Talk:Look Homeward, Angel

message: Let's get working on this article. It definitely needs a lot of work. Experts in literature lend me your hands. I got most of this. I'm reserching it right now.--Robert Waalk (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get started 

message: The first paragraph in the History section is ambiguous: "It is believed that a stone statue of an angel, found in a Hendersonville, North Carolina cemetery, looking to the east was part of the inspiration for this work. A highway marker located on Highway 64, or 6th Avenue West in Hendersonville, at an entrance to Oakdale Cemetery, contains this information." "It is believed" by whom? The highway marker? 
If so, wouldn't it be better to say, "A highway marker located at an entrance to Oakdale Cemetery in Hendersonville, North Carolina, says that a stone statue of an angel looking to the east, found in the cemetery,  was part of the inspiration for this work."? Altgeld (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, it adds details. You can say someone is an alcoholic. Then, you can say someone is a raging alcoholic, it adds severity to it.\
Using the word "raging" doesn't seem to add the severity detail you are looking for, as that seems to indicate violence, as in "violent alcoholic. What would be wrong with writing "severe alcoholic" ?
I would also like to mention that the tone of this wiki treatment would border on insulting to Wolfe scholars and fans. In fact, I am utterly dismayed. What do you have against this novel and Wolfe? 
I'm not suggesting the well-known criticisms of this and all of his works are incorrect, but I do suggest that perhaps you might want to research the positive influence that Angel had on literature during his time.--Ismaelbobo (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues of Style 

message: kevinlewis, don't change my pictures first without consulting me. I think grahamhardy supports the new picture as well, and if you are out voted by contributors to this article I think the current picture should stay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Waalk (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Ironically, the section title "Style" is written with no style at all. The syntax is garbled and the writing fatally awkward and awry. I don't wish to rewrite it, as I am not an expert on Thomas Wolfe and might mischaracterize the meaning; but somebody needs to! This sounds like some student's uncorrected term paper. Billcito (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's about what it is, I say this as the writer. Could you do better. I personally don't see what's so bad about it.--Robert Waalk (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic issue 

message: This article contains several claims like the following
:"the literary focus has shifted decidedly more towards minimalism and highly focused writing"
which are laughable, ignorant, and surely don't belong in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.79.176 (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Literary Focus" =

message: I have question regarding the section Plot and its sub section, Part one.  Without there being a "Part two", how can there be a Part one?  Logically, there could be a division of Part one and Part two, if the text to support it, or the writers manuscript, even.  But as it stands now, the subsection is unneeded, or the entry is unfinished.  Would someone involved in the article explain this?  Or edit out the unnecessary subsection and move the narrative to the plot section. Sjkoblentz (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Part one?