Constant Reader discussion
Reading List
>
Stoner by John Williams - DISCUSSION
On the back of the trade paperback I have, the character of Stoner is compared to an Edward Hopper figure. I concur.I'd have to disagree that he left no mark on the world. He formed his students, became quite a beloved figure, for a while at least. He gave of himself to his students. Katherine's book certainly was affected by his influence.
He was an honorable man. Remarkable in itself, I feel.
Lynn, did your friend who had him as his advisor ever read the book and discuss it with you? It seems such a personal book, that it surprises me that Williams was at U of Denver because Stoner didn't teacher there. I wonder if he made up the character out of bits and pieces of other people or used one person as an example. He was very real to me.
I thought this was a fabulous book. Typifies to me the craft of writing, Stoner and all the characters in this book are so effortlessly described and defined that you feel you know them. I started reading it on my kindle with others highlights showing but they must have been looking for something different to me as my highlights were very different. In the end i turned off popular highlights in order to enjoy and "wallow" in this book. There were points when i wanted to cry for stoner His description of the future " he saw it as the great university library, to which new wings might be built,to which new books might be added and from which old ones might be withdraw, while its nature remained essentially unchanged"
doesn't that just say it all?
Sherry, I haven't had a chance to talk to Doug yet to see if he's read the book. Williams did his own doctorate at the University of Missouri, so I'm sure that's why he set the novel there. It was obvious that he was very familiar with the physical campus at Mizzou. Maybe he didn't want to set it at U of D because people would ask if certain characters in the book were based on his colleagues. That's sort of what Jane Smiley did when she wrote Moo and combined physical features of all the land grant universities to keep people from saying "that's about Iowa State!", where she was teaching at the time.
Cateline, I have to agree with you - I think any good teacher leaves a mark on the world through the influence they have on their students. I was trying to paraphrase what I recalled from the back of the book cover, and wish I still had the book with me. Many academics, though, would discount the contributions of a professor like Stoner, who never publishes anything significant (if I recall correctly, he struggled to write books of his own) or doesn't achieve professional prominence as an "expert". Maybe that's why he described the book as being about a man who never accomplished much - even though he clearly conveys that Stoner did accomplish much.
I am not surprised that this book did not sell a lot when it was first published. I agree that it was very absorbing; I read it into the middle of the night. Williams did succeed in bringing Stoner to life, to such an extent that I found his story both heartbreaking and very depressing - and I have a pretty strong tolerance for depressing books. I am glad I read it because it was well-done and I am sure that it will result in an interesting discussion. I am glad I did not read it alone.I read somewhere that Williams himself did not find the book that depressing because Stoner had the joy of connecting with great literature and fashioning a career around it. The parts of the novel that wrote about his joy in learning particularly spoke to me. Compared to a life devoted to endless work on a bad piece of farm land, a life in a university was much more appealing.
But the tragedies of his family life and work life made me wonder if he found his own life worthwhile.
I felt in the end he was content. He discovered and pursued his passion, had the experience of a deeply satisfying love, and chose the high road in his dealings with those who sought to bring him down (although I wanted to shake him at times).
Stoner raised for me an existential question: although life is full of absurdities, is life absurd? Stoner’s life appeared to be Sisyphean by the standard measures of a man’s life, such as career and marriage, with an upbringing of such unremitting drudgery it would have made Kafka proud, but the impact of the novel was the way in which Stoner triumphed. He appeared to embody “life’s a bitch and then you die,” and the novel could be unbearably depressing with plenty of justification, but concurrent with more-disappointment-than-a-lesser-man-could-endure was a life of honor, clarity, awareness, personal evolution and service. Stoner was his own man despite not having power in the University hierarchy. His power came in the steady application of his values, his refusal to be swayed from his own judgment, his dedication to his students and his love of literature. There were streams of fulfillment that coursed through his life at the University, his sole setting for which he was deeply grateful. It was the quietest of contributions, embedded in his students’ development as grammar is to an essay. Williams says to me: look again, life is anything but absurd.
I too thought his life content in the end in the scene at the end of the book he accepted himself for who he was, maybe he had had periods of discontent in his life but he definitely found acceptanc eof his lot at the end
"An honorable man." A phrase that's not heard very often these days for, I'm afraid, obvious reasons. God bless Professor Stoner. I'm reminded of the Thoreau quote, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with their song still in them." The absolute bleakness of the first third of the novel had me convinced this would be Stoner's outcome, but I think his song comes out in his teaching and in the dignity he achieves by not stooping to the cheapness and bitterness of his wife and of his enemies in the workplace. [Donna: I wanted to shake him at times, too!]
The only other writer I've seen who portrayed a doomed marriage with this deadly, brilliant accuracy is Richard Yates, particularly in "Revolutionary Road." When I finished "Stoner" I was silently glad it hadn't been made into a film because nothing could do justice to a novel this beautifully done.
And yet, I discover that Yates "Revolutionary Road" was filmed, and got four stars from Ebert. Sometime soon, I hope to take a double Xanax dose and watch it.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/rev...
Dale,In terms of an honorable life with a terrible marriage, I was reminded of The Memory of Old Jack by Wendell Berry, a great novel I read through your recommendation years ago.
I think Stoner had a sort of protective naivety, that perhaps kept him from seeing the worst in people. It helped him deal with them in his own fashion. His self sufficiency, learned in his solitary childhood served him well. He could have bloomed with the right wife....see how he did with Katherine. But Edith quashed him at every turn.
I never did really understand why she hated Stoner so. But the way she destroyed her father's gifts upon his death, really made me think that her hatred of Stoner was a case of transference.
You folks are all making me feel better about Stoner's life. So true that he lived a life of honor and integrity, which is in itself an important accomplishment. Cateline and Keisha, I'm glad that you brought up Edith and Grace. Edith was such a stark, vindictive personality that I had no doubt she was mentally ill. I couldn't imagine her happily married to anyone. The way she physically destroyed everything her father had given her after his death made me think that he had physically or sexually abused her.
Keisha, she couldn't seem to stick with any of the interests she took up. I wonder if in today's parlance she would be described as manic-depressive.
As for his daughter, I wished he had fought for her more. Towards the end of the book he said he was glad she had drink to numb her pain. I cannot imagine anyone who has lived with alcoholism saying that.
Here is the passage from the book:
And Stoner came to realize that she was, as she had said, almost happy with her despair; she
would live her days out quietly, drinking a little more, year by year, numbing herself against the nothingness her life had become. He was glad she had that, at least; he was grateful that she could drink.
Williams, John (2010-05-01). Stoner (New York Review Books Classics) (p. 248). New York Review Books. Kindle Edition.
Robt: Good to see you here! Glad you liked A Memory of Old Jack as much as I did. It's one of a very few books I can get choked up about just from seeing it on a shelf. I'm thinking Stoner will probably join that company now.Cateline: Your idea about Stoner having a "protective naivete" really hits home for me. He thought the best (or hoped the best) of everybody, even the ones who were undermining him at that very moment. He "turned the other cheek," as Jesus taught, and it always worked against him.
As to why Edith hated her husband so, I agree with Ann that she was most likely mentally ill. Plus, mean as a snake, which is always a bad combination. And definitely jealous of any aspirations Stoner had for a rewarding career or even a normal life. She wanted him to be as miserable as she was, and devoted every ounce of her energy toward that. The scene of her moving his meager belongings to the back porch, as Keisha mentions, was a hot button for me. I would have thrown my book at the wall, at that point, except that it was a Kindle.
Wonderful discussion. Edith...I wondered if she was her mother reborn and then if Grace was a more modern reproduction of each of them with alcohol and promiscuity added. I did wonder whether Edith's mother was perhaps a more malignant influence in that home even though Edith destroyed her father's belongings. Another part that struck me was the final sequence as Stoner is experiencing insight into his full life. This segment reminded me of the early part of Tinkers as time telescopes back. It's more the feeling than the content, the idea of time becoming fluid, that captured me.
I am one of those who also believes that good teachers leave their mark on this world in many ways and that Stoner did, no matter his self-deprecating thoughts and others' views.
Keisha, I wondered if, finally, someone in the art community gave her a true opinion of her artistic skills. As I recall, they were meager at best. She was incapable of taking any sort of criticism. And, yes Ann, I agree with y'all in that Edith probably suffered from....what exactly I don't know. But manic depressive might well fit the bill. And the cold manner of her upbringing, while not causing it, certainly didn't help at all.
It wasn't just her husband, she hated all men, I think. And that backs up Ann's thought on her father sexually, or in some way, abusing her. Criminy.
Dale, you mention Stoner's turning the other cheek as having worked against him. And, yes, it did as far as his work and marriage were concerned. But in the end it was best for him. His conscience would not have allowed for any sort of (what he would consider) badness, or meanness. He could not have died with such a clear and clean conscience. It would have eaten away at him.
Just like once he made the decision not to enlist, and then to apply for his deferment.....he didn't second guess himself, or feel guilty over it. I think he felt a slight regret, but that could have been more for the situation existing to begin with, and not his reaction to said situation.
Sue wrote: "Another part that struck me was the final sequence as Stoner is experiencing insight into his full life. This segment reminded me of the early part of Tinkers as time telescopes back. It's more the feeling than the content, the idea of time becoming fluid, that captured me.."
Yes! Tinkers beginning was similar. I loved it too. :)
I think I would also have thrown the book out if there hadn't been that interlude with Katherine when Stoner was finally allowed some happiness. Wait, I also have a Kindle, so the most I could have done was erase it. Dale you mentioned thinking about the phrase "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." I had that thought repeatedly throughout the book.Sue, you mentioned the satisfaction that Stoner found in teaching. There was some of that, but he never felt that his love for the subject matched his presentation. I think a lot of teachers feel that. He knew that he was not a great teacher and that frustrated him. I did enjoy the part where he finally rebelled and started teaching freshman comp like an advanced literature class.
Cateline and Dale, maybe Stoner was too decent to play the university game. In retrospect he definitely should have bent to allow the unqualified candidate to retake his orals. Of course, he didn't have the advantage of hindsight.
Yes I loved when he finally rebelled in the classroom. It's almost as if it took all those years for Stoner to realize that he had some power. I wonder how much of that beaten down quality was a part of his upbringing. His parents certainly displayed the same character.As for Stoner and teaching, what I intended was that teachers leave a mark on their students no matter their own level of satisfaction. Certainly Stoner appeared to find true satisfaction only fleetingly but he never gave thought to any other career, never regretted leaving the farm or the land. His final moments seemed to speak of a level of satisfaction on a very basic level.
I am fascinated by the way Stoner falls in love with Edith, seemingly love at first sight, and Edith passively agrees to be courted. It just seemed so unusual. A non-courtship courtship.Also, consider how Stoner takes up a teaching career: his English professor embarrasses him in front of the class, and Stoner thereby understands that he should be thinking more deeply about things. Also, his career really got a start because his peers went off to war but he stayed back. Stoner seems to back into these major life moments and decisions.
I was taken with that, too, Mary Anne. In one instance it was disastrous, in the other it became his life's work. Less disastrous, but better than if he'd stayed at the farm. His life of ideas and love of learning sure trumped his falling in love on a whim. I expect he had no idea what falling in love really was, so when he was attracted to someone, he took that for love. Here's an instance where pre-marital sex would have prevented a whole lot of problems.
In retrospect it seems more and more to me that Edith was somehow abused by her father, though her mother was quite a piece of work as well. I wonder what her life would have been like if Stoner hadn't shown up out of nowhere at that woebegone house and put the full-court matrimonial press on her? It seemed uncharacteristic of him, but he just wouldn't take no for an answer.Of all the beautiful sentences in the book, one of my favorites is the description of Edith's father at the wedding reception: "He walked about heavily and anxiously, as if he were in charge of something." The consummate industrialist, I would think.
Speaking of Stoner being too honorable for university politics, Ann...I wonder what would have happened if he had caved to Lomax on passing the despicable protege? Part of me thinks Lomax would have soon invented some other way to put the screws to Stoner, and there's no way they could have cohabited the place. Maybe Stoner did right to bite the bullet up front, and earn 20 years of not having to make small talk with Lomax. Seems like a fair deal.
And remember when Stoner and his friend start to speculate on why Lomax is so crazily gung-ho on a student who's basically a loudmouth poser? Stoner says, "I'm not sure I want to know what their connection is." Do you think the student and teacher had a physical relationship, or did it go deeper than that?
I thought they were lovers or, possibly secretly father and son. Couldn't make up my mind.......
I think Lomax identified with Walker, because he, too, was physically handicapped. He was so conscious of his own handicap that he couldn't see beyond Walker's, to judge him for what he was.When Stoner rejected Walker, Lomax saw it only as a rejection of the handicapped, including himself.
Hi Ruth! I agree with you that Lomax identified with Walker's physical handicap and couldn't see beyond it. Dale, another aspect that The Memory of Old Jack has in common with Stoner, besides both being amazing novels, is that the protagonists both have idyllic affairs that end abruptly.
I agree that Edith was abused by her father, probably sexually. Edith’s wedding night sexual experience was an ordeal and each sexual encounter William describes is neurotic or dysfunctional. When Edith’s father died she destroyed objects that could remind her of her youth and when their daughter, Grace, began to mature Edith moved her out of Stoner’s study and separated father from daughter in as many ways as she could. Edith suffered from mental illness that was perhaps brought on by, or exacerbated by, an abusive relationship with her father. This concept is the only way I can understand Edith who is otherwise such an odious and inexplicable character.
I agree that the writing is beautiful and Williams portrayed the pettiness of the university with accuracy. Unfortunately, Stoner was so passive that he became an unsympathetic character. I could have hit him over the head when he did nothing for Grace once her mother started to interfere. Why couldn't he stand up to his wife? Maybe someone could tell me why Arthur Sloane wept when W. W. 1 was over. The book says that Stoner "had a glimpse of Sloane sitting in his chair before his desk, his face uncovered and twisted, weeping bitterly, the tears streaming down the deep lines of the flesh." Then it continues by Stoner sitting in his room and "thought of Archer Sloane who wept at a defeat that only he saw, or thought he saw; and he knew that Sloan was a broken man and would never be what he had been."
Why was Sloane a broken man? How did Stoner know this about Sloan since he seemed incapable of making insights into other's thoughts and emotions?
Robert wrote: "Hi Ruth! I agree with you that Lomax identified with Walker's physical handicap and couldn't see beyond it...."He did, I agree, but it just felt like more to me.
Ruth: Ah. Makes sense to me.Emily: I'm guessing the reason Sloane wept when WW I was over was that he understood at some level what a waste of life it had been for little payoff. I've read that the U.S. government heavily censored the extent of fatalities during the war, but a person like Sloane who was intelligent and read widely could have seen that the just-concluded war left so many unresolved issues in Europe that a second and possibly larger war was inevitable.
How this particular disappointment related to his larger, unspoken, brokenness, I have no idea.
Robt: I wondered, too, why Stoner didn't make more of an effort to keep Grace from essentially being taken away from him. My bet is, he felt that fighting (as opposed to expressing disagreement) in front of children is a terrible thing for a couple to do, and there was no chance of having reasonable differences with Edith. If he had dug in his heels for a closer relationship, would it have affected the outcome of Grace's life?(Fair disclosure: In 1979 I fought hard for custody of my son during a hellish divorce, and found that in such situations the mother held all the cards, period, despite a mental illness. Mine was a Pyrrhic victory; it took me years to pay off the legal fees but at least I knew I had given it my best shot.)
Can the hatefulness of Edith's mother be her role in allowing her husband to abuse Edith. Certainly the entire household seemed off. I hadn't considered that Edith was, in effect, "protecting" Grace in het own eyes. Good catch.
Emily, Dale: Sloane was born, it was mentioned, in 1860. Of course he was too young to actually remember the actual (Civil) War, but always lived with the effects of it. He knew the carnage and waste, personally. Had lost his father in the War, suffered for it.
There seem to be quite a few mentally unbalanced characters in this book - Edith, Lomax, Walker and possibly Edith's parents.I agree with Ruth and Robert that Lomax's relationship with Walker was not physical; he was truly convinced Walker was being discriminated against because of his handicap. Lomax could never forgive Stoner for witnessing his drunken confession of loneliness and pain at the party the Stoners gave soon after he arrived. He was determined to never show "weakness" again.
I thought that a turning point in Stoner's relationship with his family was when he allowed Edith to take over his study for her artistic endeavors. That was the place where he and Grace had so enjoyed being together. It was also where he could pursue his own writing. His relationship with his daughter and his own writing went steadily downhill when he no longer had his own place to work.
I really wanted him to take a stand then, but he was both too passive and too accommodating.
I also think that he was too stunned. Sometimes when quiet people are presented with decisions made by loud people, they automatically capitulate, because they can't quite believe what is happening.
Good point, Sherry. He came from a family who didn't talk much and endured whatever life presented. They even accepted Stoner's decision to abandon his agricultural studies, although he kept this secret for a long time.Stoner did not have a bad temper and probably hated open conflict. He was a good person who always tried to be fair. Edith found him quite easy to manipulate.
But could he have done anything about Edith? As Mary Anne pointed out, he was the one who had pursued her. He felt responsible. Divorce in those days was still very uncommon. Could he have abandoned his daughter to a mentally ill woman? Did medicine offer any help to a woman with her problems?
In those times, was there really any effective treatment for a person like Edith. Would she simply be locked away somewhere. I think Stoner's guilt would have been overwhelming and probably have destroyed any new freedom.
i think stoner failed to do anything about Grace's separation from him and rule by his wife as an attempt not to make anything worse
I also think that he probably did not know what to do with a child. His care of her always seemed rather impersonal even when he was in sole charge. There are few descriptions of him talking to her, discussing what she was doing or moving her education on. She was just at his side doing her own thing with little interference from him. It seems like he took care physically but not really mentally
I phrased it a lot better when I brought this up in the pre-discussion (thinking it was the discussion), but it seems like the largest thing that made Stoner unhappy in life was his "falling in love" with Edith, and there is never any support given for his love for her. What exactly did he see in her? Lust, yearning for the social status of her family, a twisted response to her coldness to him, sensing she was broken and a desire to protect her? It seems like whatever it was, if he was truly becoming a deep thinker, he sure wasn't thinking deeply about what would make a good companion for the rest of his days. I can sort of understand his passivity with the University politics, but he initiated this courtship and marriage to a person whose companionship did not seem to make him truly happy even in the beginning.
He seemed truly smitten with her and sadly unable to see the shallowness and bitterness that was at her core.
I remember thinking Stoner embraced his defeats like badges of honor. He didn't go to war, he stayed home, where he fought his own battles. Married the wrong woman, bingo medal of honor, loved on a superficial level, another medal, had little interaction with people as a whole, another medal. I still cared about what happened to him as a person, even if he was afraid to let go of his fear to live his own life, and to voice opinions. All his life he lived through others, because it was a familiar avenue for him. The only time, as others have stated, he truly made an active decision , was his determination to persue an academic career, instead of farming. Every thing else , he just accepted , because he didn't want, or know how to invest in his own right to live.
He takes stoicism to a whole new level, doesn't he?
When I thought about his parents as role models, I wasn't surprised that Stoner had low expectations of passion in marriage. I think he was somehow smitten with her from the very first look (so it had to be her appearance and demeanor). I also think he'd decided it was time to get married, and she was the only woman he saw around him who seemed "right", although she turned out to be wrong in so many ways.
Lots of interesting ideas in these posts. Many people confuse love with infatuation especially on the first go around. He thought she was beautiful, and that was enough. Perhaps Stoner didn't have time to really get to know Edith because she was just visiting her aunt, but he sure did seem too ready to leap into the fire. He was naive in many ways.Carol, I was very interested in your comment that he "had little interaction with people as a whole." I think you hit the nail in identifying a reluctance to deeply engage with others. His special field of interest was the Latin tradition in Renaissance literature, rather an esoteric subject for most at the university. This choice also isolated him.
Of course, the one obvious exception was his love affair, with a woman who shared his academic interests.
Ann, she isolated herself also, don't you think.
Donna: "Takes stoicism to a whole new level" really rings true for me. Also, I think "smitten" is the perfect word for his courtship of Edith. Especially if the root word is "smite." No arrows from Cupid involved, but rather a cudgel upside poor Stoner's head. And the slow-motion tragedy begins.
Ironic to me that he apparently learned from that, and when he starts spending time with Katherine he realizes out of the blue that his visits may be boring her and so he disappears for a few days until she becomes the aggressor. If she hadn't done that, I don't think they would ever have taken the friendship to the next level.
A rather morose and peaceful book to start the year. I thought Stoner had at least loved and lived. Particularly, his love for Katherine (though ethically objectionable) was probably one of the highlights of his somewhat ordinary life. Like many people, Stoner was at times at the receiving end of life, and at times he made an active choice. Edith was his choice and Katherine too. Was heart-breaking to see Stoner and Katherine separate from each other, and one wonders how it might have been if Stoner had left Edith for Katherine. He obviously loves her.
I wonder if Stoner would have been so smitten (yes, I find it appropriate as well) with Edith had he first seen her in other circumstances. The pages leading up to his first glance of her tell of the architecture of the house, and that: "It was the grandest house that William Stoner had ever been near...".Been near! And, while the house was nice, it wasn't what most would consider truly grand from what I gathered of the rest of the description. Given Stoner's background, the farm though, it was grand. The blues and golds of the French tapestry are described as "so faded that the pattern was hardly visible in the dim yellow light given by the small bulbs...". Stoner seemed fascinated by it though. When he sees Edith for the first time, she is described as "slender and fair, dressed in a gown of blue watered silk, stood pouring tea into gold-rimmed china cups.........he met her eyes; they were pale and large and seemed to shine with a light within themselves."
Maybe Stoner was simply falling in love with the setting, coupled with the girl. Williams seems to imply that with his color thread. When Stoner created his own home, later, he seemed to replicate some of that remembered ambiance. Of course it was all smoke and mirrors, but he was too inexperienced to realize or understand that.
We've talked a lot about why Stoner might have married Edith. Why do you think she decided to accept his proposal? If it was just because she wanted to get away from her family, you'd think she might have been happier in the marriage.
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)
I read this last summer because it was recommended by several CRs and I was impressed with what I found. As I was reading, I kept wanting to talk about it with a good friend who is an English professor at the small college where I teach business. Funny thing – when I finally did get a chance to mention it to him, I discovered that John Williams was my friend’s doctoral adviser at the University of Denver in the 1970s, but he’d never read Stoner. In fact, he said that all the talk back then was about William’s later book Augustus, which won the National Book Award in 1973.
After our discussion, my friend sent me a recent article about Williams from the U of Denver alumni magazine. According to the article, Williams wrote Stoner in longhand over a period of years, with few revisions in what appears to be the original draft – which is amazing when you consider how carefully crafted it is. I was surprised to find that the book did not sell well when it was first published and it quickly went out of print. After years of being overlooked except for a cult following among Williams’s former creative-writing students, Stoner has finally achieved wider recognition in the last 10-15 years, first in Europe and now in the US.
Many people have said that they were deeply engrossed in this book, yet (as I think Williams was quoted as saying on the back cover of the edition I read and have since returned to the library) it’s just a story about a fairly unremarkable man, with an unremarkable career and a depressing marriage, who eventually dies without leaving much of a mark in the world. So why do you think the story appeals to us so much?