At Broadcasting and Cable, they are reporting that:
The working logline for the potential drama series being used internally at HBO is that it "follows the life of Calliope Stephanides and the epic family history that may hold the answer to her complicated sexual identity."
This one scares me a bit. I read the book a few years ago, and while I love his writing the plot is offensive in a couple of ways. Basically ishis main character is intersex. (Not sure what that terms means? Go here).
We need more attention paid to intersex folks and their lives. The book was an Oprah's Book Club selection. But instead of doing a thoughtful representation of an intersex person, Eugenides uses Calliope's intersex status as a way to add drama to the plot. My main problem (besides some weird language he uses to talk about Calliope) is that he implies that the reason Calliope is intersex is because of incest between Calliope's grandparents (that's the "epic family history") that the quote above references.
Trying to tie being intersex with something like incest is offensive for a few reasons. One, it once again emphasizes the idea that this is some huge abnormality that only happens when something goes really wrong, like a brother and sister having children. Actually, it's a pretty common occurrence and 1 in 2000 babies born could be classified as intersex. It also sensationalizes Calliope's story, and the lives of all intersex people.
I'm not the first to criticize the way Eugenides dealt with this is his book, a number of other activists and authors already have. But I'm pretty sure, from reading that logline, that HBO will fall into the same traps.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Middlesex to be developed into HBO series.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14907
Great post, Miriam! I couldn't agree more. When I read the book, it felt like the author did everything he could to sensationalize intersex people just to make his books sell better. The novel was boring, ignorant, uninsightful, and offensive. Why does HBO think we need a miniseries based on it is beyond me.
Really? If anything, I thought Eugenides' message was very positive and progressive. I'm not interesex, so obviously there are limitations on the experience I bring to my reading, but what I got from the novel is that intersex people can live happy lives, even in the face of immense difficulties. Towards the end of the novel, Calliope is told that she will undergo an operation to "correct" her intersexuality. Instead of complying, she refuses the surgery, choosing to remain intersex for the rest of her life. In the end, she is able to make sense of her situation.
Eugenides doesn't portray Calliope as a monster; on the contrary, he creates an intelligent, funny, likeable character to whom everyone can somewhat relate. And although we, as readers, feel sympathy for Calliope, considering all the difficulties she faces, our sympathy does not extend so far as to become condescension. Far from being a helpless, whiny bowl of jello, Calliope is strong, capable, and grounded.
I think Middlesex sends a generally positive message about intersex people. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could come away from this book with "Eww! That's so wierd and disgusting!" and not total compassion for Calliope. I think what makes Middlesex such a great book is the author's affection for his characters. From Calliope's conservative, grumpy father, to the Object of Obscure Desire, he crafts them all with such tenderness and care that it is impossible not to either love, empathise with, or at least appreciate each and every one of them. Even Calliope's grandparents-- incestuous relationship and all-- are treated by the author with compassion and respect. Ultimately, I don't think Calliope is portrayed as horribly abnormal; she is simply a human being trying to find her way through life's complexities.
Another criticism of the book which I did not mention is that Eugenides didn't talk to or interview any intersex folks while writing the book. So many of his portrayal's or observations are not based on actual life experiences.
That's mentioned in here.
Shocking - a fiction author who made everything up! I don't know about everyone else but I read fiction to be entertained not educated. Requiring fiction authors to be teachers of the truth is a little unfair don't you think?
Writing fiction does not mean the author gets to be lazy. I'm a voracious reader. I pay attention to authors' discussions of how they researched their books before writing them. I know fantasy authors who spend an entire year doing research before writing! Authors who don't research before writing generally write internally inconsistent and unsatisfying stories that don't ring true. I have absolutely no patience for anyone who thinks that fiction gets a pass when it comes to being authentic.
I have never had any interest in reading Middlesex (I'm wary of the big bestsellers that non-readers tend to love), but I'm flabbergasted that the author would write about people who he's never even talked to. Unbelievably lazy.
This is not a 'big bestseller that non-readers tend to love' - it won the Pulitzer Prize. Doesn't mean you have to read it or enjoy it, but it's nothing close to schlock.
Who called it schlock? The Road by Cormac McCarthy won a Pulitzer too, and it was nothing special in terms of post-apocalyptic fiction. However, since Oprah talks these books up and gets tons of people who don't tend to read much interested in them, they end up getting elevated beyond their merit.
So yes, it is a big best-seller (meaning, it was on the best-seller charts, moved a lot of copies) that non-readers (people who only read a couple books a year, and only because they were recommended) loved.
Well we have two different approaches to literature it seems. For me fiction is a work of art, a creation of the imagination. Your proscription for research is part of the process of creation, the process that an author uses in the creation of their characters is theirs. I don't feel the need to dictate a specific approach nor do I feel the need to judge the work itself on the process of its creation. I don't assume that an author of a work of fiction has researched extensively nor do I assume that if the author has researched that my interpretation of that research would be the same as theirs. If I want to attain knowledge about something that I've read about in a work of fiction I do my own research.
You're "flabbergasted that the author would write about people who he's never even talked to" how can an author talk (other than in their head) to one of their characters? Ok, I'm being a literal in my interpretation but the requirement is impossible to meet, you're saying that as his character happens to be intersex that he cannot just imagine what she thinks/feels or how she acts he must create a "ring true" character by talking to intersex people - how many would meet your requirement or are they homogeneous enough that one would do? I must admit I've never really understood the criticism of fiction and films for not being "real" - it's a crazy concept to me of course they're not real - it's a story!
I'm not surprised that you haven't read Middlesex - you seem to be more interested in journalistic writing than fiction.
you seem to be more interested in journalistic writing than fiction.
Um, no. Look, if you're going to write about a museum curator, for a random example, you should spend some time with a real museum curator. Get a feel for what they do.If you're going to write about a place, you should try to visit it. You can just tell when someone knows the city their story is set in. Some of the best mysteries I've read have been by people who spent time covering the crime beat at a newspaper (Denise Hamilton, Michael Connelly). It infuses it with a richness that comes from personally being in touch with their subject. It just makes for better storytelling.
He claims he didn't speak to intersex people because he wanted Cal's voice to be original. He did, however, read a lot of literature on the subject, from medical articles to the journal "Hermaphrodites with Attitude" published by The Intersex Society of North America, with whom he was in contact throughout.
I don't know of a single author, fiction or otherwise, that does no research while in the process of writing a book.
Using your logic, simply because it's a work of fiction the author could've chosen to completely change what being intersex actually was. I mean, what was he supposed to do? Research the definition? It's fiction! He can just make one up! /snark
For me yes he can just make something up. The characters in an author's book are their creation I don't want to dictate to them how they create. I explained more thoroughly to alixana above.
And what's even more annoying is that we both ascribed a masculine gender to author by default!!!!
No, I was specifically using a male gender because the author of Middlesex (Jeffrey Eugenides) is MALE. I wasn't speaking in generalities. I used an exampple about not knowing the definition of intersex so I was obviously talking about THIS author and THIS book.
Frankly, the type of fiction you're describing (where no research is required at all) seems utterly lazy to me and I would not read it. I totally agree with everything alixana said.
Weird,
I could have sworn I just saw
a group of feminists
debating each other about
whether a marginalized group of people
had any business gently critiquing
a portrayal of a member of their group
(albeit fictional)
in which they saw themselves misrepresented
and felt maybe a little disregarded.
Huh.
I couldn't respectfully disagree more! I think fiction can point to truth if not facts per se. My feelings about fiction and truth were largely shaped by "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by Azar Nafisi, which I recommend highly.
And in this specific case, I don't think "Middlesex" was ever intended to be a light read or purely entertaining. The point was, I presume, to introduce readers to an Intersex charater and generate compassion and sympathy. With that goal, it is odd that Eugenides never interviewed an Internsex person! How can you inspire compassion or activism for a cause you yourself are not familiar with?
I don't see how this story is offensive because Callie's grandparents loved each other and had children. He doesn't even portray the incestous relationship in a negative light, whereas you do by saying such an association is tainting.
While I would like to see more stories about intersex people who have a much more ordinary history, it certainly isn't wrong to write stories of people who are intersex because of a particular genetic history.
I'm going to read some of the criticisms now that you linked, but my first impression of the book was that he did a thoughtful and nuanced job of fleshing out Callie's character for a mainstream novelist. Especially the veiled critique of Dr. Money at the end of the book.
The Intersex Initiative doesn't even critique the book at all actually. They just say that it is important to remember that persons who have 5-alpha reductase deficiency syndrome are not representative of all intersex people, and Calliope struggled with some gender problems that many intersex persons do not deal with.
I do agree with them, however, that Oprah and other news outlets should find a more knowledgeable spokesperson to discuss intersex issues.
Yeah, I noticed that too. The critique was that Cal did not represent the average intersex person. I mean, really? Ugh. It's when people expect fictional characters to perfectly represent minority everypersons that you get really boring and preachy novels.
This. I think a lot of people want characters to function as platforms who discuss every angle of every issue and somehow magically represent every nuance of whatever possible identities said character holds. That's not really the point of fiction. A character who talks about such things is more of a mouthpiece than a person; good fiction is character-driven, with a plot emerging from who the characters are. Sketching out an 'issues' plot and dropping characters in is likely to result in caricatures rather than real, rounded characters.
A well-drawn fictional character (such as Calliope) is one specific person with specific experiences, not all of which are supposed to apply to every intersex/white/black/Jewish/asexual, etc., etc. person. We don't expect a book about a Latina to encompass every aspect of Latin American culture and experience, so why would we expect a novel about an intersex character to do the same?
I think part of it is that many people out there don't know about intersexuality, so it seems really, really important for a range of experiences to be written about; however, should this be entirely Eugenides' responsibility? I think the some of the criticisms of his novel should more accurately be targeted towards a) readers who don't try to find out more from nonfiction sources and b) authors who are shy about writing intersex characters.
These are exactly my thoughts. People are unique individuals. Just because part of their identity is the same as the parts of many other people's identities doesn't mean that these people are all exactly the same or have the same experiences.
I actually find this perspective to be offensive. People aren't just divided up into groups based on parts of their identities. All Jewish people aren't the same. Yes, you could ask one Jewish person what it's like to be Jewish but their answer will be vastly different from another Jewish person's, or it may be very similar.
I think Eugenides was just trying to write a compelling, relatable character, part of whose identity involved dealing with being intersex. Now, if all intersex characters in the media were portrayed in the same way, that would be offensive. But that is not the case.
That said, I'm really nervous about how this will be dealt with on television and how viewers will respond.
I found Middlesex really boring. Like one of those TLC half-hour shows titled "Raised as a girl but really a boy!" I like Eugenides and I loved the Virgin Suicides, but he clearly writes from a very straight white male perspective.
And as for the HBO series... eh. It will expose a whole lot of people to the idea of intersexuality in a mostly positive way. That's a really good thing, despite all the omg offensive elements of the story.
One in 2000 is really common? I get that in a country of 300M people that's 150K intersex individuals, but you'd call a .05% occurrence common? Seems like you've walked out to the tip of a reeeally loooong limb if that's your primary beef. I think the vast majority (99.95%) of the country poorly understands the intersex phenomenon, if they even know about it at all. If the story is presented with humanity and grace I say go for it!
Actually, some estimates go as low as 1 in 100, if conditions such as hypospadias are included.
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Um, you're comparing apples and oranges. Your list is one of people who's bodies differ sexually from the standard male and female body. That doesn't mean they're intersex.
I picked one of the conditions at random - Classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. Yes, one in 13,000 people have it, but only a small minority of those are actually intersex.
Even a smaller minority of hypospadias patients would consider themselves intersex.
I'm really skeptical of these numbers now.
ISNA states that the word "intersex" refers to a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male. All the conditions bifemmefatale listed qualify.
In your estimation at what point does a person qualify as "actually intersex"?
Obviously, there are many different definitions of intersex out there and it benefits ISNA to have the broadest definition possible. Theirs is one in which basically any genital deformity or hormonal abnormality can qualify a person as intersex. A man with XY chromosomes (complete with a functioning copy SRY gene), a pair testicles, an eight inch long penis and all the typical male hormones and receptors would still qualify as intersex because his urethra opening is on a funny place on his dick.
Or take vaginal agenesis. An XX woman with functioning ovaries, vulva, clitoris, breasts, and vagina is considered "intersex" because she was born without a uterus. Doesn't that strike you as more than a little disingenuous?
To me, a person who is intersex is one whose sex at birth is neither clearly male nor female and it usually involves genetic and hormonal defects. I wouldn't consider a person with only a micropenis or enlarged clitoris intersex unless they requested to be referred to as such.
This comment strikes me as a bit insensitive. Maybe it's the flippant way you talk about people's genitals.
Oh for fucks sake. I've taken more than my fair share of anatomy and physiology courses. I'm not going to talk about genitals in hushed, reverent tones. They're just tissue and organs to me. I'm going to talk about them the same way I talk about livers and sinuses.
This comment strikes me as a bit insensitive. Maybe it's the flippant way you talk about people's genitals.
Or take vaginal agenesis. An XX woman with functioning ovaries, vulva, clitoris, breasts, and vagina is considered "intersex" because she was born without a uterus. Doesn't that strike you as more than a little disingenuous?
Not really. I don't feel that I, as a person who is not intersex, have any right to declare who "qualifies" as intersex. If the intersex community feels vaginal agenesis belongs under the intersex umbrella, who am I to disagree?
To me, a person who is intersex is one whose sex at birth is neither clearly male nor female and it usually involves genetic and hormonal defects. I wouldn't consider a person with only a micropenis or enlarged clitoris intersex unless they requested to be referred to as such.
I think what qualifies as a "micropenis" or "enlarged clitoris" is highly subjective and I'm not sure who is qualified to draw the line between the two. So far as enlarged clitoris, the ISNA does mention that it is frequently a result of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia.
Not really. I don't feel that I, as a person who is not intersex, have any right to declare who "qualifies" as intersex. If the intersex community feels vaginal agenesis belongs under the intersex umbrella, who am I to disagree?
You know, I don't care too much about who the intersex community is claiming as their own to boost their numbers on paper. I care about the actual people with those disorders. I guarantee you that only very small percentage of men with hypospadias would consider themselves intersex. Only a very small percentage of women with vaginal agenesis would consider themselves intersex.
You're right, most people don't know very much about intersex individuals (myself included), and we need way more books, films, documentaries, and general information about it.
But it's all relative whether or not 1 in 2,000 is a "common" condition. Have you every seen anyone with dwarfism? Most people in the seminars I teach answer they have at one point. The most common form of that condition occurs at a rate of 1 in every 40,000 births.
The best information I can find is that there are estimated to be 300,000 cases of dwarfism in the U.S., that puts it at about 1/1000 cases.
There is a much higher estimate from Meredith University that states that 1.5 million people have some form of dwarfism, but this may be accounted for by people with the gene but who do not present visible symptoms.
I think that's a very broad definition - probably including short stature caused human growth hormone deficiency, which is a treatable condition that would therefore be as "invisible" as carriers of dwarfism genes. The most COMMON form of dwarfism occurs at 1 in every 26,000 to 40,000 births. 70% of all diagnosed cases of dwarfism (skeletal dysplasia resulting in a height under 4'10") are achondroplasia. FYI, these are the figures for the top three most common diagnoses:
1. Achondroplasia (1 per 26,000 to 40,000 births)
2. SED Congenita (1 per 95,000 births)
3. Diastrophic dysplasia (1 per 110,000 births)
(Little People of America; Johns Hopkins University - best sources I've worked with)
After a big detour from the main topic of the post, my point was that it's all relative whether 1 in 2000 (or, in my case, 1 in 26,000) is "common."
I actually disagree quite a bit. I just finished the book about a month ago, so it is fresh in my memory. Even if Eugenides didn't interview intersex people personally, it was clear to me that he did a LOT of research on that subject and other ones in the book. He quotes memoirs of other intersex people in his book and there is a lot of medical information that, when I consulted other sources, matched. As for the incest thing, the particular mutation that Callie/Cal possesses specifically exists in areas of genetic isolation--i.e. small villages where a lot of inbreeding takes place. This is how many genetic disorders occur. As another poster said, the relationship between the grandparents, though incestuous, is described in a tender and loving way.
Eugenides never claimed that Cal's was the only form of intersex. There is another intersex character with a much more common mutation in the San Francisco chapter who discusses gender/intersex activism. He mentions many of the other forms of intersex mutations in passing and a careful reader can easily look them up for more information.
Eugenides was very critical of the doctors who tried to force gender stereotypes on people and I thought the way he handled gender was intelligent and well-informed. As for the "Straight white male" writing style, I wholeheartedly disagree. I really liked how Callie/Cal did not completely fit with either men or women, but both. As a 20-year-old woman, the descriptions of Cal's adolescence as a girl were spot on and for a man, Eugenides handled the girl psyche pretty well.
Basically, I thought it was a very well-written, well-researched book and that the criticisms here are a little off. The treatment of intersex characters was a sensitive one and I think it's great that Eugenides offers the public some exposure to this issue, which is often shrouded in mystery and misunderstood by many people.
"As for the incest thing, the particular mutation that Callie/Cal possesses specifically exists in areas of genetic isolation--i.e. small villages where a lot of inbreeding takes place. This is how many genetic disorders occur."
My impression is that Miriam doesn't like the biological causes of intersexuality to be thought of as abnormalities, disorders or defects at all since those carry a negative connotation. I don't know. I was a genetics major in college and I roll my eyes when people shy away from scientifically accurate terms because they aren't "nice." To me, intersexuality is just like a cleft palate or dwarfism. There's no shame to admit that a hormone receptor isn't functioning, that it is defective.
And I might be wrong about this, but she also seems annoyed that, out of all the causes of intersexuality, Euginedes chose to use one that is the most grotesque and sensationalistic one possible.
I don't know... incest occupies a weird space in lgbtq issues. It kind of reminds me of how some cisgendered gays and lesbians don't want to associate with transpeople because it doesn't fit in with the nice buttoned-up middle class image they are trying to sell. In a similar way, people don't want to be associated with incest at all, even when it occurs between two consenting (and maybe even loving) adults. It's too weird, the stigma is too strong, etc.
".....because it doesn't fit in with the nice buttoned-up middle class image they are trying to sell."
There is a great scene in the film "Jeffrey" where Patric Stewart laments that every time he sees a positive portrayal/interview with a gay couple on the news it is some straight-laced normative guy while he (Stewart) is a very openly "flamboyant" gay man and is happy to be that way. His line is "Oh, look at her!". Makes me chuckle every time.
Your points are all valid and as a carrier of dominant mutated genes, I agree that it's important to discuss medical conditions honestly since science is without emotion - it's neutral. You seem to understand, though, why individuals with medical conditions causing them to be marginalized in society are sensitive to portrayals of the cause of their condition.
When I explain my achondroplasia to people, I frequently have to answer, "So did your mom take drugs when she was pregnant with you?" It doesn't upset me, but it frustrates me to realize that many people seeing individuals with dwarfism on the street are wrongly assuming that they're the product of criminalized behavior that could have been avoided. (They also run the risk of wrongly assuming, "That'll never happen to MY kids.") It requires a lot of correcting and removing of stigmas.
Have you by any chance read SURGICALLY SHAPING CHILDREN? It discusses exactly the cases you grouped together - cleft palate, dwarfism, and intersexuality.
Oh, that's a strange coincidence. I haven't read that book. I just happened to use those cases as examples. I am intrigued though. It's such a complex issue.
"I agree that it's important to discuss medical conditions honestly since science is without emotion - it's neutral."
This is actually something I've been thinking about for awhile. I mean, it is obvious that practitioners of medical science are often not neutral and the language of medical science can be politically charged. Still, I believe that the actual science of it is still neutral.
I've been questioning myself a lot ever since I read an article about high-functioning autistic people who did not want to be considered disordered. Instead, they promoted "neurodiversity." And I'm sure you're quite familiar with worries among the dwarf community of how genetic screening might mean your population will dwindle as average height parents choose to only have normal height children. And maybe you've heard about how the deaf community is fiercely protective of their culture and sometimes even intentionally have children who are deaf as well so they might share it with them.
It all boils down to one question for me -- When do we embrace so-called disorders as simply another form of diversity in which no treatment is necessary and when do we acknowledge that something in a patient's body has gone "wrong" and work to "correct" it?
I don't know all of the specific critiques about his portrayal of an intersexed lifestyle.
As far as portraying it as something odd she has to deal with, well, I think that IS the reality for a lot of intersex people.
But anyway, my only really solid complaint with this post is that the logic was a little off. I'm fairly common that incest is MORE common than being intersexed, if chances of being intersexed are 1 in 2000. Which doesn't speak to how acceptable those things are, except that maybe we don't want to use "commonness" as the rule to dictate what kind of treatment something deserves.
I agree. I think the problem with the book is that it's neither flat-out offensive to intersex people nor 100% supportive and progressive. It's subtly sensationalist, and therein lies the danger of making the audience think they're being enlightened when in fact the subject is just another freak show to satisfy our voyeuristic tendencies.
The issue of intersex identity keeps coming up randomly at odd points in the story and, as Miriam said, seemingly only for the sake of jazzing up the plot. After reading it, I didn't feel Eugenides had explained at all WHY Calliope decided to become Cal, and instead of a heartfelt account of being intersex in today's hypersexed world, we got a rather academic, distanced analysis peppered with philosophical ruminations on gender that compared the genitals to flowers.
He treated the issue of incest with some level of depth; explaining why and how a brother and sister would form an attraction to one another and then know to hide it. By comparison, Cal/Calliope seemed to be a sideshow on display.
I have a very different perspective. I felt like the purpose of the story was to simultaneously illuminate readers to the existence of intersex people and to humanize the "issue". (the fact that the word "intersex" has a red line under it when I write it is testament to how unaware our society is that such an identity exists).
I felt like the reason the "issue of intersex identity" kept coming up when it did is because the story wasn't necessarily about being intersex. It was about a complex and relatable character who is an intersex person. She faces many struggles, as does her family. Coming to terms with being intersex was just one of them. Yes, it was one of the main focuses but I think that was necessary because, compared to her other obstacles, it was something that other people don't have to deal with so she was pretty much on her own in coping with it.
I really didn't feel like it was sensationalized at all. For much of the story it was an afterthought, just something in the background that Callie was gradually becoming aware of, until she reaches puberty and has to face her changing body head on like most of us do when we hit puberty.
I think the fact that she decided to become Cal is in line with my understanding of 5-alpha reductase. Most people who have this condition end up identifying their gender as male.
Also the fact that it wasn't explained perfectly why she chose to become Cal is because people often don't know for sure why they make the choices they do. I think it was partially intuitive and, frankly, the exact reasoning wasn't important. At that point in the story it was what felt right to Callie. Sometimes that's all we need to make choices. It's illustrated throughout the book that Cal, the narrator, is still figuring out his identity, especially how he relates to his past life as Callie.
I especially liked this aspect of the novel because I believe all people struggle with their identity in many ways and this struggle goes on throughout life for many of us.
I didn't feel it was voyeuristic any more than I do when reading any other book written from the first-person perspective. The thing I felt most often was familiarity and relatability. I think this is the book's greatest virtue. Everyone I know who has read it has related very strongly to the main character.
I can't say it does perfect justice to intersex identity but since I can't think of any other best-selling, pulitzer prize-winning novels that deal with intersex identity I think it is pretty progressive.
I can understand your perspective; it just surprises me because it is so different from what I experienced with this novel, and from what my friends took away from it.
And I understand your perspective. It's good you felt you could relate to the main character - I didn't - and it's interesting that you consider the on/off treatment of the intersex issue appropriate to the background thinking we all tend to have about our sexualities and gender identity. Connection with a character I suppose is what determines whether or not we're learning vs. staring.
The intentions were certainly progressive, but I can't let go of the feeling that a straight male writing (and not researching!) the experiences of an intersex individual is shaky ground. As a writer myself, I know that authors should be encouraged to delve into subjects unfamiliar to them, but this can be socially dangerous when the book then becomes THE source of information on the subject for most people. Sort of like MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA was branded in Japan as "A story about a Japanese woman written by a white man, later portrayed by Chinese actors" and certainly ended up being the authoritative source on that topic for Westerners.
I think the book raised my consciousness significantly, making me aware of issues that other people deal with. I think holding the author responsible for associating incest and intersex is silly. The fact is that incest makes more likely any disorder wherein two recessive genes need to be present - and Cal's disorder was of this type. The author does not imply this was the only way to get this disorder or that this is the only disorder causing intersex(icity?).
My hope is that the HBO series will have a compassionate protagonist in the same way the book did, and will thus help to start shedding some light on issues our society has traditionally left in the dark. Fingers crossed!
I thought it was gorgeously written (and so did the Pulitzer Prize Committee) - all the characters were fully realized human beings, especially Calliope. S/he was shown as a complex, constantly developing and evolving person from childhood to adulthood - I especially liked that s/he went to an all-girls school and observed the difference between girls who behaved in traditionally feminine ways and had conventionally attractive appearances (Charm Bracelets) vs. less idealized forms of girlhood. S/he is attracted to women - thus appearing/being considered a lesbian to most people, since s/he was socialized as a woman - Eugenides doesn't portray gayness as weird or aberrant - Calliope's sexual and romantic desires for girls are described as as normal as desires for boys would be.
And he DID do research - there are other types of intersexuality mentioned (and embodied in characters) in the story, with clear explanations of the physical characteristics and lived experiences of inter folks.
Re: the incest - I didn't come away from the book thinking intersexuality usually results from incest; that was just - possibly - the case with Calliope. Nowhere in the book - including Calliope's visits to a questionable doctor - does any character say so.
I'm actually really, really confused by the commenters saying Cal is a sideshow or put there as a sensational plot device - s/he's not a device, s/he's the SUBJECT of the book, and the entire thing is an exploration of her/his embodied and mental experience as an intersex person.
I couldn't agree more..That's pretty much what I was trying to say, but you said it a lot better
I'm actually really, really confused by the commenters saying Cal is a sideshow or put there as a sensational plot device - s/he's not a device, s/he's the SUBJECT of the book, and the entire thing is an exploration of her/his embodied and mental experience as an intersex person.
I think the objections are not to the fact that Cal is an intersexed character, but the treatment of this. Though I can't recall reading another fiction book that has an intersexed character, I have no doubt that it could be treated in an informed, respectful matter. Cal is not the device, being intersexed is the device.
I guess I never really thought of Middlesex as being a book about an intersexed person. I saw Cal's intersexed body as a catalyst for character growth and action towards the end of the book but isn't it a book about heritage and growing up and american culture among other things? I mean is the Slaughterhouse 5 a book about someone with PTSD?
I had no idea until right now that this book at been a big deal...oprah's book club and what not. I just picked it up because I liked the virgin suicides and I ended up really loving it. The way it was told more than the story itself. I think there are some really good passages in it.
I like all the comments made by the people defending the book. I personally felt like it was a very sensitive portrayal of intersexed people, and I knew a lot of friends struggling with their gender identity who found a lot of comfort in the book.
So Calliope and hir family aren't the ideal that the intersexed movement wants to promote. Again, fiction would be boring if every minority group had to be represented by the most acceptable, least sensational member of it. I'm not saying that authors shouldn't make a point to be sensitive when dealing with oppressed groups, but every good writer knows that for characters to be believable they have to be flawed. If he had made Cal into an intersexed Mary Sue, he wouldn't have won the Pulitzer or even come close. Also, he clearly did his research and does show other intersexed people besides Calliope.
I'm not saying fiction isn't real or can't imply moral attitudes; we've gone over on this site before how ridiculous it is for Stephanie Meyer to say that Edward & Bella's disturbing relationship wouldn't affect her readers' standards because it's "fiction." But there's a difference between using a work of fiction as a moral compass and between using it as a nonfiction textbook. Eugenides didn't intend Middlesex to be Intersexuality 101, and any informed reader should know that and seek out more info if they are interested (I certainly did). As for the Oprah Show, in recent years she's often shown a blatant disregard for the truth when it gets in the way of her childlike hyper-enthusiasm for each "Next Big Thing" (case in point: Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccine paranoia) so anyone who takes her show too seriously has their own set of problems. You can't blame a talented writer for a misinformed reader who doesn't differentiate between fantasy and reality.
I'm sort of puzzled at some of the defenses - so interviewing a few intersex people won't let Eugenides know about all intersex people, because everyone is an individual. This is absolutely true. But does that really mean he shouldn't talk to any at all?
Also, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a bunch of non-intersex people disagreeing with intersex people who are complaining about what a non-intersex author wrote or how he gathered his information. Although, now that I type that out, not surprised.
Last, I'm not down with the idea of a marginalized group being used as a source of entertainment without the author attempting to get to know some members of the group first. Even if he talked to a few and decided that none of them inspired him to take his story in a different direction, or to write things that he didn't think of until he talked to him, there's some level of respect that's missing here, no matter how beautifully written it might be, no matter how much this story resonates for non-intersex people.
end of last paragraph should be, "until he talked to them," not him. Bad typo.
thanks for this post highlighting the real-life problems of the intersexed and their fight for physical integrity! also thanks to all commenters who seconded that!
personally, i wouldn't be too harsh on eugenides, since his book surely raised many people's awareness. on the other hand, i witnessed too many times, how middlesex is used to debate "gender identity" while not losing a single thought about the genital mutilation of helpless intersexed infants happening daily in front of our very doorsteps. also think it's a pity how eugenides even mentions the intersex society of america (isna) but obviously doesn't do it justice.
and thanks but definitely no thanks to the alarming multitude of commenters imposing their "professional" views of what's "disordered" and has to be surgically "corrected" and what's not (including the obligatory 1:1 comparison with cleft palate), and the ones engaging in navel-gazing about their own "sexual identity", both groups obviously without too much (or sometimes obviously not even a single) thought about ethics or human rights involved ... (no surprise argolis obviously doesn't know the mentioned book "surgically altering children")
the systematic and ongoing forced genital surgeries on intersexed infants are arguably the worst human rights violation of the post-war "western world". though i don't have much hope that the perpetrators of these midical crimes will ever see the error of their ways without being legally forced to do so, i think it's a shame how still too many feminists chose to ignore it.
however, after a detailed shadow report had been submitted, last february for the first time a government got (mildly) rebuked by a united nations committee for the non-consented genital mutilations performed on hermaphrodite infants:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/
http://intersex.shadowreport.org/
...the systematic and ongoing forced genital surgeries on intersexed infants are arguably the worst human rights violation of the post-war "western world".
Hah. You lost me there. That is one heavy dose of hyperbole.
Anyway, I think a number of people were seriously considering medical ethics in their comments and I didn't see a single commenter who was advocating surgery for anyone too young to give consent.
By the way, the title of the book is "Surgically
Shaping Children."
am afraid was a bit in a rush, so yes, i did do a mistake abut the title of the book, my fault.
however, it's still a fact that the overwhelming majority of the authors of "surgically shaping children" comes to the conclusion, that cleft palate surgery is ethical, whereas forced genital surgery on "ambiguous" genitalia is not. you can also try "ethics and intersex" ed. sharon sytsma: "The news is not good. Clitoral surgery, even when involving techniques less drastic than clitorectomy, compromises adult sexual functions." (p. xxiv) "intersex in the age of ethics" is also recommended.
frankly, i failed to notice real ethical considerations in your comments. on the contrary, your insisting it's "disorders" and "defects" and nothing else (and isolated syndroms, not intersex, but which coincidentally just get the same forced surgery anyway) usually only leads to the obvious conclusions, i.e. the "disorder" has to be "fixed", and the "fix", as you probably know, is forced genital surgery on infants. or did i miss something?
also i should have written "arguably the worst human rights vialiation IN the post-war 'western world'" (obviously they commit worse abroad). considering the long occurence of these systematic surgeries (at least 50 years), the gravity of the damage done and the vast number of victims involved, i can't see anything hyperbolic about it. however, you're kindly invited to name worse human rights violations than the systematic an ongoing non-consented genital surgeries on intersex infants, if you can.
and oh, my mistake again, here's the correct indymedia link as well:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/404530.html