Constant Reader discussion
Reading List
>
Stoner by John Williams - DISCUSSION
message 51:
by
Sue
(new)
Jan 17, 2014 06:55PM
I like your "smoke and mirrors" description of Stoner's home Cateline. So true.
reply
|
flag
Lynn: My two cents is that although Edith really wanted to get away from her family, she was already so emotionally crippled that she had no vision of what she wanted beyond escaping their control. All she knew was to do the opposite of what she'd had, which meant going from zero control to 100 percent control of Stoner and, later, Grace. Give-and-take was such a foreign concept I don't believe she could have recognized it even without the obvious mental problems in the way.
Well said, Dale. I also think that in those days a young woman was expected to get married. That was her main goal in life. The parents seemed anxious to see her married off too, although who knows what they wanted to cover up. At the minimum, they must have realized that their daughter had serious emotional problems.Do you all think that Edith was a believable character? Or was she just too evil and Stoner was too good?
Stoner was a lot easier for me to believe than Edith. She seemed to have no redeeming qualities, no variance from just plain nutz.
Yeah, Edith was, well aside from whatever her mental disease was, terrified. Everything she did was out of abject fear. She had no conception of not being afraid. Whatever her father/mother/parents did to her was at such a basic level that she could not not be afraid. Perhaps that is actually why she married Stoner. She may have seen she could control him. She had to have that control to live with herself. Stoner was her "out".
I was struck by Edith's apparent ability to modify her behavior somewhat at the end and actually help Stoner have some peace in those final days. It mentions she bathes him, I believe, an intimate task I would not have expected of her earlier.
Probably because he was fairly helpless by that stage of his illness. She knew he was no threat to her any longer. Of course he never was a real threat, but in her mind any male was a threat.
True, and so sad that it took that for her to behave well toward him. And also sad that Grace could find no reason to linger in the house at all once she knew her father's diagnosis. But then I'm left with that final sequence and I can live with that.
I think Edith did those things maybe because it was what society expected of her. I believe her character would not allow her to go against societal norms.
Why do you think Williams chose sonnet 73 as the turning point in Stoner's life?
What a great question, Carol. I would guess this sonnet about the passing of life reflects the theme of the book.
I just finished the book last night and really enjoyed it. Just a couple comments for now. The movement of his possessions to the back porch was significant to me because I realized the he would just not fight back. I was angry at Edith (I was yelling at my Kindle), but also at Stoner. I understand him not wanting to make things worse, but to just give up his space was hard to take.
I am glad he found contentment in his life. In my imagination, his death shakes Grace out of her stupor and she goes to college and has a happy life. OK, not likely, but it's my imagination and I'm sticking to it!
I really enjoyed this book and will come back with more thoughts.
Marie wrote: "I think Edith did those things maybe because it was what society expected of her. I believe her character would not allow her to go against societal norms."Maybe, partially. But, I think that if it were only due to societies expectations/demands, she would not have performed the duties with a good heart or a gentle hand. My impression was that she was quite gentle and kind to him, at the end.
Plus, couldn't she have hired someone to do that? He could not have been easy to shift about. He was a large man. I've bathed a small woman, and even that is hard on one's back.
I think Edith suffered from extreme anxiety. That often leads to a need to an excessive need to control what you can. Although she was a very one-sided character, I did believe in her. I wouldn't have gotten so angry at her if I had not.:-)
Most participants here seem to feel that Stoner died feeling his life had had meaning. I am not so sure of that.This is the quote that struck me most:
Dispassionately, reasonably, he contemplated the failure that his life must appear to be. He had wanted friendship and the closeness of friendship that might hold him in the race of mankind; he had had two friends, one of whom had died senselessly before he was known, the other of whom had now withdrawn so distantly into the ranks of the living that ... He had wanted the singleness and the still connective passion of marriage; he had had that, too, and he had not known what to do with it, and it had died. He had wanted love; and he had had love, and had relinquished it, had let it go into the chaos of potentiality. Katherine, he thought. “Katherine.” And he had wanted to be a teacher, and he had become one; yet he knew, he had always known, that for most of his life he had been an indifferent one. He had dreamed of a kind of integrity, of a kind of purity that was entire; he had found compromise and the assaulting diversion of triviality. He had conceived wisdom, and at the end of the long years he had found ignorance. And what else? he thought. What else? What did you expect? he asked himself. Williams, John (2010-05-01). Stoner (New York Review Books Classics) (pp. 274-275). New York Review Books. Kindle Edition.
I have reread the part that followed twice and maybe I just find it all too nebulous to make much of an impact. I see that Stoner decided that he shouldn't feel a failure (why?) and that he has an appreciation for the beautiful outside and the wonder of books, but that's about it.
Can someone help me understand this reconciliation to his life, which is apparently what the author intended?
Edith is believable to me in the context of mental illness and being a victim of abuse. I agree with Cateline and Ann that Edith was fundamentally afraid and anxious. Ironic that she’s the one who became frightening but maybe not an unusual outcome for a terrified person. Here’s a description of Edith at forty: “She was very pale, and she used a great deal of powder and paint in such a way that it appeared she daily composed her own features upon a blank mask. Beneath the dry hard skin, her hands seemed all bone; and they moved ceaselessly, twisting and plucking and clenching even in her quietest moments.”
Ann wrote: "Most participants here seem to feel that Stoner died feeling his life had had meaning. I am not so sure of that.This is the quote that struck me most:
Dispassionately, reasonably, he contemplated..."
I'm not sure about "had meaning" but I think Stoner accepted that, although he had not achieved all that he wanted to, he had done the best he could and he was content with that.
He didn't have lots of friends, but he had a couple that stayed in his mind and heart. He had hoped to think great thoughts and he had done that to some extent. He hadn't had the great loving marriage he wanted, but he had found/experienced love. Perhaps he could have handled things better, but he did what he thought best at the time. He could have been a better teacher, but he also had professional successes - his book, Katherine and many students over the years learned from him, and promoting rigorous scholarship.
In the final assessment, he felt that he either wouldn't do anything different or didn't know how he could have made things better. In balancing the often unrealistic expectations of life that he had as a young man and the failings of his life and the reality of his accomplishments, he seemed to come out on the positive side. At the end of the day, he was honorable and had integrity, and he pursued books and learning and teaching.
I think it's important to see this book in the time and place in which it is set. There are things that today seem dated or even inconceivable (e.g., his lack of protection of his daughter at times and staying with his wife despite her poor treatment of him), but seem possible in that scenario.
Ann wrote: "Most participants here seem to feel that Stoner died feeling his life had had meaning. I am not so sure of that.This is the quote that struck me most:
Dispassionately, reasonably, he contemplated..."
Susan put it well in the above post. In balance, Stoner seemed to be content with the outcome. Not happy with everything, but who is?
None of us accomplish in life everything we wish or want to. That's just the way it is, and for all we know, that is for the best. Ramifications.
What would the ramifications have been if Stoner had left Edith for Katherine? As Susan said, remember the time and place of the story. It's entirely possible that both his and Katherine's academic career would have been ruined. Would they have been able to overcome the guilt and bitterness of that outcome? I don't know. What would they have done for a living, if not what they'd striven for all their lives? Yes, of course, it could have worked out. A more likely outcome would have been guilt, bitterness, resentment, and eventual separation.
Great discussion, everyone. This book moved me so much on a personal level. My father grew up in exactly the same kind of farm life that Stoner had. He was the first in his family to graduate from high school, then did college. But, that early life left its mark on him as it did on Stoner. Ann, that paragraph you included in your last note is a perfect summing up of the person. He was raised to expect very little and his discovery of literature was almost transcendent. In some ways, that in itself might have been enough for some people. I watched my brother have the same experience when he went to college in his early 20's after leaving the army when he discovered philosophy and literature. It was like watching a person who has been without water given access to a fountain.
Good points, Susan, Cateline, and Barb. I thought Williams' depiction of Stoner's thoughts at the end, after that bit about all the "failures" was very hazy. I think he wanted the reader to make her own assessment, which you have done very well.I agree that the real meaning in Stoner's life lay in his discovery of literature and the university. His book, at the end, was not valued because he wrote it but because it symbolized the life of the mind he felt so privileged to enjoy.
Ann wrote: "it symbolized the life of the mind he felt so privileged to enjoy...."I love this, and absolutely agree. :) It totally freed him. What a dead sort of life he'd have led had his father not sent him to the school.
I know the outcome was not what the father intended, but maybe somewhere, deep down, his parents knew that if Stoner left, he'd not return. Their acceptance of his decision was, to me, heroic.
Wonderful discussion. Ann, while I would agree that Stoner did summarize a life of less than what he had hoped or pursued, for me it was still a life that did always have some distant hope through his teaching, through the literature. Those final moments for me were ones that he found peaceful and seemed at peace with himself and his life. The paragraph you cite is almost like a last summing up.As for Edith, I agree that there was some hidden depth there for her to care for Stoner as she did. That is both intimate and heavy work, things she had avoided with him.
Great discussion. Here are my thoughts on this fine novel. It is carefully conceived, psychologically consistent, and beautifully written. On the surface it is the story of the life of an English professor at a Midwestern university, of his unhappy marriage, and ultimately his mundane career. But it is also a story of personal integrity, and professional honor, told with unwavering honesty.I was especially struck by Williams' description of Stoner's epiphany early in his university education that caused him to change the course of his life from the life of the farm that he grew up on to the life of the mind which he embraced and made the central focus of his commitment to teaching. It is also about the extraordinary pettiness of university politics -- the departmental rivalries and professional jealousies; and finally an account of his retirement and death.
Is any of this this important? Perhaps not, but Williams particular strength is his ability to allow us to see Stoner within a larger context that somehow satisfies a universal craving for a meaningful life.
I really liked this book. I especially liked the writing. In my opinion there isn't one misplaced word nor one word too many. It is careful, thoughtful, succinct and precise - a model of excellence.
Katy wrote: "Great discussion. Here are my thoughts on this fine novel. It is carefully conceived, psychologically consistent, and beautifully written. On the surface it is the story of the life of an English ..."Very nicely said, Katy.
I've so enjoyed reading through everyone's comments. This was a wonderful book and I appreciate reading what everyone thought. He was a man of honor and integrity.
Not sure if I have anything to add to this discussion, but there was a point at about the two thirds mark (where he started his affair) when I realized just how profoundly sad this book was making me. It crept up on me, much in the same way life crept up on Stoner, and I just felt swamped by it.
Peggy: I know just what you mean. "Swamped," and "profoundly sad." For sure.I think what kept me from giving it up before the end is that the author arrives at that sadness without any of the rote devices so often used in story-telling. It's a sadness he achieves (and the reader experiences) with "honor and integrity," as Gina describes Stoner himself.
I agree Dale. And I think that is why I found myself so moved by the book.
Stoner's isolation was one of the themes that struck me. I read a discussion that this book was like an Edward Hopper painting and I agree. I think the book is written to demonstrate man's existential separation from others. Every time he finds a link to the world, it is taken away from him or he allows it to be taken away. His best friend dies senselessly in the war; his mentor draws away from the world and him; his marriage is a failure; his wife takes away his daughter; his wife discourages his social contacts with his students; academia forces hims to abandon the love of his life. Yet he perseveres.
Linda wrote: "Stoner's isolation was one of the themes that struck me. I read a discussion that this book was like an Edward Hopper painting and I agree. I think the book is written to demonstrate man's existe..."Yes, I agree. And in the end, not only does he persevere, but he seems to embrace the isolation that, after all, was his legacy from his youth.
Finally, my book has arrived in the mail, and I started this morning on the tram. It's already amazing; beautifully written, especially the desciptions of Stoner's intellectual "awakening" and how he feels about leaving his parents and former world behind.I've been carefully skimming this discussion (so as to avoid spoilers, and I feel bad about not being able to (yet) properly participate in the discussion, so I offer you this in penance. It's the review that initially spurred me to put the book on my "to-read" list:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/10/john-williams-stoner-the-greatest-american-novel-youve-never-heard-of.html
Like some of you, this reviewer talks (among other things) about how profoundly sad the book is and how this can make it a difficult read.
Thanks for posting the link to that very interesting review, Nicole. It captured all the reasons why Stoner's life was so difficult to read about, but also underlined the compensating meaning that he found in a life dedicated to literature.
Even though Stoner's story is in many ways a sad one, how is it so terribly worse than probably the majority of people that simply put one foot in front of the other, slogging their way through life. For my money, he had a better, more fulfilling life than many. He managed to be doing something he loved, in an atmosphere he loved. Yes, it had it's very large glitches. But. He loved where he was.
He also lived his life in accordance with his honor code, something to be proud and content with, in my opinion. When he totted up his life, at the end, he was content. We should all be so fortunate.
And, in addition, he was able to know true love. How many people can truly say all of that of their own lives?
Good argument, Cateline, but, playing the devil's advocate here, I would like to ask the group this questions: would you be content with a life like Stoner's?Much as we all love reading, it probably doesn't mean as much to most of us as literature did to him, so feel free to substitute. Imagine that you have been allowed to work in a field you love, although you have very limited success in it. Would that compensate for a life lived with such a twisted and mean spirited spouse and a vindictive boss at work? Granted, you do have a few months of perfect love to tease your imagination with what might have been.
Maybe you are right about the majority of people, Cateline. Dale has already brought up the line about the mass of men leading lies of quiet desperation. I don't see things as that bad.
Interesting points, Cateline and Ann. I had been thinking about this after reading the "isolation" comments above and thinking about the book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. Stoner, IMO, was not only isolated because of circumstances but also by his own nature. In some ways, Stoner's tendency toward isolation (from childhood and his basic nature) may have protected him from some of the impact of his mean wife and boss. Someone who really needed to feel approval or needed to engage (e.g., an extrovert who is energized by people) may have been really shaken - Stoner is initially upset, but copes and learns to detach somewhat. I do this too - I try to engage with people, but if they shut me down, I deal with it and move on.We all value things differently or are content with different things. There are some people who cannot understand why I have never married or had children - it's been my choice to structure my life the way it is and, to me, it is very full and I don't have a real drive to change it. I understand that others may not see it that way or may think that I must be unhappy. I think there is a line in the book about this - people seeing him as unhappy or unsuccessful or something like that; but that is less about Stoner than it is about other people projecting their own values/desires/needs onto him. In some ways, I think Stoner is the same way - he values what he has and he has what he values most.
So, I think I'm with Cateline on this one. It's awful to read about others being mean to Stoner and limiting his options in certain avenues of his life, but he is able to move on and focus on other things that are important to him. We all face difficulties in life - Stoner included. If he feels content with his choices and at the end of his life, who am I to say he should be otherwise?
My dad told me once toward the end of his life, "If you can be completely alone with yourself, without any distractions, and be content and at peace, then you have lived a successful life." I thought about this a lot while reading "Stoner." I don't think either Stoner or my dad would have considered their lives ones of quiet desperation in spite of the difficulties and disappointments they faced. But, me? Heck no, Ann. I would not have taken what Stoner took lying down. I am far too much a product of the 60s for that!
Ann wrote: "Good argument, Cateline, but, playing the devil's advocate here, I would like to ask the group this questions: would you be content with a life like Stoner's?Much as we all love reading, it probably doesn't mean as much to most of us as literature did to him, so feel free to substitute. Imagine that you have been allowed to work in a field you love, although you have very limited success in it...."
Success is in the eye of the beholder. One man's meat is another's poison. :) All sorts of sayings fit here. And all trite, but true. Stoner did what he wanted, and felt he was meant for, that is success. Not everyone's success, true. But his.
It's hard for me, at this age, to gauge what I'd have done at such a young age. Just as an aside, one thing that was drilled into me as a child and teenager by my Mother was "just because everyone else jumps in the lake, are you?". I was never encouraged to do things to "fit in". Plus, I'm just plain stubborn. :)
I truly feel though that I'd probably done much as Stoner. Up to a point at any rate. What that point would have been is hard to say.
I think Stoner felt it didn't really matter, the abuse he was taking on both fronts. Possibly he felt that their (wife and Lomax) abuse was the product of their miserable selves and decided not to allow them to drag him down to their level. When someone hates you enough to be so hateful to you, they are getting pleasure by making you miserable. Don't give them that pleasure. Rise above it and give them the finger. Or better yet, ignore them. Ignoring them will make them madder than anything. :)
Donna, your father was a wise man.
Susan from MD wrote: "Interesting points, Cateline and Ann. I had been thinking about this after reading the "isolation" comments above and thinking about the book [book:Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Ca..."I have that on the shelf, have to get to it!
Susan, I married young and very foolishly, vowed never to marry again. Well, it took 25 years, but the right one did come along. So, yeah, I'm married again.
It's far better to be alone than with the wrong person. That can be a living hell, for sure.
Just to clarify, I'm not anti-marriage or anything! Who knows, it may still happen, but I'm not too concerned about it either way. And I agree that it is better to be alone than to be in a hellish situation (I've seen enough of those to never want to be there). I think that in some ways, Stoner got that "aloneness" after a while even though he was married - they were so physically and emotionally separated that it really didn't matter that they were technically "together". One of the nicest parts of the book, though, was seeing that Edith took care of him at the end - I was glad to see that she was able to let go of some of her anger, etc. and helped him when he was unable to care for himself.
Wow - very interesting comments everyone. One of the stumbling blocks for me is that I keep seeing Stoner as "resigned," rather than "content" at the very end of his life. I think I must be projecting too much of myself into his situation. Donna, like you, there is no way I would take all that lying down, although I am not at all sure that the results would have been any better. As we get older, we all do more of that life review, don't we? Your Dad gave excellent advice.
Cateline, you are so correct that the meaning of "success" is different for everyone. I had to chuckle because I got that line about jumping into the lake just because everyone else was too. In my case, it was because my parents didn't want me to do something that All the other kids were doing (sometimes I exaggerated. :-))
Susan, I loved that book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. You made an excellent point about Stoner being the kind of person who could withdraw into himself and disengage to a certain extent. This ability probably saved him in the end.
You've asked an excellent question, Ann. I feel very lucky to have stumbled into a profession that I have loved for over 40 years. In some ways, I reacted to it (teaching in special education) the way Stoner reacted to literature. When I was young, I thought it was, by far, enough. And, looking back, it would have been enough if I had never known more. It is certainly more than many people get in their lifetime.However, in the end, I have had far more: the love of a good man, two sons, a granddaughter who delights me more every day and a few good friends. I am sad for Stoner, and people like his character, that he didn't have more as well. But, when I think of the people I know who never work at a job that they love or find that one thing that transforms them, I think he was still very lucky. And, I'm guessing that John Williams thought he was fortunate as well.
I have to say I see Stoner as content at the end rather than resigned. The flow of images and memories seemed to take on a largely positive hue (and for some reason I did read it with color in mind---perhaps because he was watching the students passing in the sun).While I did find the novel very sad, I was likely judging against "might-have-beens" for Stoner and thinking how I would have judged his situations. Now I find I'm agreeing with those who doubt Stoner would agree with me. Barbara, I think your final conclusion is probably spot-on.
I enjoyed that review. I suppose that for me, Stoner's ultimate take on his life is not as painful as it is honest. In truth, none of us is remembered for terribly long in any truly intimate or passionate way after we die; even those who's names we culturally remember are in the most essential way not really remembered. Life is transient. And even with the sadder elements of Stoner's life, I believe he found the experience of living, within himself, to be more than enough and maybe even somewhat miraculous. And I think that that is why we are interested in a story about a very common and forgettable man. We all are forgettable. We all are common. We all are miraculous, and we all are blessed to have lives.
Susan from MD wrote: " In my imagination, his death shakes Grace out of her stupor and she goes to college and has a happy life. OK, not likely, but it's my imagination and I'm sticking to it!..."I wish as well, Susan.
I think the fact that Stoner simply accepted the girl's alcoholism was the part that truly bothered me the most. I find it difficult to believe a parent could take such a thing in stride. And even think it was probably ok. /tearing my hair out here/
That was really the only "false" note to my eye. On the other hand, what could he have done? I just don't know.
Lyn, yes, "we are all forgettable, we are all common." I think that is the sum and substance of it, even if we can find bright spots in our lives and treasure them.When I compare my life to Stoner's, measuring against a scale of seven significant features, my score is 6 out of 7. For all practical purposes, I am Stoner.
I knew Edith. In fact I was married to her. And I have now also experienced true love, not through an affair, but with a second truly wonderful wife.
On the ladder of success in my own profession, I am not a manual laborer. Neither am I Bill Gates, and no one knows my name for its contributions. I have published no book, have received no prizes, but have still enjoyed every minute of my work. At every turn I felt the book was written about me directly.
More generally, I think it is the story of Everyman, maybe even the story of everyone here, if one is given to introspection. In my view, it is Robert Graves' "one story and one story only/ That will prove worth [your] telling."
And it is a rare accomplishment by John Williams, from his heart direct to mine.
Last night I hit that portion of the book where Stoner's troubles with Walker begin, and I had to actually put it aside for a while in favor of something lighter. I am finding this section terribly painful, and I suspect it is about to get much worse.For me, it's not so much that Stoner does not advance in his career and attain professional success and status, as it is that these events are keeping him from doing this thing that he has discovered for himself, the work that he loves. When Edith kicks him out of his study, she also, in some very real sense, steals his book project from him. When the new department chair punishes him for his vote against Walker at his orals, he takes away the joy that Stoner has found in teaching, and in teaching well.
In this sense for me it's not a balance between having interesting work but not having other types of happiness and success, it's that these other features of his life are also taking away from his refuge, his source of happiness. Perhaps this will get better for him, but right now, I'm finding it absolutely heartbreaking. I stopped here :
"He was to teach that summer, and two of his classes were ones in which he had a particular interest; they had been scheduled before Lomax became chairman. He resolved to give them all his attention, for he knew that it might be some time before he had a chance to teach them again."
This very specific type of suffering is not about laboring in obscurity, or not receiving recognition. It's a kind of theft that Lomax has perpetrated, a kind of deliberate harm. I felt almost sick reading it.
That is an excellent point, Nicole. He feels almost like Job in the bible, doesn't he? But, he still had literature for himself. And, he does find a partial way to combat the situation.
I think we underestimate Stoner's level of accomplishment when we speak of his falling short of conventional measures of success. I am outside academia but I have always heard of publish-or-perish and, more softly, that it is more important for "success" than teaching the students. Well, Stoner wanted to excel at that other route -- teaching -- and the indications are that he was a good/great teacher until Lomax went to war against him. So I think Stoner did well on his own teaching ladder, even though he did not climb the other "publishing/department-head" ladder very far.In addition, in one other very important life measure, he outlasted the barbarians even though they had already breached the wall with Lomax and Walker -- no kudos to them. To shift the metaphor, it is not easy marching to the tune of a different drummer.
Constant Reader
Books mentioned in this topic
Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking (other topics)Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking (other topics)
Tinkers (other topics)
