Talk:Ruth Moore

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Important Writer Mistake[edit]

Important 20th century writer? Not to degrade Moore's wonderful novels and stories, the author of this paragraph should consider the following questions: Why is Ruth Moore so obscure seven years into the 21st century? (After all, Eudora Welty is still going strong.) Why are Moore's works missing from high school and college reading lists? What aren't emerging young writers compared to Moore? Calling Moore important is an overstatement and should be corrected to "once popular."

"Important" was meant as a qualifier to "Maine writer" and not "writer." I think it justifiable to characterize her as an important figure in the Maine literary canon; though not the American canon. I agree that it would be more apt to describe her as "popular novelist" of the 1940's and 1950's or her time or the like. Premarun 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Stage?[edit]

No real proof is offered that merits placing Ruth Moore on equal footing with the literary giants of the 20th century. By the logic of this paragraph, the very best selling authors according to the NY Times list of the 1940s, such as Betty McDonald ("The Egg and I") and Kathleen Winsor ("Forever Amber"), would also rank among such august company as Orwell, Maugham, and Warren.

Fair use rationale for Image:Deepwaters.jpg[edit]

Image:Deepwaters.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ruth Moore/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The criticism here is/was bogus. I am no dummie. You like IQ's? Mine is 165. I include this information as I have been having similar discussions for many years. (Is "Literature" and art form, or a means of communication?) Have read voluminously for most of my 54 years, and I don't consider any of those "Great" American writers especially so. Faulkner is almost cute with his studied non-use of puncuation. Style over content.

Moore is a writer whose work about everyday life is highly enjoyable, readable and honest. I suspect that Stephen King has stolen HIS style, such as it is from cribbing Moore and Shirley Jackson. As a matter of fact, when he's the most enjoyable is when he resembles those two the most.

The trend in literature is to become more obscure, more "inclusive" and more "Global". It's sacrificed story and immediate enjoyment in favor of that bane of literature "Magical Realism", or has simply abandoned substance all together.

I am a Northwesterner who mourns the fact that before we had a chance to fully develop a regional literary tradidtion beyond "The Egg and I". We were inundated by Californians who have been "fixing" us ever since. Frankly, "The Egg and I" richly evokes the taste and feel of what MY Northwest was like. This is a quality none of you could ever measure.

So, until you can define "Great Writer" in terms that a moron like myself can agree upon with a towering paragon of taste and wisdom such as yourself, I'd just as soon see the term dropped from all of these articles.ALL

Last edited at 08:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 05:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)