Stoner
discussion
Best to be of a certain age to read this book...
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Paul
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Oct 21, 2014 06:50AM
I feel it is best to be of a certain age and to have lived a particular life to enjoy this book. I gave it 5 stars. I am of that age and have live that life, I suppose. Your thoughts? Also, creative writing teachers often say "show don't tell." This book proves you can tell and do so most effectively.
reply
|
flag
Actually the book shows quite a lot in that we can see all the things he never did, all the decisions he never made. That's why near the end when he does sort of stand up for himself we feel satisfied and smile and say to ourselves 'finally!'And since we only get his thoughts (only two times does the narration shift briefly to his poor wife) we can perhaps assume we're getting an unreliable narrator. We can learn a lot about the other characters by reading between the lines since his read on other people is never complete or insightful - all his powers of empathy and insight he reserved for the characters found in literature.
He is a kind of passive person -- the passive professor: life seems to happen to him. I felt he was quite reliable as a narrator -- felt he was of his time. Not sure if the book is a tragedy, but it's certainly not a comedy. Either way, I enjoyed the read.
It's a fantastic read. Yes, Paul, telling is very effective here for sure. The adage "Show don't tell" which is certainly thrown around in the writing community (I know, I have a master's in creative writing and I can't stand some of these adages now) along with "The road to hell is paved with adverbs." Tell that to Tom Wolfe. They're good starting pointers, but rules in writing is a double-edged sword. Anyway, I read this during my first semester of teaching college. I guess I could relate on certain levels. Certainly, I could relate with his love of literature.
I was glad I stumbled upon it.
Yeah, I guess you could say that you'd have to be at a certain age to get more out of it.
Having worked long ago in a university, I knew something of the forces in Stoner's life when reading this in my 50s. Hope an old librarian's book review borrowed from Kirkus might help.KIRKUS REVIEW
John Williams is a professor of English at the University of Denver and this novel which is about a professor of English at the University of Missouri has no doubt some, if not considerable, basis in his own experience even though it subdues it more than, say, R. V. Cassill or Carlos Baker. Actually Mr. Williams' novel is altogether subdued and in keeping with the character he has created with care, conscience and consistency, perhaps at the expense of the readers he might hope to attract. William Stoner is a shy, awkward, reserved young man to begin with when he comes off the farm and his primary experiences are unlikely to make him more assured and expansive. He marries the prohibitively prim Edith who, in the one period when she is not sexually inviolable, manages to have a child, Grace. But she will attempt to keep Grace at some distance from her father. Stoner, midway in his career, has a real crisis of principle with the new chairman of the English Department who will pillory him from then on. He has only one rewarding personal experience, an affair with a graduate student, forcibly curtailed because of campus gossip. And he retreats further to teach, with an almost anonymous, dogged dedication until his death--cancer....His story is told in monochomatic shades of grey and it is to Mr. Williams' credit that he achieves for Stoner the sympathy he deserves. More, perhaps not.
I think Paul's comment is most insightful. Stoner is a novel about a professor for professors. It is a watering hole for retired academics like myself who like to look back nostalgically at the slings and arrows of university life they no longer have to endure: the pressure to publish, the inflated egos of colleagues, the indifference of hung-over students, the constant struggle for administrative support, especially if you're in a discipline that doesn't always pay for itself. Of course, non-academics can enjoy this book too, at the very least as a prurient behind-the-scenes look at intellectual politics. But if you're looking for another Lucky Jim or Changing Places, stay away from this campus novel: it is as wrenchingly sad as they are wrenchingly funny.
I disagree in one respect. One does not have to have lead an academic sort of life to appreciate Stoners trials and tribulations. I think a person only needs to be a reflective sort, and be able to admit their short comings. Or let's say have an understanding of what our lives have meant.I agree with the being a certain age......age gives (some) perspective. Hopefully. :).
Chrisl wrote: "Having worked long ago in a university, I knew something of the forces in Stoner's life when reading this in my 50s. Hope an old librarian's book review borrowed from Kirkus might help.KIRKUS RE..."
Something that truly annoys me is a review that tells the story.....the whole story. I've read Stoner, and loved it, but really, if I'd read the Kirkus review above beforehand, I'd have been pretty steamed. To give the ambiance of a novel is one thing, but to reveal plot twists that should come as...not a surprise, but a revelation is just bloody annoying.
How old would you say you need to be to appreciate this book? I was 23 when I read it and thought it was great.
Jeroen wrote: "How old would you say you need to be to appreciate this book? I was 23 when I read it and thought it was great."That is great! And I'm glad for that. OTOH, it is my (possibly mistaken) belief that you, or anyone in your age bracket will come to appreciate more of the nuances and layering of feeling of the book. There are just some things, that for better or worse, come with age. No set number, just life knocking one about. :)
My age is past legal retirement, and I came into Academia at about age 50. After a life of working in several different spheres, and having entrepreneurial success in a owned business of 10 years. This book scored, to me, that quality that I detested within the Academic environments, especially the Humanities/Arts, rather than in the Sciences or Math realms. It's what in business is called "Paralysis of Analysis" and that is what cores a Stoner. For those of us who worked long, physical labor lives from virtually childhood, a Stoner can not be easily understood. Not speaking for all, but in great majority people of my own experience of "work". And rarely does his "Everyman" comparison ring home as a "common" state of homo sapiens. Blue collar aging level will not particularly increase Stoner appreciation, IMHO. He's as my Sicilian Mother would say "Crying with a loaf of bread under each arm." So we tend to hear a passive and negative whine and not depth of self-identity or reconciliation.
Jeanette wrote: "My age is past legal retirement, and I came into Academia at about age 50. After a life of working in several different spheres, and having entrepreneurial success in a owned business of 10 years. This book scored, to me, that quality that I detested within the Academic environments, especially the Humanities/Arts, rather than in the Sciences or Math realms. It's what in business is called "Paralysis of Analysis" and that is what cores a Stoner. For those of us who worked long, physical labor lives from virtually childhood, a Stoner can not be easily understood. Not speaking for all, but in great majority people of my own experience of "work". And rarely does his "Everyman" comparison ring home as a "common" state of homo sapiens. Blue collar aging level will not particularly increase Stoner appreciation, IMHO. He's as my Sicilian Mother would say "Crying with a loaf of bread under each arm." So we tend to hear a passive and negative whine and not depth of self-identity or reconciliation...."Your last sentence, in particular, strikes me as a bit brutal.
I also suspect you would find the Sciences and/or Math realms just as detestable in their cut throat publish or perish as any Humanities/Art departments.
My reading of STONER produced a heroic image of sorts, a man who overcame, found passion, and died not with regret but at peace. "A sense of his own identity came upon him with a sudden force and he felt the power of it. He was himself and he knew what he had been." That he was a professor struck me as causally relevant. This was a story about a common person, managing everyday challenges, and somehow persevering without sacrificing core principals or becoming overly hypocritical. He marched to his own beat, found love, was respected, and lived a long, mostly honest and ethical, life. Isn't that the ideal?
I loved this book. Stoner was a good man. He endured, like Dilsey.
I loved this book but I found the sadness of it almost paralyzing. Stoner can't do other than what he does because of who he is, even before he left the farm. But life is unremittingly cruel to him and I was infuriated with him for being unable to fight back, even as he broke my heart.I am near the age of legal retirement and I do think it provides a different reading of the book. Perhaps as different as we are, I feel a closeness to Stoner that comes from having lived a large part of my life.
I will definitely re-read this novel as I get older, as I'm sure it will have a different meaning at different stages of my life. Williams' consistent writing style through Stoner's life was remarkable. I ached in his loneliness and gravely accepted that this life was his choice. I was comforted that he was able to break out of the "expected" adult path for him and relished his small rebellilons at the university.
Is it even possible to achieve that level of acceptance of one' s self in our word. It feels as if we are relentlessly urged to do more, be more, say more....
I am 20 now. Read this when I was 19 and loved it. Perhaps if I appreciate it now, I'll appreciate it tenfold when I'm much older.
I have just posted a review of Stoner on GR. It does, to some extent, deal with this question. I have come upon the book at a somewhat mature age and feel that my perspective now is quite different than it would have been 40 years ago. (I am certain that there is a means by which I could attach a link to my review here but my age seems to be getting in the way of my doing that.). Please follow me back to the review should you so wish.
I read Stoner only last year, and while I am not "of a certain age", which I can only deduce to be of later years, I thought the novel was brilliant. We have all felt the mundaneness of life, whether it be with work or family. Stoner just shows the extremes. I recommended this book to a few close friends and they all hated me for it. Am I the only one who thought that Stoner, while utterly depressing, was a strong man? He is such a contradictory fellow and that is what makes him so fascinating. He evoked a myriad of emotions in me, from hatred, apathy, sympathy, amazement, bewilderment, and others. I cannot praise this novel enough!
Hey Melissa. It seems that, despite your 'not being of a certain age', I accept that your reading of Stoner is not far off mine. I'll not say that you have an old soul (not being able to imagine a soul), so I'll stick with 'precocious' or, even better, 'wise beyond your years'. You can be an honorary member of 'being a certain age' club without having to pay the dues, like stiff joints and loss of hope for the future. (I'll probably get feedback that 'it's never too late' but I don't believe it.) So, in the words of St. Janis of Joplin, 'Get it while you can.' Cheers.
Melissa wrote: "I read Stoner only last year, and while I am not "of a certain age", which I can only deduce to be of later years, I thought the novel was brilliant. We have all felt the mundaneness of life, wheth..."Ditto.
Obviously, some people are more astute readers than I was at a younger age. Thanks Omar.
RK-ique wrote: "Hey Melissa. It seems that, despite your 'not being of a certain age', I accept that your reading of Stoner is not far off mine. I'll not say that you have an old soul (not being able to imagine a..."Not sure if that was condescending or not. Either way, I think one doesn't have to have years of experience to appreciate the story. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to know a few things, but not so old that I have forgotten them. My love of literature and years of being a voracious reader has allowed me to be able to read many types of stories, and while I haven't, say, climbed Kilimanjaro, I can understand the difficulties the climbers experience and feel the multiple emotions as they ascend. I didn't have to climb the mountain, I just needed to be able to understand and recognize each emotion as it happened. Sorry for the attitude. It's nice to know that you and I both appreciated, and liked, the novel. Many others did not.
Melissa wrote: "RK-ique wrote: "Hey Melissa. It seems that, despite your 'not being of a certain age', I accept that your reading of Stoner is not far off mine. I'll not say that you have an old soul (not being a..."Not condescending at all. While in my 20s and 30s, I became aware that I was reading a great deal of my own aspirations into fiction. Thus, I believe that as with many young readers at the time, we tended to ignore that Hesse's protagonist, Harry Haller, the Steppenwolf, was a middle-aged man. We read him as ourselves, missing a great deal of what Hesse was saying about getting hold of life.
Indeed, I too could read about mountain climbers and imagine how they would feel. Aging, I would suggest, is not comparable to mountain climbing. It is more like trying to imagine oneself as a member of another culture, like being a Buddhist monk in Tibet. The perspective changes. There is a different perspective on the world.
I believe that my misunderstandings of certain fiction came from a certain attitude of youth wherein I expected to see myself therein. I don't think that this is unusual for younger readers.
Thus my comments to you, while perhaps light-hearted, were intended as a sincere complement to your ability to read beyond yourself, so to speak. I had suggested in my original posting that age was a factor in understanding the author's intention in Stoner. I took your reply as a correction that at least some readers were able to overcome my point of view. My apologies for being unclear.
RK-ique wrote: "Melissa wrote: "RK-ique wrote: "Hey Melissa. It seems that, despite your 'not being of a certain age', I accept that your reading of Stoner is not far off mine. I'll not say that you have an old s..."I can understand those readers that place themselves as the protagonist, but I was never that type of reader. I read the novel from the perspective in which it was written, even if it was a POV that I didn't understand. Of course I would most certainly read Stoner at a later age, just for the sheer pleasure of it. Hopefully I will still appreciate it as I do now.
Melissa wrote: "RK-ique wrote: "Melissa wrote: "RK-ique wrote: "Hey Melissa. It seems that, despite your 'not being of a certain age', I accept that your reading of Stoner is not far off mine. I'll not say that y..."I suspect you will Melissa. You seem to be what I call a strong reader. Cheers
Interesting question. Although I doubt I'd have appreciated this wonderful book as a teenager, I read it recently and found it, unquestionably, my joint favourite novel - yet I have little in common with Stoner (British, female, not a professor, never expected to be a farmer, born a couple of generations later).I agree with Ashlee, that it will have different meanings at different stages of one's life. I find that to be a feature of all great art.
I think you will get more out of the book if you are an older reader, or if not older, at least in academia.Williams didn't intend the book to be a downer. He said it's a book about love - Stoner finds his love in his profession - which is what most people hope for out of life.
I agree that, to an extent, if we find the book hideously depressing we're projecting our own psyches onto Stoner. I thought Stoner moved through life as if anesthetized; awful things didn't truly bother him. Rather than being depressed, he shrugged them all off. I guess you could argue it was a defense mechanism. Or was it just the hardy, armored personality of someone born into a poor, hardscrabble existence with farming parents who didn't show a lot of affection?
Whichever it is, I agree that he appears anesthetized and if "awful things didn't bother him," nothing really made him joyful. Certainly not the ordinary things, the world around him, even books did not make him come alive.Although I do believe it helps to be older to read him, I'd have to say that even as an older (much older!) reader, the thought of living life like Stoner does is painful. I felt completely gutted by the end of the novel. If Stoner finds love in his profession, it is a strangely lifeless kind of love.
The great gift of this singular book, for any soul with some age to it, is a low, slow brooding and solid heartbreak, a good melancholic feeling that lasts for days afterwards.
Ellie wrote: "Whichever it is, I agree that he appears anesthetized and if "awful things didn't bother him," nothing really made him joyful. Certainly not the ordinary things, the world around him, even books di..."Ellie wrote: "Whichever it is, I agree that he appears anesthetized and if "awful things didn't bother him," nothing really made him joyful. Certainly not the ordinary things, the world around him, even books di..."
Me, too. I felt "completely gutted" and it lasted for days.
Egbert wrote: "Ellie wrote: "Whichever it is, I agree that he appears anesthetized and if "awful things didn't bother him," nothing really made him joyful. Certainly not the ordinary things, the world around him,..."For me too-days. I think being the same age as Stoner made it worse, not better. I personalized way too much and I felt genuinely angry with him for not being more...I'm not sure, alive somehow.
Ellie wrote: "Egbert wrote: "Ellie wrote: "Whichever it is, I agree that he appears anesthetized and if "awful things didn't bother him," nothing really made him joyful. Certainly not the ordinary things, the wo..."Hmm. I could see that. There is a definite schism between his own not being "alive" and the narration's own awareness of that, which I think is a good part of the novel's effective brilliance (and, in turn, what causes so much pain reading it). I took a little time to review it if you feel like taking a peek.
