Talk:Annabel (Winter novel)

Reads like a publisher's blurb

This article reads like a publisher's blurb; witness the last sentence:

"Winter’s dazzling debut addresses the riddle of gender and the tragedy of conformity with astonishing insight and eloquence."

Dazzling, astonishing ... ? Hardly encyclopaedic language! So it's no wonder the ratings show that Wikipedia readers don't think the article is objective.

Also, how do we know it's the author's first ("debut") novel? Only by its mention in passing, in the sentence quoted here.

The article does provide a useful synopsis of the story and does convey its main theme. But that's about all it does for the reader - and that without reliable references.

The article's topic is noteworthy and the issues it raises are socially important. It needs an equally serious effort by some knowledgeable Wikipedian to provide the article that this should be. yoyo (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annabel (Winter novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331070154/http://www.quillandquire.com/blog/index.php/book-news/film-rights-to-kathleen-winters-annabel-sold-thanks-to-goldfrapp-tune/ to http://www.quillandquire.com/blog/index.php/book-news/film-rights-to-kathleen-winters-annabel-sold-thanks-to-goldfrapp-tune/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Intersex Human Rights Australia's review

Under the heading "Reception", the final sentence reads "Organisation Intersex International Australia described the book as fundamentally flawed and deterministic, based on misconceptions about intersex." From actually reading OIIA's review (itself just a few paragraphs long) one gets the sense that their critique is something of a strawman. To wit: "To be absolutely clear about a fundamental flaw in the book: there have been no recorded instances of self-impregnation by any human anywhere. The biological circumstances depicted in the book are fanciful, and essentially appear based on misconceptions of intersex as hermaphroditism...humans, indeed all mammals, are not able to reproduce alone." First, nowhere in the book does it make any claims about "self-impregnation". "Wayne/Annabel" is described as having been conceived by their father and mother. And it is ironic that a review which is ostensibly intended to set the record straight about biology betrays its own poor grasp of the subject. In fact there are hundreds of known species that absolutely can "reproduce alone". It's called "Parthenogenesis" and it is A Thing. Animal species as large as Komodo dragons and some shark species, are capable of it. The majority of OIIA's review concerns what it describes thus: "...a form of biological determinism is evident in the book’s treatment of Wayne/Annabel, insofar that discovery of a fictitious intersex trait appears, ipso facto to require a non-binary gender identity, or dictate gender identity confusion. This is reductive: identity and biology are not necessarily intertwined in this way. In reality, many people with intersex differences do have gender identities that are informed by their intersex variation, but our identities are hugely diverse. And many intersex people have a typical gender identity as a man or woman." Besides being awkwardly written, it seems to be positing that only people who are intersex have "hugely diverse identities", and that since the novel appears to them to require the protagonist to choose to be "male" or "female", that sets-up a false dilemma, since they should have the freedom to construct their own gender identity. OK, fair enough, but that criticism could just as well be leveled against literary characters who are cisgender. Shall we criticize say, Doris Lessing's "The Golden Notebook" because "Anna Wulf" assumes her cis identity as "woman", instead of constructing some kind of unique gender identity? If so, the entirety of literary history will be open to such criticism. Given all of this, I have to wonder if including OIIA's wrong-headed review adds anything of value to the article. Bricology (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)