, if I were writing an article on an Evelyn Waugh novel I would not use the terms that Waugh habitually employs to describe non-Europeans, unless this was in the voice of one of his characters. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Requested comment
 * Thank you for the third opinion, Brian. I'll do some research into your question about whether anyone has publicly taken Eugenides to task for inappropriately using "hermaphrodite". If I can't find anything, I'll make the changes suggested by Etoile. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After some research, I've found this question and answer author Eugenides gave for Oprah's Book Club. It directly addresses the hermaphrodite/intersexual issue. The questioner wrote:
 * Eugenides replied (my emphasis):
 * It is now clear that the "intersex" is the better term to use when speaking about real people. I will make the changes Etoile requested. Cunard (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for tracking down the answer given directly by Eugenides. I'm impressed with his answer and I appreciate your incorporation of the words into the article. Thanks again! -Etoile ✩ (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've also added the section Middlesex (novel) to explain why Eugenides is using "hermaphrodite" instead of "intersex". Cunard (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for tracking down the answer given directly by Eugenides. I'm impressed with his answer and I appreciate your incorporation of the words into the article. Thanks again! -Etoile ✩ (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I've also added the section Middlesex (novel) to explain why Eugenides is using "hermaphrodite" instead of "intersex". Cunard (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mount Olympus link
Thank you,, for your superb copyediting of the article's prose. In reply to your edit summary, I originally had a link to the disambiguation page Olympus. It was changed to Mount Olympus ("Fix links to disambiguation page"), then Mount Nif ("fix link; most likely candidate in Asia Minor, given the description"), and finally Uludağ ("fixing again; found more detail in referenced sources that identified the mountain"). I've asked to comment here. Cunard (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The review by Soar in the London Review of Books describes the setting of the novel as "the village of Bithyinios, on the slopes of Mount Olympus, overlooking the town of Bursa." The town of Bursa in Turkey is near Uludağ, not any of the other mountains known as Olympus.  I have no idea whether Soar was conflating this Olympus with the Greek Olympus, or whether this association was intended by the novel's author, but clearly the novel was set in Turkey, not in Greece.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation and research. Based on Soar's description, I agree with linking Mountain Olympus to Uludağ. Cunard (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cunard for the acknowledgement. I was also confused by the meaning of that sentence: "Daniel Soar of the London Review of Books opined that Olympus, a parallel to Bithynios..." If I understand correctly, Bithynios is a village on that mountain. What does it mean to be "a parallel to" something of which it is part? Is the reviewer getting at a parallel in time, for example? (I haven't looked at the review if it's available online...) It's a nice article--I was intrigued and hoped I could help a bit. Riggr Mortis (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, any reader would expect an unqualified reference to Mount Olympus to mean the one in Greece, I would think. This should probably be clarified in the article. Well, I'll just add 'Turkish' and stop talking. ;) Riggr Mortis (talk)
 * Thank you for clarifying the Mount Olympus issue. Your polishing of the text is very appreciated. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes
Coming back and re-reading this article (as well as comments at its FAC), thoughts ran into my head. Instead of listing them, I am going to be bold and implement them for discussion. I use To Kill a Mockingbird as a model; I am not endorsing this article as an FA&mdash;there are issues with it&mdash;but I think it serves quite well as one, structure-wise.

On the first parts of the article about Middlesex, separating "Publication" into its own section seems pretty distracting to me, particularly when it is just a presentation of facts and figures, not behind-the-scenes information. As such, I condensed it and brought the Spanish acquisition into the main text instead.

Focusing back on the parts behind Eugenides conception of the novel, the source for "elusive historical figure" never stated who was the figure; hence, we should not state Barbin to be the figure either. The sentences about Euginedes's attempt to establish a narrative voice cut too close to the source, so I quoted them instead. Finally, even though the bit about his marriage and housing in MacDowell are in the footnotes, it still seems irrelevant to novel and best removed. The changes have been enacted as such. Jappalang (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for revising the article's structure. You've improved the fluidity and condensed the extraneous information I tend to include in articles I write. I agree with your edits. For the footnote about his marriage, I agree that I included much information better fit in Eugenides' article. However, I believe "'At MacDowell Colony, Eugenides' studio was a 'master bedroom of a large white wooden farmhouse'. His room was ornamented with a large fireplace and a Persian rug. Eugenides enjoyed the place, writing, 'It was like having a country house suddenly, like going from being a starving artist to a landowner.' Eugenides met Karen Yamauchi, who would become his wife, at the colony's community dinner.'" is sufficiently relevant to the novel that it can be retained in a footnote with everything else excised. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, File:Star Studio.jpg is a nice touch to the article. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty in seeing the relevance behind the two sentences to the conception of Middlesex as they are phrased now. Is it the design of the room or the change in attitude?  I think I can get at why Yamauchi would be relevant (Eugenides-Yamauchi's relationship in parallel to Cal-Julie), but I think that can be done/integrated in the Autobiographical section.  Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentences about MacDowell Colony are meant to provide extra information about the setting in which Eugenides wrote the novel. While the information is too detailed for the text of the article, I think it is appropriate as a footnote to give the readers more context. The content about Yamauchi is also background information. I initially had it in the "Autobiographical elements" section, but removed it, writing that it was "wordy, awkward, and redundant to Background section". I think the information about Eugenides' meeting Yamauchi at the colony flows better as a footnote in the "Conception, research, and publication" section since the section discusses the colony. (The Eugenides-Yamauchi's relationship in parallel to Cal-Julie is already discussed in the "Autobiographical elements" section.) Cunard (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not that convinced, but I will just put the shortened footnote back in; perhaps there is some better to use it in the future. Jappalang (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Condensing the Plot summary and Fictional settings
Change 2

I think Fictional settings and Plot summary are too closely linked. The Fictional settings is "trying too hard" in my view to establish links between our world and that of Middlesex, resulting in the sore thumb of Bithynios. The village is likely fictional (if the place is real, Eugenides's writing of its history could be offensive if not based on actual records), but without mention in a reliable source, we cannot claim as such. Mixed with historical events, the village's authenticity raises questions. The Plot summary tries to leave out the details found in settings but cannot seem to work as effectively as if they were included. The chronology is jumbled in the first part, probably becuase of an intent to clarify Cal/Callie's status.

I think trying to squeeze in little bits of analysis into the Plot (e.g. entendre) does not work here, and would be better worked into other sections (Themes, Styles). Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, just note that I have not read the book. My sourcing comes from the page views allowed by Google and the reviewers own summary and snippets of the novel.  Jappalang (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2011 (U


 * I've moved the entendre to the "Style" section. Are the footnotes in the plot summary about Chapter Eleven and the Obscure Object fine as they are, or should I remove them? Are there other analysis information found in the "Plot summary"? Where did you find the information about "Cal's opinion of the events in hindsight and of his life after his father's funeral prefaces each chapter"? I don't know remember whether Eugenides prefaced every chapter with Cal's opinion, though I haven't read the book in over a year. It might be more accurately rephrased as "Cal weaves his opinion of the events in hindsight and of his life after his father's funeral throughout the book." Cunard (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can leave the footnotes there for the moment. I was basing Cal's opinion as prefaces on the previews afforded by Google Books (every chapter I was able to see started with Cal looking at the events to be told from a future angle).  I could be very mistaken/misled by what I have seen.  "Weave" could very well work.  I have to go now though.  Please feel free to adjust accordingly.  Jappalang (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "weave" to be on the safe side, though it's possible that you're right. (I don't have a copy of the book with me so I cannot check.) I've re-added the publishers' names so that the publishing section will be more complete. Thank you again for spending your valuable time working through the article with me. I am very grateful for your help in polishing and tightening the prose and refining the structure of the article. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographical elements
Change 3 The Autobiographical elements section seemed a bit disorganized to me. I set up three paragraphs: Eugenides's introduction, Eugenides vs Cal, and his family vs Cal's. There were some repetitous elements, the most obvious to me was the author's quotes. Some stuff also strikes me as not quite fitting in with the "autobiography" theme. The deterioration of Zebra Room did not seem pertinent ("And in a way my upbringing is just like a slow time-lapse film of everything falling apart on that street, because we would have to go down it almost every day." does not seem to be describing Cal's life). I think the omens bit plays no part in the story of "his" life. The one paragraph dedicated to it seems a bit too overwhelming for something that did not make it into the book nor affected its writing. Jappalang (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for tightening this section. wrote above that the section was "listy", and I was unable to restructure it to flow better. I agree the discussion about Eugenides' omens doesn't fit well anywhere here, so I'll move it to Eugenides' own article. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Style
First, what does "influences of the older genetic dissertations are highlighted by the shift" mean? Without access to either Chu's or Shostak's paper, I have to ask why are Eugenides's book and Shostak's paper used to give examples for something Chu raised about? Does Chu not give any example? Does Shostak refer to Chu? If she does, how are those two phrases highlights of "the influences of older genetic dissertations"? Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Chu 2009, p. 280:


 * Shostak, p. 408:


 * Taberner, p. 173


 * I hope the Chu quote clarifies what is meant by "influences of the older genetic dissertations are highlighted by the shift". "Discourses" is a better-known term than "dissertations" in this context, but I wanted to avoid close paraphrasing of the source. "When Cal discusses Callie, he uses the comedic device of adopting the third person to dissociate himself from her" was sourced to Taberner since March 2010. I added Shostak and her quotations of Middlesex as examples in July 2010. Shostak's paper does not refer to Chu's. You caught an error in my positioning of the sources when I added Shostak. The sentence beginning "For instance" belongs after "When Cal discusses Callie..." I have corrected this error and thank you for catching it. I included citations from Eugenides' book so the reader would know which pages in Middlesex the quotes come from. For each quote, I included citations both from the novel and the secondary review per Awadewit's suggestion. Cunard (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've quoted the information from Chu so the sentence is more easily understood. Cunard (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Change 4

Aside from relocating 2-3 paragraphs to the later sub-section of Verbosity and tone (renamed from Criticisms), I made the above changes. A few reasonings and comments as follows:


 * "Eugenides explained that '[t]he voice had to be elastic enough to narrate the epic stuff, the third-person material, and it had to be a highly individualized first-person voice, too.'[28] Cal's voice is able to maintain the interest and empathy of readers because Cal is '[f]unny, humane, [and] endearingly self-aware'.[39]"
 * I see a possible synthesis problem here. Eugenides speaks of the voice in third-first person items; yet we are linking to Kipen's view of why the voice can maintain the interest.  Kipen's opinion (which does not mention first-third person switching) does not mix with Eugenides's here and might be more appropriate in Reception.  Aside from that, the heavy use (in my view) of Eugenides's own views is concerning for critical analysis of his Style.
 * Agreed. Thank you for the correction. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Cal's quotes about Calliope seems a bit too much (in terms of use); thus removed.
 * Agreed. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Eugenides sought to get the 'emotional stuff right'."
 * Not quite... "Still, he was a girl at one point and has to render female experience credibly. [...] but my consulting group said that I had the emotional stuff right." I would not say he sought to get the "emotional stuff right" (that is the result).
 * I incorrectly framed that quote. Thank you for the correction. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Daniel Soar of London Review of Books praised Eugenides for 'doing both background and foreground in all the necessary detail'. Eugenides, Soar stated, seamlessly shifted from the past to the present. Despite the novel's events being implausible, Eugenides successfully makes them 'elaborately justified and motivated'.[43]"
 * I find it unrelated to Cal's unreliability... Mayhaps it will be much better served in Reception; the first sentence, however, might be used for Verbosity and tone...  maybe the later sentences as well...
 * I've moved this content to the "Verbosity and tone" section per your suggestion. I've reworded the last sentence to emphasize the implausible tone of the novel's events. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Collado-Rodriguez, Francisco (2006-01-01), "Of self and country: U.S. politics, cultural hybridity, and ambivalent identity in Jeffrey Eugenides's Middlesex", is available in full over here; there is no need for that subscription site.
 * Great find. I've replaced the link. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Using allusions to modern pop music and Greek mythology, Eugenides shows how familial traits and idiosyncrasies are passed from one generation to the next. He also employs leitmotifs to depict the effect of chance on the family's way of life.[54]"
 * More relevant in Themes, perhaps? I think I moved it Verbosity and tone for the moment.
 * The source says little about modern pop music and leitmotifs. I don't there is enough material for it to belong under its own "Theme" subsection, and I don't know think it can fit under any of the "Theme" subsections. I think it's best placed in the general "Styles" section though it could also be removed altogether since there's little to say about it. Cunard (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That is it for now. Jappalang (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Change 7

I think the comments at the FAC were correct in part that most of what was Verbosity and tone was presented as more critical in nature than analytical. I rephrased the subsection to hopefully avoid this. I also found that it would be hard to justify separating "tone" into a sub-section as it is invariably style. Again I restructured the section, moving the part of first and third-person narratives into Narrative modes. I shifted certain statements (Mendelsohn, Kakutani) into Themes as they seem to better fit in there (Criticisms seem to be the other likely spot, but it would be hard to fit piecemeal statements there). The following were left out as they do not seem to fit well into Style or seemingly too short for Criticisms:


 * Smee further criticized the narrator's style, noting that some well-written passages are destroyed by "irritating little infusions of self-consciousness".


 * Michelle Vellucci of People wrote that the conclusion felt "rushed".


 * The [Economist] review stated that a more concise, concentrated depiction of hermaphroditism would have made the book more "fun to read".

I think I will be moving on to the Themes section after this. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these changes. I have integrated the second and third of the above quotes into the "Critical reception" section. Cunard (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Greek mythical allusions
Change 5


 * "Cal repeatedly compares himself to Tiresias, ..."
 * The source does not say "repeatedly"; the book itself (through Google) lists only 6 mentions of the name.
 * I based this wording on Francisco Collado-Rodríguez's discussion about Cal and Tiresias: In his statements, Cal both implicitly and explicitly alludes to Tiresias. I base both types of illusions on Collado-Rodríguez's interpretations about Cal and Tiresias. Cal does compare himself to Tiresias several times. Perhaps "repeatedly" is not the best wording. "Cal compares himself to Tiresias several times" would have probably worked better. However, the current wording is fine as is. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Conceived after his parents attend a performance of the opera The Minotaur, ..."
 * Something does not seem right here; what does the source say? As far as I can tell, such a situation applies to Milton and Theodora, not Cal (pp. 123–124, Eugenides).  The only Minotaur Milton watched is a dubbed Italian film, and he watched it with young Callie (p. 141, Eugenides).
 * The source states: After reviewing the novel through Google Books, I agree with your correction. The source is incorrect, though, so I don't know we can reconcile that: Should this sentence be removed? Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is going to be tricky... I think we can either:
 * cite to the novel, or
 * add a footnote here that explains the source likely made a mistake with a cite to the novel.
 * Which shall it be? Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have chosen the second option: diff. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Minotaur links to The Minotaur (opera). This is impossible: the linked opera premiered on April 15, 2008; Cal was born in 1960.  Hence, I removed the link.
 * Thank you for the correction. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bartkowski's comments about "letting out our monsters" is more suited for Gender identity (she is not really talking about Greek allusions).
 * I have moved this to the "Gender identity" section. Cunard (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Sapphic love" seems too minor (little context) here. The same goes for the Homer's "wine-dark".
 * Agreed. Thank you for cutting the extraneous information. Cunard (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bartkowski's Big Foot and Loch Ness comparisons are alien to the Greeks and perhaps can be put somewhere else.
 * I do not think this belongs anywhere in the article. I considered placing these comparisons in the "Genres" section; however, the source doesn't discuss them in the context of any genres. Cunard (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved Daniel Soar's opinion to Ethnic identity. No one made associations of Olympus (Uludug) to the home of the Greek gods, and thus there is no association with the classical myths.  Neither is Justinian part of those stories.  Also note that Soar did not say the moutain was a good setting that is the "story catalyst".  He said Olympus was good as a starting point for what happened (the marriage of Lefty and Desdemona that led to Cal/Callie).
 * Thank you for the revision. You have caught many structural issues with my writing. Cunard (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this section is more suited to Themes than Style; i.e. I think it fits in better with "what sort of common elements are evidenced in the content" than with "what kind of flavor does this writing have". I think "Eugenides frequently references Greek classical myths in Middlesex" is likely the best we can do to shape this section to fit into Style. However, that would force an exclusion of the "Chimera", and the Odyseuss and Oedipus angles; they are external analysis, not of his writing but content similarities (which better fits Theme). That said, it is a bit difficult figuring where it goes, since the sub-section is talking about the allusions ("these elements are in the book"), not that a particular myth is a major part of the story. If this is about how the writing mirrors the ancient Greek texts ("Character XXX's thoughts are expressed in lines of stanzas that evoke images of the Illiad"), then I think it would be obvious on its stay here. I understand that this sub-section was previously in Themes and moved to Style on Awadewit's suggestion in May 2010. Perhaps it can be rephrased to suit a Style analysis but at the moment it seems more Themes to me (and affected my way of presenting it as such), or perhaps I am totally off base with this...? Jappalang (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Greek mythical allusions" can fit in either "Themes" or "Style" depending on how it is framed. I agree with your assessment that the Chimera, Odysseus, and Oedipus angles would have to excluded if this were placed in the "Style" section so agree with your moving it to "Themes". Cunard (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these changes. I have taken a brief look at them but am very short on time at the moment. I will take a closer look and reply to each comment later this week. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have posted responses to your first bullet points. I will revisit this later this week. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jappalang, you have restructured and rewritten this article. You are as much a writer of this article as I, if not more so. When you have finished reworking the article, and if you consider the article ready for another FA nomination, would you be willing to conominate it? Cunard (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be honored to accept a co-nomination with you. I think even after my rework, we would need a copy-edit from someone with better language skills (mine are not up to the brilliant standards requested at FAC).  Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for accepting a conomination. Your language skills are impressive but the "brilliant standards" requirement is difficult to satisfy. I think I have the perfect person for the job: . Cunard (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Genres
Change 6


 * "Numerous events occurred between 1975 and 2002 that internationally established America's identity: ... Through its depiction of historical events in the United States ... a family struggling against historical changes."
 * Cohen's comments on 1975–2002 is not related to the family, but to Cal's manner of narration. Cohen acknowledges that events of the referred period are not detailed in the book (but should be because they supposedly influenced how Cal thinks).  Thus Cohen's remarks do not seem related to the portrayal of the Stephanides.
 * Agreed. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Cohen stated that Middlesex brings a "healing closure" to a novel that started as a fairly flexible story."
 * This ("closure") does not seem related to genre; it is more like Cohen's opinion on the book. Aside from that, "Middlesex brings a 'healing closure' to a novel" does not seem correct in meaning: the wording is a circular reference&mdash;the book brings a closure to itself.
 * Agreed. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Woods: "Middlesex is a child of its moment in its occasional recourse to those excitements, patternings, and implausibilities that lie on the soft side of magical realism and should be called hysterical realism."
 * Article: "James Wood stated that Middlesex is 'a child of its moment in its occasional recourse to those excitements, patternings, and implausibilities that lie on the soft side of magical realism' but should be hysterical realism."
 * The difference&mdash;"and" vs "but"&mdash;is substantial.
 * Thank you for the correction. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this... I believe it is pointless to provide archived links of pages that need subscriptions; the archived link is not the full document, but the abstract again. Helpful in determining there is such a document, not helpful in letting one, especially if he or she is a subscriber, verify the contents.
 * I've provided archived links to the abstracts so that I can easily access them to verify the source information (author, date, and publication) if the page disappears. To give the direct link to the abstract more prominence, I've added a  |deadurl=no  to those templates. See Requests for comment/Dead url parameter for citations for information about what it does. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cohen's article is represented as it appears on JSTOR; therefore the findarticles version should not be linked to. The pages are not the same and would cause confusion.
 * Removed. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a heavy reliance on Eugenides' own remarks here (interviews are primary sources), so some are being weeded. Jappalang (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I find that I rely too much on Eugenides' remarks because he is a very eloquent speaker and writer. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these further changes. I will address these either later today or tomorrow. Cunard (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Rebirth
I have no access to Sobczak, A. J., but it seems that of the five sources for this subsection, only Wainwright specifically talks about rebirth. Of particular note, the sentence of Jimmy Zizmo's rebirth is not supported by Hanna's "a bootlegger who reinvents himself as a Muslim minister, Farrad Mohammad" ("reinvent" does not mean "rebirth" and she does not seem to state it as such). Are there any more sources that supports such a theme? If not, I think it could be better to integrate Wainwright into Nature versus nurture or Gender identity. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Zizmo is said to have died during a bootlegging trip. In actuality, he has not died and has reinvented himself into a Muslim minister (see page 127 of Middlesex). It could be interpreted as a "rebirth", but unfortunately Hanna doesn't seem to make that connection. Sobczak, A. J. states: "Cal's grandparents are more firmly attached to the idea of life as inevitable tragedy. Shortly before fleeing their tiny Greek village during the Turkish invasion of 1922, they realize that although they are brother and sister, they love each other as man and woman. Thus is rooted another theme of the book, that of transformation — Cal's from female to male identification and his grandparents' reinvention of themselves as husband and wife rather than brother and sister. The latter choice sets Cal’s story in motion, for it is through his grandparents’ mating that a rare recessive gene is passed to Cal's father." I agree that "rebirth" does not mean "reinvention" or "transformation". Perhaps this section can be retitled to be "Reinvention" or "Transformation" to better reflect the sources? Cunard (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am planning to run through the entire Themes section and restructure; piecemeal editing (sub-section by subsection) seems inefficient to me (it is possible that some sub-sections could be combined with others to form a more effective point or there might be splits as well). It will take some time but let us have a look at the end results before deciding.  On another note, I am aware of Zizmo's incarnation as Wallace Fard Muhammad, which reinforces my suspicion that Eugenides is playing loose with history and facts (Bithynios, Fard Muhammad, etc), exploiting them for titillation; I highly suspect that the "See synonyms at MONSTER" is also another invention.  This early Webster's certainly does not define hermaphrodite in such a manner, and I cannot foresee how other versions would do that (this is my opinion; who knows which edition/version Eugenides is referring to).  Jappalang (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eugenides is such a wily character! I never thought to check the definition of "hermaphrodite" he ascribes to Webster's. I look forward to your reworking of the the "Themes" section. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Intersex grammar
I am getting a bit confused by edits to "intersex" such as this and this. As far as I understand it, "intersex" is a mass noun only; it is not a singular nor an adjective. I asked about the rules for using the term (User talk:Moni3), and she asked if there were any authoritative sources that point the use of intersex other than what Oxford has prescribed. What are the grammatical sources for adjective and plurals? Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have little knowledge about the grammar related to the word "intersex". I've asked, a frequent editor of Intersex and commenter at Talk:Intersex, to take a look. Cunard (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'is not intersex' is better than 'is not an intersex', although 'is not an intersex person' might be what is meant, or 'a person who is intersex', even better; 'intersexes are...' is no better than 'intersex are...', 'intersex people' would be better, or 'people who are intersex'. Cannot give sources off the top of my head, but it is about courtesy. Think of 'gay' - 'is not a gay' - bad, 'is not gay', or 'is not a gay person' - better; 'gays are' - bad, 'gay people are' - better. Works for a range of identity groups, 'disableds' (people with disabilities), 'blacks'/'coloreds' ('black people' (UK) / 'people of color' (USA)), 'transsexuals', 'transgenders', 'homosexuals', and so on, all tend to get the same objections raised. It is just about respect. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 10:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made relevant changes, as well as replacing references to 'intersexuals', 'intersexes', 'intersexed' and 'intersexuality'. Intersex is not about sexuality, nor is it something that can be done to somebody (people cannot be 'intersexed' in the way beings can neutered, nor are intersex people 'the intersexed', intersex people are not 'intersexes') etc., etc. Where 'intersexuality' is used, then it should be quoted. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 11:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The juxtaposition of "an" intersex with "a gay" and "a disabled" was very helpful in clearing up my confusion over which form of the word to use. I wholly agree with your changes as significantly improving the article's accuracy. Because these changes seem to be in line with the Oxford dictionary, I think this problem is resolved. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so. First off, "respect" plays no part here. We are talking about the proper use of the English language (grammar), which would be key for FA's "professional standard" prose. WP:NPOV prescribes detachment from the subject and objective casting (treatment) in terms of content and language. To further clarify the doubts I am having:

From Oxford Dictionaries,


 * Intersex: noun [mass noun/count noun]
 * Disabled: adjective
 * Gay: adjective, noun
 * Homosexual: adjective, noun
 * Male: adjective, noun
 * Female: adjective, noun

In English, the typical structure is "adjective noun", e.g. a red car. You cannot use an adjective as a noun; hence, "he is a disabled" is grammatically incorrect. A count noun would require an article ("a", "an"). "Intersex" is not an adjective; it is a mass noun. The examples given above for "gay" are correct, but that is because "gay" is a noun and adjective (the same as male, female, homosexual, but not intersex). "He/she is an intersex individual" is proper per the dictionary, as is "intersex person"; but using it as a pure adjective ("he is intersex") seems decidedly against grammatical convention. Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Further reading and research only leaves me more confused, but that is because of Oxford's dual definition for the term (a mass and a count noun). Their uses sort of oppose each other (count can be plural, mass not); there seems to be ambiguity for the term then (well... one learns something new everyday).  Jappalang (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked to take a look at this. Cunard (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * With all respect to Jappalang, respect is significant when using terminology that applies to minority groups. If you visit a relevant project (LGBT studies), you will see certain guidelines about using terminology that applies to LGBT people. We do not use terminology that is deemed pejorative by the group it is applied to. So, we do not use terms like 'trannie', 'poof', 'n*gg*r', 'yid' unless it is in dealing with these as pejorative, homophobic, transphobic, racist, anti-semitic slurs. The way terms adopted by a given community are used will tend to be determined by the ways the community itself has established acceptable use. This is why we talk about 'gay people', rather than 'gays', or 'a gay person', rather than 'a gay'. I could do your job for you, and find the locations where it is made clear within the intersex community which terms are seen as acceptable and which are not, but given the changes I have made have been acknowledged as being in line with what the dictionary states, and given it is you who is confused about the usage, I will let you do the work of finding the locations which spell out what is and is not acceptable usage. I limit my input here these days, mainly because I have little energy for the arguments and nit-picking that seem to accompany even the most trivial of edits. I have been involved in research and activism specifically focused on intersex (as an intersex person) for a decade, although I appreciate that most editors here will not see this as being of any relevance. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 23:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See Definitions of intersex - OneLook Dictionary Search.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that these offer definitions of the generic name given to a set of medical conditions and phenotypic presentations. In the text, it is being used to refer to individuals and groups of people. If you wanted to be ruled by the dictionary definitions, you would need to excise any use of the term other than as a name referring to the medical situation they experience - not the people themselves. However, that leaves you with no easy way of referring to such people as a group or individual members of a group. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 01:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Final comments from Jappalang

 * Moved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cunard&oldid=470536160#Middlesex

Hey, so as to let you know, I am not giving up on this article. I am trying to gather and read up on the sources, which is taking up time. I am growing a bit concerned that the article might be having too much stuff and is too reliant on non-scholarly text. Just my thoughts at the moment (might change with time and further reading). Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. Please provide examples of non-scholarly sources, so I can better understand your position. Are you referring to the newspaper book reviews I've used? Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cunard. I apologize for saying this, but I am no longer able to continue work on Middlesex. I have decided to cease contributing to the WMF projects. In short, I no longer have the enthusiasm I once had; before taking this decision, I find myself constantly questioning why am I spending a substantial time (even while taking short wikibreaks) thinking of ways to improve articles and searching and validating "free" images when that time can be spent with my family or to advance my career. I again apologize; I arrived at this state of mind halfway through the work on Middlesex. I offer a synopsis of what my proposals in mollification.

Indeed, I do think relying on newspaper articles for thematic studies is not a good choice. Questions could be raised on why 30 pages of Shostak (and 22 pages of Cohen) are only used once while journalists are cited more than that. I also have an issue with presenting Thea Hillman's opinions in the article as salient points (i.e. more than a slight weightage). Hillman is a writer, not a critic or scholar. Furthermore, Hillman is also an intersex. I dare say Hillman's opinion towards the portrayal of intersex in the novel is less than objective. The novel's portrayals of intersex has been assessed by scholarly text that unforunately seem not to have been used here. Hillman's opinion could have been used but not to the degree that it is offered as a heavy counter-weight against mainstream views.


 * Appleton's is an early scholarly text; yet, it is not used at all. This (exclusion) is particularly strange to me; Appleton talks much about the transgender issues, pointing out that reviews tend to think the novel skimps on the gender identity issues and showing the novel had much to offer.
 * A peer reviewed journal: the article looks inside the racial/cultural theme of assimilation.
 * D'Erasmo might be an author and talks about Transformation here; however, I think only a short quip (most of it seems like meanderings and off-point ramblings to me) could be used for flavor.
 * This article might be too recent to judge its suitability for use; it does refer to Appleton's work.
 * Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.
 * D'Erasmo might be an author and talks about Transformation here; however, I think only a short quip (most of it seems like meanderings and off-point ramblings to me) could be used for flavor.
 * This article might be too recent to judge its suitability for use; it does refer to Appleton's work.
 * Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.
 * Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.
 * Milway gives a summarized review, but offers a list of themes.

I had certain candidates for images as well, subjected to space concerns:


 * File:Ellis Island immigration footage.ogg: A choice to illustrate parts that talk of the Stephinades immigration to the US
 * File:Condor Club North Beach1973.jpg: For parts that talk of Cal's work in San Francisco
 * File:DSC04480e Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Ermafrodito - sec. III a.C. - da Pergamo - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006.jpg: Hermaphrodite

That said, my personal belief is that currently the article has too much content in Themes. I had plans to go through and rewrite the section. Critical reception is also getting a bit large and acquires a quote farm-feel when the contents are mainly "he said .... she opined ... he thought". I was thinking of looking for common themes among the opinions and grouping them into a third-person presentation, as well as assessing whether an opinion was insignificant (held by only one or two). Even minor viewpoints (held by a minority compared to a common view) may have to be excluded or reduced, depending on how much have already been written. Jappalang (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the time and effort you've spent composing this final reply to me. I will carefully consider your suggestions about how to rewrite the "Themes" section to be based more on scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, rather than newspaper articles, and your apt image suggestions. I wish you success in your career and thank you for the innumerable hours of selfless service you've devoted to writing and improving articles and mentoring inexperienced editors such as myself. Cunard (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take a break of several months from a major restructuring of the "Theme" section in Middlesex so I can carefully think about how to approach it. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Zecker
Why is Robert Zecker's analysis so prominent in the subsection on race relations? His analysis of the story wasn't exactly impartial, and the fact that it's so focused on gives the section a biased feel. The section should be edited to give his analysis less importance, and bring in other analyses of race relations in the novel. That would make the section more balanced and neutral. Right now, it reads not like a look at race relations in the novel, but a look at Zecker's opinion on race relations in the novel. 2601:0:B101:30D0:A4CC:5582:A071:245C (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment, which I agree with. Feel free to add other analyses of race relations in the novel to that section. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)