Well, that answers my question then.

>>7662826
I've gotten the impression that she's based, but none of the back blurbs have made me interested in reading any particular book of hers.

>>7662826
Written on the Body is a pretty great book. Its implications are kind of SJWish, but the writing's pretty touching and funny, besides being able to keep up such a hard gimmick for the whole thing (gimmick is that the narrator doesn't have a definite gender, in case you don't know).

the small number who have read her really like her

I enjoyed Oranges are Not the Only Fruit, or whatever it's called. It's been a while, though, and I'm not good at critiquing fiction.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/18/booker-prize-readability-test-literature

>Nobody blames maths for being difficult – and it isn't difficult

>The best thing for the Booker prize would be to outline its aims . . . Should we include first novels? I think not.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/nov/13/healthandwellbeing.health

>In defence of homeopathy

The only two pieces I've read by her, and they contain three outrageous stupidities. I hope her literature is better because I'm reading Oranges for s school, but I'm not counting on it.

>>7662826
I liked Oranges and (less so) Why be Happy, that's all I've read of hers. Someone told me that that sexing the cherry or whatever is kinda shit.
She is a bit SJW, but she's warm as well.

I've read Why Be Normal. My impression is that she seems pretty honest as well as warm, as >>7665950 put it. This made it easy to connect with her, even if there was very little experience or worldview that we share.