to not understand appeal of Caitlin Moran writing for The Times?

[ARealDame]

She always has at least a couple of articles in The Times on Saturday, including her TV reviews, and seems to be heavily promoted there at the moment.

But I often find her writing cringeworthy e.g. this Saturday TV reviewing The White Queen headlines "She Makes Ingrid Bergman look like Someone Stuck Tits on a Turnip". Last Saturday, reviewing exactly the same programme (did anyone at The Times notice ?) the review headlined Battles, Castles and Tons of Fruity Historical Humping. Is she just being crass/offensive for the sake of it? And I find so much of her writing self-adulating plus impossible to make any sense of, a jumble of thoughtless sentences stuck together ... almost like a teenager on speed.

It seems a shame when The Times on Saturday has some enjoyable journalism e.g. the often brilliant Janice Turner, Matthew Paris, Giles Coran, plus some great review stuff of the Arts.

My heart just sinks when I see her bylines and picture. AIBU ?

I quite like her. She made me laugh with her reviews about the squirrel from the Great British Bake Off.

What does annoy me are the people on Twitter who try so hard to be like CM. It's cringey.

I strongly disagree that the work experience person should be doing TV reviews.

TV is a really important art form - and no, I'm not kidding. You can review seriously, or for laughs or both at the same time. Sometimes I prefer the reviews to the actual programme.

Can't really comment on Caitlin Moran's reviews, never having finished a whole one. The WORDY WORDS and contrived references to pop culture THINGS AND PEOPLE WHAT I'VE NOTICED!!!!!! tend to swim before my eyes about three lines in.

I love Ally Ross, though, amongst others, none of whom being called Giles Coren.

I know. That link, yeah? Pair of dicks.

£250k a year.

Four to five columns a week = a grand a column!

Mind you, now I've read gosh's link to the hysterics of that foot-stampy little turd Dan Wootton, Caitlin Moran has gone up a bit in my estimation.

yes, but this is a basic salary. They get much more than this in total. And if that's 'not much' in your world, you're probably E.LJames!

Agree Limited.

Without sounding too stalkery, but I remember you from the Romanzo Criminale threads.

I loved Romanzo Criminale, it's probably one of my favourite tv series ever. Unfortunately RC wasn't that popular over here and for me, one of the big downsides of that was not getting to read a really good review/dissection of it, which would make you ponder about what you've seen, or notice something you had missed. Good criticism is an artform, IMHO.

I agree the basic salary is not all they get. I would say C M earns way more than 250k.

I read Moranology (or whatever it was called ) I found it hard going especially the bits she had written about her conversations with her husband. I get the impression she doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

My friend doesn't get paid per column either as some weeks she doesn't write one and other weeks when her 'subject' is in the news a lot (financial) she may write every day. The basic is a retainer of sorts.

noddy I agree that CM probably earns more than £250k a year. But as I say, she's hugely prolific and writes for lots of different media.

I meant 250k from NI sounds about right, for four to five columns a week.

Stalk away gosh. I've done it to you. I was several episodes behind on RC and when I finished it I searched for you because I couldn't find any reviews and I was itching to find out what someone else who'd watched it said.

Did you watch Sky Arts' Corleone about Toto Riina and Sicily's maxi-trial and the Mafia murders of judges and police? It was a more conventional telling of Italian organised crime. Not as good as RC (there was a small overlap of time and events) but still good, until the final episode, which was a bit flat.

If I was Clive James I could probably express it better than that

'I get the impression she doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good story'

Yes yes to this! The account of her siblings' 'hilarious' antics on her wedding day from HTBAW did not ring true at all for example.

I had the entire series of Corleone saved to watch and then my Sky box went on the blink, had to be reset and the memory was wiped clean

I've managed to get the series of RC, still stands up to repeated viewings. How a series about a bunch of criminals manages to be so poignant, I do not know.

Also, I think Donatella may be one of my favourite female TV characters ever. Ruthless without being two dimensional.

That you tube clip.... Was she coked up?

She certainly is rather overexcited at the start isn't she Sauce

Very embarrassing.

But I enjoy some of her stuff. When she's funny she's very funny and clever but find her hit and miss.

limitedperiodonly Totally agree with you about tv reviewing. It's a much harder job to do well than it looks (a bit like the way people tend to think that teaching, or stand-up comedy, are probably easy: after all you just chat away at the front, don't you?) and I appreciate people who do it well. Sam Wollaston at the Guardian makes me want to scream as someone who has had the good fortune to get that sort of job and who then does it terribly.

I don't read CM's tv reviews as not a Times subscriber but the bits quoted her sound worryingly like it in style. Her one saving grace might be that it isn't her main area of expertise. In that case the Times shouldn't get her to do it, but I imagine that a) they want to squeeze as much value as possible out of their 250K and b) they have made the mistake of thinking that someone who writes well about certain things can write well about anything.

When I used to read her I got a mental image of somebody with Emphysema doing their best to speak as fast as they can before their breath ran out. Her writing is the equivalent of that...All breathless and slightly panicked as though she thinks you'll turn the page before she's finished.

I can?t be doing with her anymore, not since the blatant arse-licking last year of Lena Dunham: when people on Twitter asked her about the lack of representation of black people on Girls, C.M responded with ?I literally couldn?t give a shit". Her writing is too ?try-hard? ? I prefer Kathryn Flett or Viv Groskop, much less exhausting to read. I don?t bother reading anything C.M does now, despite being a Times subscriber, and I?ve unfollowed her on Twitter. Her image is so contrived it?s funny in an unintentional way: eg.,?look at me pulling funny faces to prove I?m cool and fun?. Yawn. I didn?t know about her ?mentals? comment, which I agree with MT upthread was probably a show of support to the equally charming Times colleague GiseleIndia Knight, who made a complete fool of herself last year with her questionable column on mental health.

I haven't read How to Be a Woman but find her Times writing very smug and pleased with itself although I only ever read her interviews/reviews regarding Benedict Cumberbatch

As for telly reviewing, I totally agree that it's culturally important and good people should be on it. Sam Guardian is irritating beyond belief and not nearly as good as he seems to think he is. The god of TV reviewing (and radio actually) is Nancy Banks-Smith and no one else is worthy.

I like her. If younger women/teens read HTBAW then great. We can be idealistic but Germaine Greer or Simone de Beauvoir won't have a big audience among younger women. She makes important points about modern body tyranny too.
Her style isn't for everyone but she is a thousand times better than the incompetent Sam Wollaston at the Guardian when it comes to TV reviews.
It is actually hard to come up with zingers week after week (yes, I know she's well paid) so I admire her energy.
I don't get her Gaga obsession and would love to see her move on from pop culture a bit. Her pieces on libraries and the heaviness of poverty were brilliant. I think she should do more observational/social stuff and leave the slebs behind, but then I suppose Janice Turner occupies that role at The Times (hated JT's piece on comprehensives though).

I agree that De Beauvoir isn't popular culture but when I introduced her to a group of young students all of them read her, were engrossed and wanted to know more.

The problem is that we are getting a little laissez faire about what we maybe think young women will want to engage with.....

CM is just as collusive with body tyranny as anybody else and very judgemental and critical of particular female celebrities over others. If she thinks Gaga is a refreshing change from the tyranny of the female body as flesh for sale then she is fucking deluded. Gaga is as naked and sexually available in her videos as Rihanna. She is just less honest about it.

Sam Wollaston at the Guardian makes me want to scream as someone who has had the good fortune to get that sort of job and who then does it terribly.

Definitely, snazzy. I was reading Guardian and Independent online reviews of Game of Thrones and thinking: 'There's a bit more to TV reviewing than "This happened, and then that happened and then they all died"'

I don't need recap. I have Sky+.

I doubt those people get paid to do those reviews. I think they're mad fans who haven't a clue. But I do think the outlets should have a bit of quality control for the sake of their reputations.

I think she's a really gifted writer - no-one can turn a phrase like Caitlin. She's much more interesting to read than most Fleet Street columnists. I don't always agree with her, but I'm not sure whether that's relevant to the question of whether she's a good writer or not.