Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder" emphasizes the idea that the elevator is fundamentally an angle-of-attack control, and that limiting the aft motion of the control stick will prevent the wing from reaching the stall angle-of-attack.
But here is a fundamental problem with the idea of using the control stick as an angle-of-attack indicator-- it may work fine in wings-level, non-accelerated (non-looping) flight, but in turning flight, the stick must often be positioned MUCH FURTHER AFT to set the wing at a given angle-of-attack than in wings-level flight.
For example when a sailplane is thermalling, the stick is often quite far aft-- at a position that would produce a stall in wings-level flight. This is especially true if the CG is rather far forward.
There are several sailplanes (example: Slingsby Swallow) that have been designed to have rather limited elevator throw in the interest of stall prevention, in which heavy pilots flying near the forward edge of the allowable CG envelope find that in a thermal turn, even placing the stick full aft against the aft stop produces an angle-of-attack that is clearly lower than the angle-of-attack that would yield the minimum sink rate. In other words, they are forced to fly too fast. Even though those same pilots could slow down well below the minimum sink-rate speed, and perhaps even all the way to stall speed, in wings-level flight.
Several faulty explanations have been offered as to why this is so. The truth is, if the flight path is curving, then the relative wind is also curving. Or to put it another way, since the aircraft is rotating in both pitch and yaw, as well as translating linearly, the rotational motion induces a difference in the direction of the local relative wind between the nose of the aircraft and the tail of the aircraft.
Loosely speaking, in a moderate to steep-banked turn, in the aircraft's reference frame the nose is constantly "rising" and the tail is constantly "falling", and so the curving relative wind tends to "push up" on the tail and create a nose-down pitch torque, placing the wing at a lower angle-of-attack than we'd see with the same stick position in wings-level flight.
This can also be described as a "pitch damping" effect-- the aircraft has an inherent aerodynamic resistance to pitch rotation, and this aerodynamic resistance is expressed as a nose-down pitch torque that causes the wing to fly at a lower angle-of-attack than we'd see for the same elevator position in wings-level linear flight.
These effects are much more pronounced in slow-flying aircraft than in faster-flying aircraft with the same linear dimensions, because the radius of curvature of a turn is inversely proportional to the square of the airspeed.
If this all seems a bit implausible to you, you might want to read the article "Circling the Holighaus way", which deals with the effects of the curving relative wind in the yaw (not pitch) dimension.
Also note that in a pitch "phugoid", either with the elevator allowed to float freely or with the elevator firmly held in a completely fixed position, it can happen that the stall horn sounds as the flight path is arcing downward near the top of each oscillation, but is silent as the flight is arcing upward near the bottom of each oscillation. Again this is a manifestation of the way that the curvature in the flight path and relative wind causes an increase or decrease in the wing's angle-of-attack.