Talk:Caitlin Moran

Untitled

Having been a fan of Caitlin's column in the Times for several years, I am can assure you she has two daughters (Dora and Eavie) not a son and a daughter. Also, unless there is any verifiable source for the fact her original name was Catherine Elizabeth, I suggest this be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.199.218 (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a "citation needed" tag to the name on the main page. I'm also a new user, but where you think something needs a citation (i.e., you're not sure it's right), you can just put directly after it - you do that by typing {{ }} and then putting cn in the middle of the double squiggly brackets with no space. Better to do that than to delete the claim as a first stage, I think. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-catholicism"

This section title is phrased like an editorial as if Moran were offended by the persons and actions of all Catholics, when she is clearly only criticising the Catholic church in the quoted tweet, and not the practitioners of the Catholic faith. But even then, the content is irrelevant to Moran, or her career and at best, the section should be re-titled as "Criticism of the Catholic Church" to be more, you know, factual. At worst, it should be deleted entirely, as I did previously before getting reprimanded for my unsightly disruptiveness. FinalDeity (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a fair point that the section title was editorialising and I'd agree with the changed title. I wouldn't support removing it though - when a national newspaper columnist sticks their neck out quite so plainly, they're taking a pretty firm position. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The term anti-Catholicism is simply a hostility to the beliefs, adherents or clerics of the Catholic church See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism : This is clearly evidenced by her statement. As a compromise, I would therefore, propose the alternative, 'Opinion of the Catholic Church', avoiding classifying her comments as having either reasonable or unreasonable character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.8.197 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC) An Opinion is defined as: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

You think "criticism" is unjustified because we can't verify that her opinion was against the church? What mealy-mouthed rubbish! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there cowboy, I agree with you! I presumed that the consensus was that anti-catholic and even criticism was overtly editorialising; hence the opinion bit. I prefer the original as it was referenced from the the Telegraph columnist. Pick what you like - how about antipathy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.8.197 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This section appears to have gone, which is probably for the best. That said, if it was a major controversy on Twitter, a mention, with a link, could be included back into the section I started on Twitter. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of First Name

I had always pronounced her name "Kate-Lynn".

However, on the BBC Radio 4 program "My Teenage Diary", (at the minute available online on BBC Iplayer, the host Rufus Hound repeatedly calls her "Cat-Lynn".

So "Cat-Lynn" appears to the be the correct pronunciation as surely she would have corrected him if necessarily.

Everyone happy for it to be included in the article?

--Rushton2010 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"don't read any books by men"

"Because if I had one piece of advice for young girls, and women, it would be this: girls, don’t read any books by men. Don’t read them. Stay away from them. Or, at least, don’t read them until you’re older, and fully-formed, and battle-ready ...." https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/features/2017/mar/caitlin-moran-how-books-made-me-a-feminist/#j3uSYxt7QZ6ZpMuI.99 Sorry, but if she is really this ludicrous, perhaps it should be mentioned in the article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

There's another dimension to this - I've changed "canon" in the blue link from something about Catholic saints to Western canon, which is the redirect from "Canon (literary)", which is clearly what she was getting at. It does seem that she came up with this recently as a way of positioning herself against established literary "dead white males" (although Roth is alive and was not particularly old in the 80s /early 90s context) - all her extensive writings and interviews before 2016 about reading and libraries made no mention of following this rule and on the contrary she mentioned male writers she appreciated from an early age, especially Spike Milligan. See these examples -[1][2][3] - I think there are others in her books/paywalled columns. Billwilson5060 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• The quotation in this section was too long and complicated, and it didn't copy the original text very faithfully. Too many punctuation changes and omissions made the quoted section very confusing. I simplified the quotation. --saebou (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I see your change as over-simplifying it though. It has three parts: "great white men", "clever men" and "complex characters" - the point being that the "complex characters" make the works great, and thus attractive to the reader. Reducing this to "great white men" alone is to portray this point as being the same as the "DWEM" feminist viewpoint of the '70s and '80s - a simplistic position of little more than jealousy, reducing the argument to an ad hominem that these works should be ignored just for being works by men. Moran's feminism is far smarter, more developed and more nuanced than this (why she deserves credit as such, not just as a humorist) and we should not fillet it to lose the subtlety. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I understand your point, but the quotation should be revised because it didn't follow the original text faithfully. The previous quotations says, "by the Great White Males; Faulkner, Chandler, Hemingway, Roth; the canonically brilliant,..., clever, awkward, compelling, dazzling, confident, 20th century men... complex [characters whose] stories drag you in [whose] voices are unstoppable [and whose] dazzle and flair is undeniable." However, the original text says, "by the Great White Males. Faulkner, Chandler, Hemingway, Roth. The canonically brilliant. The men in them are brilliant, clever, awkward, compelling, complex - their stories drag you in, their voices are unstoppable. The dazzle and flair is undeniable." There is no reference to "dazzling, confident, 20th century men" in the original text, and this phrase appears in a completely different sentence two paragraphs below, saying "For as soon as a female character enters a story written by these dazzling, confident, 20th century men...". It is an inappropriate citation, and I checked the original text and changed the quotation as it says. --saebou (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes here to improve its accuracy. But we have to keep her point that these works should be avoided despite being great works, not simply avoided because of who authored them. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)