>women and the physically disabled will ruin your life
what did Williams mean by this?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>women and the physically disabled will ruin your life
>women and the physically disabled will ruin your life
what did Williams mean by this?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
He’s right. I got cucked by someone with spina bifida and a guy in a wheelchair before
Jfc just how crippled you need to be to got cucked by those?
I have autism
I have spina bifida, is this Emily?
No, I don’t know an Emily
SPINA BIFIDAAA
YO LEGS'LL BE MISSIN' YA
This book sucked and the homie should go back to composing for Star Wars
>women and the physically disabled will ruin your life
what did Bolaño mean by this?
I chuckled
The book is about how peoples early life experiences freeze into an immutable "grammar" of interpretation that prevents them from constructively working out their issues with other people who don't share the same experiental language.
Women and cripples have particularly ideosyncratic experiences in comparison to a healthy farmboy-turned-bookworm.
Their conflicts are about all of them being unable to honestly negotiate their differences because of their mismatched assumptions.
I like this, anon. Can you perhaps specify the "mismatched assumptions" of women and cripples?
And can you say what allowed Stoner & Katherine to connect, if such absolutes as the above exist? Not a leading question, but want to genuinely hear how you thread that needle.
Sorry, It's been a while since I last read it, so I'm fuzzy on some of the particulars. I was mostly thinking of Edith in the context of the thread. I didn't mean to imply that no conditions could possibly create a woman or cripple who could talk to Stoner, just that He's incapable of understanding Ediths feelings and vice-versa.
Marriage, family, and the good life particularly mean very different things to husband and wife and they don't talk about it. Lomax's issue is that he's so hardened in his understanding that cripples are unreasonably picked on he can't meaningfully face the idea that Stoner's criticisms are good-faith. Stoner isn't even aware of this issue and doggedly keeps attacking because as far as he can tell nobody cares about anything but academic rigor, because that's what he cares most about.
IIRC, Katherine and Stoner were first able to get along because they shared a love of the course subject matter, which represents a common part of their "language" that allows them to connect. Also she's significantly younger and thus less ideologically hardened. That obviously plays a big part with his daughter too. I guess you can even see the part of that particular relationship where they grow too differentiated in experience to communicate meaningfully.
I forget the actual line, but there's something somewhere in the middle that struck me as an unnecessarily on-the-nose thesis statement for the book. Something where he's correcting a student that for someone who spoke early english grammar was a fundamental way of understanding the world, there could be no meaning without it. I dunno. I'm surprised to see this interpretation so rarely, it struck me as pretty overt.
Ah, very good. Thanks for going further in all that. Appreciated and well put.
>Edith
I think of Edith being raped.
im convinced that posters like this are trying to steal from anons so they can make their grades at uni. this suck up attitude reeks of disingenuous homosexualry.
Man, sad if true.
I wanna believe in a world where people actually like reading lit.
What are the odds that some random undergrad shitter is studying stoner and came here to steal anon's theories? And if they did, so what? They would still have to read the book and comprehend anon's theories, and if they went to that effort is it so bad if they put it in their shitty essay?
In other words, get a grip moron
samegay
ok bro
inb4
>nooooo you just photoshopped it in the last 60 seconds!!!
desperate
for what
For pussy
No, I just enjoy Stoner, but haven't read it in a while, and simply wanted to learn more about anon's thoughts because I was interested in what they said. I'm far past uni and definitely too much of a simpleton to have caught on to Williams' "grammar" metaphor myself.
If this is what the book is about then I ahould read it, sounds like a good argument
Stoner was not a loser. The coolest motherfricker in the book LOVED Stoner like a brother. Stoner FRICKED a qt student who loved him for the rest of her life.
>dude weed lmao
sorry, not gonna read this crap
Stoner's internal monologue as he dies is just a less poignant imitation of the few paragraphs of I am a Cat.
*last few
Kys, weeb troon
Stoner raped his wife and basically forced marriage on her when it was for her at best a different rapist than her father.
Later Stoner lets his clearly unstable wife take charge of raising their daughter while he distracts himself having an affair with his student.
Stoner wasn't a 'good' guy, he could and should have divorced his wife and raised their daughter right. Should never have raped her, married her etc. But he made all those choices and they built up into a life frozen in dissatisfaction.
>forced marriage on her
He absolutely did not. He awkwardly courted her, then was going to leave her alone after going to her aunt's house for the first time until she opened up to him for a moment and agreed to see him again.
>he made all those choices
>he made choice
Typical dudebro swill. This book is the new Fight Club. You don't actually like it, you just pretend you do to get street cred with other misogynist dudebros.
he should ACTUALLY rape Edith. Like a Tyrone way of raping. Not Timmy way of raping
You can’t rape your wife.
Truth
I'm about halfway through this book and honestly I hate Edith so much it's making it hard to finish. Being a distant wife is one thing, but going out of her way to ruin his relationship with his daughter is just infuriating to read about. Genuinely don't know the last time I hated a book character this much.
Cant even bring myself to hate Edith when Weedman was such a castrated idiot. The book fell apart and changed gernres to dick jerking male fantasy when he had the affair with the co-ed.
>fantasy
Black person. Ever taken any humanities class in college? If so, then any professor you see is banging your fellow students. No exceptions.
Nah bro their autism is to rigorous.
Even the males?
Lomax was a gay israelite
Edith cheated with someone at the theatre company, then they broke up, which is why she “suddenly” divorced herself from that entire social circle
Stoner was not a perfect man but neither was he some sort of beta loser failure. he lived a normal life with ups and downs (more downs than ups but then Williams was a 20th century modernist/realist type not unlike McCarthy whose whole philosophy can be crudely summarized as misery porn).
it may have become memed recently but it is a good book. I’m glad I read it.
It is a good book. It's just the "let's meme it to hell" point of the IQfy cycle. It was recommended left and right a few years ago.
>Edith etc.
Whoah, so you think she was able to overcome her sexual hangups? I absolutely read her as having been utterly ruined by her puritanical New Englander parents to believe that sex was inherently disgusting and something no respectable person would ever do.
Then again, maybe that's why the "affair" failed, the instant the man wanted physical intimacy he became a monstrous pig and everyone associated became guilty by association.
iirc she was pretty horny for Stoner to put a baby in her, right? I can imagine her “deciding” to have an affair because that’s “what you do” when you’re in an unhappy marriage, thereby giving herself permission in a similar way to when she got pregnant. Likely blew up when she found out the dude was banging every other girl in the theater group too.
Yeah, she wanted a baby but then was unironically disgusted with Stoner for what that entailed. I think she genuinely could not make the connection in her head. There was a lot of literature for women of a certain class about mens' disgusting nature, and how repulsive a woman's "duty" in childbearing was around the turn of the century. I guessed she bought into that narrative and found the notion that someone could WANT sex would automatically make them animalistic guttertrash. Maybe I was overhasty in applying that notion to her though, it would definitely have blocked me seeing this interpretation. Thanks for the take.
>Thanks for the take.
Same, anon.