Talk:Angela's Ashes

Please go to

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Richard Harris, whose parents owned a mill, didn't have the same memories of Frank, who grew up dirt poor. Wow, how shocking. Wouldn't it be more honest to mention the differences in their social economic positions. Sorta like growing up inna squat in NYC then haveing someone who lived in a pent house saying NY was nothing like that.69.154.138.223 (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harris was simply angry that (in his eyes) Frank McCourt was embellishing his story with (what Harris believed) were untruthful recollections and that the book amounted to a betrayal of their hometown of Limerick. Try reading the Harris' complaints before jumping to such absurd conclusions. It is hardly surprising that a person would be irritated by someone punching them then running off. --Ian Struan (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Harris have an underlying grievance with McCourt from years back when the latter punched the former in the face in a bar in NY and then ran off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.97.85 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oo! You didn't like that did you? Firstly if you read what I said properly, before kneejerking your ridiculous overeaction, you will see that I came to no conclusion 'absurd' or otherwise. I simply asked a question "Didn't Harris have a grievance..?" It seems you have confirmed that he did "It is hardly surprising that a person would....". It's yourself who seems to have implicitly drawn the 'absurd conclusion' of which you speak. Although as you have already stated, Harris was "irritated" by McCourt's actions it would hardly be 'absurd' to conclude he might be biased against McCourt? Finally if we're into giving free reading advice then try reading what's infront of you and your comments will be a tad more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.97.85 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, why don't you pay attention to whom i was responding to. That was why i placed my comment after the comment by 69.154.138.223 (with the indentation). I was not responding to you. If you read what i wrote, you will note that i agree with you, namely that Mr. Harris' comments were probably at least partially motivated by having been punched by Mr. McCourt. The absurd conclusion that i was addressing was those of 69.154.138.223, that is that Mr. Harris was somehow biased against Mr. McCourt because of their differing social-economic positions. Mr. Harris was proud of where he came from and, like other people from Limerick, was upset at Mr. McCourt's writings about the place. Oh yes, and being sucker punched probably did not help matters. --Ian Struan (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Themes and conflicts section" section since there was absolutely not one single source cited and it was all

I have just modified one external link on Angela's Ashes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226194527/http://www.limerick.com:80/angelasashes/controversy4.html to http://www.limerick.com/angelasashes/controversy4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has the odd section Criticisms, where people who were in class with McCourt challenge various events in the memoir, in the I-never-did-that-in-grade/school category. Those are if minor interest for a book that the Pulitzer Prize and other major awards. A section on Reception or Literary significance is needed for an article on a book, to show notability. The audio book I am listening to now has an introduction that reads like a literary review. I am sure many newspapers reviewed it as well, for its literary strengths, writing style, writing in the first person, and not the inevitable errors of memory in a memoir. A memoir is not a biography which is written by someone other than the topic of the book. Once that is written, the section called Criticisms could be made into two subsections, with new different titles, such as Response by Limerick, and then, Errors of fact in the memoir or Disputed memories. - - Prairieplant (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this Wikipedia article on articles about non fiction books here. - - Prairieplant (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this Wikipedia article on articles about non fiction books, and the importance of the Reception section here. - - Prairieplant (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This book and the two following are put in a category with the title Novels by Frank McCourt. They are memoirs, not novels. I have not dealt much with categories, and do not know how to go about changing the name to be accurate. McCourt did write fiction for children, one Christmas book, I think. But these main works are not novels. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]