No!No!No!

I read MiddleSex two years ago. And it has failed to leave my imagination. I tried to spread the greatness all around, by convincing both friends and family to read it. I smiled every time I saw it on the shelves of bookstores.

The other day my worst nightmare was fully realized: "Middlesex" was chosen as the latest selection of Oprah’s Book Club. My main concern is with her approach to literature, which is as shallow as her materialistic ideals that she expresses on her show. Consider this question on her website about the book: "Is gender nature or nurture? Can you be born in the wrong body? Come back later to learn more about gender identity."

Oprah's approach to Faulkner is exemplary of this problem. Faulkner's novels selected for the club-- "The Sound and the Fury,"
"As I Lay Dying," and "Light in August"-- are masterworks of the use point of view. The energy of these novels springs from Faulkner's inventiveness with literary form. The same event is often told from multiple perspectives. Sometimes characters' relay their respective accounts of the same event; often they display conflicting emotions or different opinions. In Faulkner's work, truth is fragile-- history and self are intertwined. This was dealt with only marginally.

Instead of an exploration into Faulkner's view of life, we get an interactive tour of his fictional Yoknapatawpha County. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on Oprah. She is just the most visible example of the commodification of art. Oprah is the billionaire version of a friend we all have or a person we have regrettably overheard at a coffee shop.

Recall this funny scene from Annie Hall. While waiting in line for a movie, Woody Allen is subjected to the self-important banter from the man behind him. As the man waxes intellectual about Marshall McLuhan, Woody leaves the line and comes back with McLuhan himself, who puts down the man's opinion on McLuhan's work.

You know the type: They are the friends who don't not hesitate to list the canonical books they have read and that they are currently reading-- from Joyce to Faulkner to Eugenides. We measure one's intellect by perusing their bookshelf. Punch your literary card here.

"Middlesex," like all of Oprah's past selections, will be considered from a specific point of view. In Middlesex, Calli-- the main character and the story narrator--is a hermaphrodite. Gender issues, admittedly, are present in the novel. But this is a superficial view. It's the high-school method. What are the main themes? Is gender nature or nurture? These may be important questions to ask, but they ignore the complexity of the novel.

All of Eugenides' work deals with the provisionality of selfhood. And what better way to explore consciousness than by constructing a novel about "gender conflict." Calli is not so much a human character as she is a literary device. She is the vehicle by which Eugenides drives into questions of self-hood, family, and history.

There is little doubt in my mind that Oprah will deal with the novel as a way of understanding those who are different. But how about dealing with the novel as a piece of literature? Why focus a novel on this type of character? What does it tell us about ourselves?

Maybe I'm being cynical. But I can see the audience now. They will feel empowered, by their newfound understanding of hermaphrodites. Maybe some genuine tears will be shed. A medical specialist will be called in to explain the ins and outs of the condition. Maybe we should just read a medical dictionary instead...