Just finished Stoner. His sadness did hit me, I identified with him not having any friends.
I also read that the book is misogynous, but I felt agreement in how he felt towards women, his wife being resentful to him just for existing, and finding another woman (Katherine) to love for her mind, but being unable to be with her. Does that make me misogynistic?
What are your overall thoughts on the best novel ever written?
He raped his wife Phoebe
her name was Edith...
I know
>the best novel ever written?
You seem to have a really flat view of the novel; are you sure you think it's the best ever written?
>His sadness did hit me, I identified with him not having any friends.
I mean, really? Are you ten years old?
>are you ten
nta but have a nice day normalhomosexual moron
You don't even know how to quote fgt go back to le.ddit
I'm phoneposting this is IQfy if you have a problem with it go frick yourself. Again you're nothing but a dumb homosexual.
soijak image here
have sex
Go back. Stoner is as IQfycore as it gets.
You're both moronic, too. I'm not critiquing Stoner. In fact, I loved it. I'm attacking OP's vapid commendation.
>His sadness did hit me, I identified with him not having any friends
This is the kind of garbage discussion we get when ignorant tourists from /LULZ/ who frequent feels threads come to IQfy. Stoner wasn't "sad". He was a dispirited stoic who whittled himself into an ungratifying career and built ungiving relationships leaving him feeling empty. The absence of friends was hardly even on the mind of Stoner. He reminisced about his mates during undergrad, but he seemed to have reflected on their growing apart forbearingly. It was his home life and career struggles that defined his character more than anything. If I recall correctly, he never really had much of a desire for new drinking buddies like he had before. Instead, his emotional void was more or less resolved by intimate companionship and intellectual stimulation offered by Katherine.
Jesus christ, the summergay influx has been terrible this year.
>Nooo losing friends at the war did not affect Stoner! Such characters were merely introduced to... mmmm...
That's not at all what I said summergay idiot
god you're a homosexual
>Are you ten years old
Most of the people have friends during their childhood, but even many "normies" become friendless - I am not considering family or colleagues as friends, since they aren't - as they reach and live through adulthood. You should have noticed this; I guess you are either too young or just don't look around yourself.
>Gives up agronomy for English literature without consulting his dad even when he payed for it
>Turns away from their parents when they needed him the most
>Marries a women that is mentally unstable and doesn't love him just because she's attractive
>Even after many occasions that Edith treated him like shit still can't stand up for himself
>Decides to let Katherine leave even when he had every reason not to
>Doesn't show a single drop of determination in a his life and everyone shits on him
>WHY ME... WAAAAAAAAAA!
She literally could've strangled Edith to death and played it as a suicide, now that's a good ending
You forgot that the one time he actually stands up for himself it leads to him getting his career stalled
Better than a life of shame and missed opportunities.
You’re reading it too simplistically. Him being separated from Katherine was a chain reaction result of him standing up against that dipshit student and the professor that was pushing him. The world kept telling Stoner to fight and when he finally did he reaped the terrible results of that for years.
I found the first half restrained but well-written, and then, from the chapter covering Walker's oral evaluation all the way through to the end... it was brilliant, even flawless maybe. The beginning had to be the way it was, for the second half to have the effect it did. The final chapter, Stoner's deathbed scene, is so well done, I was very moved by it. Its bleakness was painful, but I admire the unbending reality of the book.
Stoner is not exceptionally intelligent, just competent, and with work, he becomes a good teacher. His marriage to Edith fails, largely due to her personality, but he is not faultless. I think she was written to be someone who was afraid of choices, unwilling to give up youth, and by youth I mean most importantly the idea of having the best and most remarkable days of your life securely ahead of you. This is what I think makes her reinvent herself as a "flapper," get involved in theater, take over Stoner's study for her artist's studio, and focus so much on making sure that their daughter is popular and well-liked. From the first, she does not take to motherhood, even though she is the one that insists to her husband that she have a baby. I think that like her various hobbies, marriage was something she wanted to try, something "new" but immediately, she felt trapped in it. I felt awful reading about their wedding night. They have sex, very blandly, as if she were having an operation in a dentist's chair, and when it's over, she immediately goes to the bathroom and retches. She does not ask for things, or seem to ever make her desires known, she simply resents. It's quite painful to read.
I realize the protagonist whose unhappiness stems from a frigid and immature wife would probably be looked on with rolled eyes by people today, and in an academic novel maybe it's a cliché, and that's a shame. No character feels parodic or like a caricature. There are frigid wives and there are frigid husbands, and selfish wives and selfish husbands. I can only assume Edith's frigidity comes from unspoken childhood abuse, as Williams writes that when her father dies, she destroys all of her personal things related to him or that he gave her. And the cliché of the older man falling for the younger woman, and the intellectual grounds of their romance... I'm sure there are many bad examples of this trope, but here it feels very delicate and real. People in these types of scenarios are bound to fall in love on occasion, especially when they share an academic passion. None of Stoner's mistakes felt like whoppers, he is stoic and resilient, but man it hurts to read about how bad things went for him. I felt the same as his daughter when she came to visit him, "Poor Daddy, things haven't been easy for you, have they?"
I appreciate your post, anon. It was a pleasure to read it.
>Edith's frigidity comes from unspoken childhood abuse
I saw edith as the everywoman that was raped as a child and stoner as the poor sap that did the right thing and married her
Why was it the right thing to marry her?
>I think she was written to be someone who was afraid of choices, unwilling to give up youth, and by youth I mean most importantly the idea of having the best and most remarkable days of your life securely ahead of you.
Can anyone recommend me some books on this feel? Unfortunately, I see a lot of myself in this description; maybe even in some of her attitudes...
Just don’t let it paralyze you. Speaking as an older person, choices in life are not as final as they may seem, the college you go to, the way you behave, you can change course or decide to become a different person down the line just fine, but actually make sure you make choices and do things, don’t keep things forever open because then you end never really experiencing anything, because you’re afraid to give up your freedom of choice.
>find Stoner used online
>order received
>return processed on the next day
>receive money back
>bookseller accepted order in error
>two hours later get tracking information and it's on the way
free book on the way!
The main message is that you have to take control of your life and not merely be it's passenger. If Stoner beat his wife for being a piece of shit he would've been a lot happier
>Has a lifelong cushy tenure job teaching a subject he enjoys
>Get to frick prime college pussy
>wahhh life is hard
The world is filled with people wallowing in much greater degrees of loneliness, failure and mediocrity. It was hard to find it relatable on that level. I enjoyed it though.
Life isn't easy for anyone dumb homosexual.
I never said that you illiterate monkey.
One of the few books shilled on IQfy that I didn't enjoy. Don't even think it's a bad book, just didn't like it. As far as passive protagonists go, I liked No Longer Human a lot more
You will never be a woman
>I liked No Longer Human a lot more
Funny, because I loved Stoner, but didn't care much for No Longer Human.
I loved both
My thoughts? I hate him, but more importantly, why didn't he just wait to marry until she came back from her Yurope trip? Seems she was just eternally butthurt from that, maybe it was a metaphor for something else.
So I read it sometime last month due it getting popular on youtube...it's good....but not like "oh god this is why I breathe" good. It's very well written and definitely captures the human experience, I felt basically enamored by it even if I thought his life was kinda shit and he made shit choices, it was still touching at parts. There's a lot of little bits of the book that really felt very true to life and I absolutely loved how it opened. It leaves me with a lot of mixed feelings because it's like...the book was pretty good and well written but the actual experience you have of it is so dry and boring because his life is that way...it's a lot. I basically wouldn't recommend it to someone myself, I would love to talk about it with people and will probably quote it or something, and I don't regret reading it. The female characters did feel flat but also most of the characters sort of had that vibe so I wouldn't say it was really unique to them. By flat I mean I guess they seemed secondary to Stoner but then again so did every other character. I was definitely like yikes at all the sex stuff with the wife, I was like...did they frick did he just rape her wtf. Their dynamic was so bizarre and it's awful to think that there's likely many npc straight couples living like that. The chapters of the affair felt very very good but at the same time it does feel like that was likely intentional.
Basically to sum it all up it does feel like it captures life really well (as in the human condition), it's very well written, it was a good book and enjoyable in spite of the super super dry content. Might reread some parts. Wouldn't subject a friend to this recommendation though.
>So I read it sometime last month due it getting popular on youtube
Interesting, good analysis.
I'm curious, because I like your taste, what are some novels you consider superior to Stoner?
The fact that it’s so enjoyable and emotional despite being dry as a bone is a testament
yeeeaaaahhhh that's why I'd say "capturing of the human experience". Cause I wouldn't say during the experience I was like turning the pages thinking it was enjoyable in a fun having a good time sense. I was definitely enamored by it but again I wouldn't subject anyone to that sort of a recommendation.
Picture of Dorian Gray comes to mind for some reason. The plot isn't as "tight" as Stoner obviously (falls apart 2/3rds of the way I'd say) but even then I still love it. It contains a lot of the speaking of the truths of human experience that Stoner contains although it's more philosophical. I haven't read many classics (I read a lot of random genre fiction) so I don't really have many recommendations here, or nothing that would be fitting in this context.
>Picture of Dorian Gray comes to mind for some reason.
Thanks. I need to check that out.
>The female characters did feel flat but also most of the characters sort of had that vibe so I wouldn't say it was really unique to them. By flat I mean I guess they seemed secondary to Stoner but then again so did every other character.
My takeaway from the novel was an accusatory finger at the reader saying look at your life and how you treat people. Stoner is kind of a piece of shit but the book hides it from us by so squarely having us inhabit him. When you actually think about the other characters as being separate from Stoner and you try to imagine the world from their perspectives you realise they are actually characters with real depth except the novel does the opposite for them then it did for Stoner, it hides the depths of those characters because we inhabit Stoner.
I remember really feeling angry at Edith while I was reading the book. When I finished I thought a lot about the book and I realised that Stoner was at least as bad as her, maybe worse.
White knighting for fictional women
I don't think what you're saying is true, you're just describing your own reflection of your own sexist biases. When I read it, it was pretty apparent that we didn't get the full picture of any character besides Stoner. We got glimpses of them, and they all did seem to act in very real ways, but like I said in my other post here most characters seemed flat. Not in a poor writing way, but in a "that's not what this book is" way.
Not the people you're replying to but I just want to point out that Stoner was essentially depressed for a majority of his life, like a lot of what you're saying here is revisionist of his character. He's emotionally dead the majority of his life, like think about the IQfy moment and then the affair, his "loves". This could easily be seen as depression not in a sad way but in an apathy/not fully alive/going through the motions way. I haven't read much of what people have said about the book but I do occasionally see them refer to him as "stoic" which I feel is like...it's elevating a "nothing"/emotionally dead/depressed/apathetic character into some bastion he's not.
It's ok to acknowledge and accept that Stoner was basically an NPC for his life, that's part of what makes the novel so special. He's like...nothing....but he still has this whole experience. I think that's part of why we open the novel with the meaningless book and the very clear idea that his life was meaningless, even this character who's an NPC can carve out such an enticing and deeply engrossing life, even if we know where it ends. The novel is basically a love letter to humanity/the human condition in this way, like it's purposefully meaningless. Elevating Stoner to being something he's not detracts from this core stuff behind the book, imo.
He's not apathetic though. He cares deeply about his love interests, his child, his work, the art of literature, &c. He distances himself from passions, but he's still dedicated and never entirely emotionally absent. Even with your characterization of him (though I think it's off), he still fits the bill of a stoic. And there's no reason to portray his life as meaningless, either. It's no more meaningless than any other life, still embodying the myth of sisyphus.
You're not supposed to identify with him, he's an NPC like said. It's a cautionary tale. He's not stoic, he's not even tragic per se, he's just a fricking husk.
>it's good....but not like "oh god this is why I breathe" good
That's why it's brilliant.
I've read the first half. Thought the writing was solid but not much more. Or maybe the style was perfect for what it was trying to describe: quietly serious, somewhat bland, without higher ambitions. It's hard to criticize because I think the novel actively avoids being 'remarkable'. I can think of two novels I read that are thematically somewhat similar (Coetzee's Disgrace, Soseki's Sanshiro) and they seem significantly better written. The scenes are more vivid, the characterization and prose reach a higher level. But then again I never finished Stoner, to this is mostly speculative.
Great book, hit me hard too but I’m a boomer with a daughter.
woah ten outta ten
He raped his wife which triggered her trauma of being raped by her dad. that's why she resents him
Read his other book Butcher's Crossing
I only read it because some youtuber I think is smart recommended it. Conclusions: It's not that good. It's well written, but the story is melancholic. Not sure why you would read this. I thought it would get better. Unironically, the affair part was the most enjoyable. Also the parts where he spends time with his daughter.
I guess people identify depressing with deep, but it's all so surface level.
>I only enjoyed the parts I could identify with
>I guess you guys enjoy the whole thing because you identify with the whole thing
You don’t have to identify with the protagonist to enjoy the book and see value in it.
>I only read it because some youtuber I think is smart recommended it.
>Book is le bad because it isn't relatable.
Why is this book so popular in Germany? I feel like every German who reads lit has read it and you see it in every book store but I never see it in Anglo book stores and I've only ever encountered people discussing it in English on IQfy.
Because we're a stoic bunch. Simple as.
>but I felt agreement in
You mean you "agreed with"? Yuck
Society was misogynistic, but was Stoner, he never expected anything particular from his wife and he seemed to respect Katherine as an equal.