Talk:Studs Lonigan

Untitled
I think that the article should say when the books came out. Nandor1 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about the Studs Lonigan trilogy and, after reading this article, I still don't. Why is the book rated so highly? ( I'm not being hostile, I just want to know). What's Studs Lonigan's character like? What's the plot? The summary says one book is "about racism" -- which race is involved, given that the main character is Irish and Irish aren't considered "a race"? Why aren't the books discussed individually? This article needs work. CharlesTheBold (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

TCM
Currently (but for how long), TCM uses footage from Studs Lonigan's old film for the "noir" bumps for the "Nighthawks" TCM Open All Night block. Yeah, yeah, I know Wikipedia's almost dumb policy about "original research", even though anybody can tune into TCM and see this FACT almost any night. I'm not going to bother finding a source, you can do that instead. Apple8800 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Improving the article: where to start research
From 1940 to the 1980s, many-- like Norman Mailer, who said reading Studs Lonigan had made him a novelist-- claimed Studs was the Great American Novel. As the article reports, it is still ranked in the top thirty. There's a 2004 Library of America edition, and a big biography the same year. For the last forty years it was too old to be current, but too recent to be interesting as historical fiction. Perhaps, like the moon during an eclipse, it is coming out the other side of the shadow. On the BrothersJudd book review, there is a lively disagreement in the comments section on its worth. By contrast, Swans.com had an excellent summary of its strengths: "Young Lonigan (1932), The Young Manhood of Studs Lonigan (1934), and Judgment Day (1935) may have a different meaning for us than for their original public, but meaning in plenty they still have. (The Library of America published Studs Lonigan: A Trilogy edited by Pete Hamill in 2004.): There is also a definitive biography by Robert K. Landers in 2004." I wonder how Landers can resist defending Studs here! Profhum (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Split?
This article cannot figure out whether it is about a fictional character, a series of books, a film, or a TV miniseris. Its infobox is for the film. It has categories relating to three of the topics—character, book and film—but they ought not to be the same article. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just came across this and agree with Binksternet's assessment. It might be kept as one article but the books, film and tv series are all jumbled together and would need separating. It would be better to slit into three articles though. I good project if anyone has the time and inclination. MarnetteD | Talk 01:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Link
In the quotation by Kael the reference to the Fellini film should be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Vitelloni  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.106.93 (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)