Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Peer review

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 13 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (1x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Middlesex (novel)

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive some final feedback before I nominate it at WP:FAC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments by Efe
Comments from Jappalang

Lede

  • "Its characters and events are loosely based on the author's life and observations of his Greek heritage. Eugenides decided to write Middlesex after he ... was unsatisfied with its discussion of an intersex's anatomy and emotions. Narrator and protagonist Cal Stephanides (initially called "Callie") is a hermaphrodite man of Greek descent with a condition known as 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, which causes him to have certain feminine traits."
    Problem: after reading that, one might assume that Eugenides is an intersex, which is not true and possibly a BLP violation.
    While the article says "Its characters and events are loosely based on the author's life and observations of his Greek heritage", I don't think that leads readers to presume that Eugenides is intersex ("loosely based"). How should I clarify this? Should I explicitly state that Eugenides is not intersex? Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I would, but I may be a bit too sensitive here. You could solicit for other opinions (maybe when nominating it at the FAC). Jappalang (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how Eugenides' not being intersex can fit into the lead. I've asked Ginsengbomb (talk · contribs) and Brianboulton (talk · contribs) to take a look. Cunard (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked what was written a bit; the "Despite ... Although ..." seems a bit too much for my tastes. Please review to see if the changes are appropriate. Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes are appropriate. I've tweaked the punctuation a little. Cunard (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... portrays the journey of a mutated gene through three generations of a Greek family ..."
    This does not really seem right to me. It anthromophosizes the gene, which is not the same "entity" in three separate bodies. One cannot rightly say "journey of a mutated gene", and the novel is not focused ("portrays") on the gene either...
    Reworded to "... chronicles the impact of a mutated gene on three generations of a Greek family". Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background and publication

  • "... mainly because he found conveying the voice difficult."
    I think not many would readily which "voice" we are talking about here, so "... mainly because he encountered difficulties in establishing the narrative voice."
    Reworded. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wanting to relate sagas in the third person while relating psychosexual events in the first person, ..."
    Relate, relate? Find a synonym for one of them. The second "person" might also be redundant.
    Reworded and removed the second "person". Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Middlesex was released nine years after the publication of Eugenides' first novel, ..."
    Eh... is this (the time line) not a repetition of "It took Eugenides nine years to write the novel"?
    I think the current wording is not repetitive. The two uses of "nine years" provide two distinct facts: The second shows the unusual length of the novel's writing process, and the first demonstrates that Eugenides began working on his second novel immediately after publishing the first. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel these two facts can be combined into a smooth sequence. State that Eugenides started work after publishing his first novel at the start of the paragraph and go on from there. Jappalang (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reorganized. Cunard (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Setting

  • "Bithynios, a small village on Mount Olympus. For hundreds of years, the people of Bithynios have engaged in incestuous marriages. It is common for third cousins to marry; their offspring—siblings—also become cousins. In 1913, many people moved away from Bithynios because of the Balkan Wars. Thus, by 1922, approximately one hundred people live in the village with fewer than half being female."
    Is Bithynios a real life village? If yes, then the use of the novel and its reviews is not appropriate to assert the novel's account as true history. If not, then the setting should be explicitly stated as fictional (either in text or perhaps change the section title to "Fictional setting").
    Based on the sources I've read, I don't believe Bithynios is a real-life village. I've retitled the section per your suggestion. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a Bithynios in Turkey (Google it), which is what got me curious whether Euginedes referred to an obscure Greek village or not. Jappalang (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources I've read discuss whether Middlesex's Bithynios is based on a real village. A Google search (Bithynios Turkey -Middlesex) returns mostly mentions of a Bithynio, though there are twoWebCite sourcesWebCite that discusses a Bithynios:

    With mention of historic Turkish city Galata Galatae in the district of Pera Beyoglu and Bithynios a quaint village on the slopes of Mt. Olympus in Asia Minor.

    The sources do not mention Eugenides' Middlesex and seem to be a summary of the 1805 German book ‎Thrace Bosphorus Hydra Precedes Greek Revolution‎. I don't know how to incorporate this into the article without committing original research. Cunard (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike this, even the Turkish angle is discussed with regards to the novel. I think the village is fictional (and the change of the section header readily resolves this). We have no need to do our own research on this. Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Style

  • There is a bit of a choppy feel to the later part of this section (likely because of the short paragraphs). There is a bit of a jump in the reading flow from the second last to last paragraph (ironic tone -> use of music and myths to describe the passing of family traits).
    I've combined some of the related paragraphs so that it flows better. I do not know how to rectify the leitmofs paragraph. The sources does not provide any examples about leitmofs so this paragraph cannot be expanded. As I cannot find a better section for it, would it be better removed? Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek mythical allusions

  • "Cal repeatedly compares himself to Tiresias ... Cal is compared to the Minotaur, a creature that, like her, was half and half ... she is in her own labyrinth and only her grandmother ... Cal has the Greek deity Hermaphroditus' ability to empathize and to enter his ancestor's thoughts."
    Why is there a frequent switching of gender pronouns here? It is fine to stick with feminine Callie and masculine Cal, but this is just referring to Cal.
    Reworded the gender pronouns to male. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a disconnect between "... Olympus, a parallel to Bithynios, served well as the setting of a debacle ..." and "Legend denoted that after a cocoon dropped into her teacup". It is strange to read a Chinese legend immediately after the highlighting of a Greek mythological locale.
    The Chinese legend provides context for the Greek parallel, though is not pertinent to that paragraph. I've moved it to a footnote. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race relations

  • "When African Americans are beaten or taken advantage of by whites, none of the characters in Middlesex feels compassion for them. ... However, despite this misinformation, Lefty denies service to a number of white customers who partook in the riots."
    There seems to be some disconnect between the ideas here... I thought the primary theme of this paragraph is the discrimination against African Americans by the characters?
    I agree that there is a discrepancy between the first sentence and the following one. The United States in that era was a nativist country. Both African Americans and immigrants (such as Greeks like Lefty) received discriminatory treatment from the native-born whites. Lefty's rare show of compassion demonstrates his sympathizing with the African Americans' plight. I will take another look at the source to clarify this paragraph. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reorganized the section for clarity. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is an improvement. Jappalang (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nature vs. nurture

  • Why not spell the section header in full "Nature versus nurture" as per the subsequent text? There is another instance of "vs." that should be expanded for consistency as well then.
    Done. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gender identity

  • "Cal's embrace of his inherent male identity and renunciation of his childhood female gender identity is articulated by Cal when he reflects, ..."
    I think "by Cal" is redundant here.
    Removed. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

  • "However, in the week following April 7, 2003, the day Middlesex won the Pulitzer Prize, the book sold 2,700 copies. The Pulitzer award nearly propelled Middlesex to The New York Times Best Seller list, which publishes only the top 15 bestsellers; in the week after Middlesex was announced the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, the novel placed 17th on the 'expanded list'."
    I stumbled a bit when reading this. Firstly, there is the interruption in talking about the week after winning the Pulitzer Prize: "the book sold 2,700 copies ... <<interruption>> ... [and] placed 17th on the 'expanded list'." I think it will be better to move the expoundation of the NYT Best Seller list to the rear. It might also help to state that it was Top 15 at that time (2003); I believe the NYT Best Seller regular list is now Top 20.
    The emphasis of Pulitzer Prize seems to be off here (Sales) and it might help to move at least the Honors to before this subsection; some awards were given before 2003. — Jappalang (17 September 2011 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
    I've moved The New York Times Best Seller list to the rear per your suggestion and noted that the list only had the top 15 books in 2003. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "... there was no reason that a Greek should be a hermaphrodite or a hermaphrodite should be a Greek, ..."
    I think it more succinct to say, "... there was no reason that a Greek should be a hermaphrodite or vice versa, ..."
    Reworded. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... wrote that thematically, there was no reason ... but that Eugenides had two disconnected stories to tell."
    I do not see the contradiction ("but") here.
    Changed to "and". Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Eugenides purposefully devised this asymmetry."
    I am not certain it is wise to counter a critic's opinion of what he/she perceives as a flaw with the author's assertion that he intended it as such. It might be better to find another critic who likes the design instead.
    Reworded to attribute the statement to The Washington Post's Lisa Zeidner. Cunard (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... noting that Middlesex is unlike Eugenides' first novel in that it is 'funny, big, embracing, and wonderful'."
    "... noting that Middlesex is 'funny, big, embracing, and wonderful', unlike Eugenides' first novel."
    Reworded. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... whereas Middlesex deals with gender, life, and genes, The Virgin Suicides deals with gender and death."
    It seems redundant to list "gender" in this contrasting statement.
    The source states:

    Where The Virgin Suicides reflected on connections between sex and death, its successor considers the links between sex, life and inheritance.

    I've clarified the article to specifically discuss the connections instead of the individual topics. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honors and adaptations

  • The first part is fine, but the later short paragraphs make it a choppy read; furthermore, "In spite of this acclamation, its sales were initially underwhelming; it later became a best-selling book." seems repetitive of the first part of Sales.
    I've combined some of the related paragraphs and removed the repetitive sentence. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be better to restructure the article's last part as such:

  • Reception
    • Critical reception
    • Honors and accolades
    • Sales

This has been a pretty good read. The content seems to be a lot though; perhaps some things need to be trimmed but I am not an expert on these sort of things. Other than that, I think after resolving the above, the article could stand a good chance at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these very helpful comments. I will address them later today. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because Middlesex received the Pulitzer Prize, it has received much attention from academics, more so than than most books. My research is a summary of the various articles, books, and journal I have been able to obtain. I hope Middlesex passes Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #4 and will be interested in what others say. Thank you again for reading and reviewing the article and catching the discrepancies, tautologies, and awkward wordings. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. The changes look good and I look forward to seeing how it fares at FAC. Good luck. Jappalang (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Middlesex_(novel)/archive2&oldid=1144452959"