Ilse's Reviews > Stoner

al goeie dingen over gelezen :)

Werkelijk? Dat verbaast mij :). Ik had er bewust geen enkele review over gelezen maar ontkwam toch niet aan torenhoge verwachtingen Ondanks de totaal andere tijd en plaats kwam het boek voor mij op sommige punten veel te dichtbij om het onbevangen te kunnen lezen - laat staan er iets zinnigs over te schrijven zonder op die persoonlijke dingen in te gaan. Ik ben al nieuwsgierig naar jouw mening :) (ik ga me nu rustig door de talloze reviews ploegen :)).

That life of quiet desperation. Good book!

Not trying too hard is the key, and I agree with you on that. Life is to be lived, with all the suffering and happiness it brings, it has to be lived in the hope that somewhere someday, someone will make it worth it. Great review Ilse !

I've seen many reviews of this book here on goodreads, Ilse, but your very subtly worded account comes closest to expressing what I felt while reading it - though my review turned out far more negative sounding than yours has, although I tried very hard to write a fair account of it.
The book bothered me in a way books rarely do - but it wasn't Stoner's passivity that caused that reaction. I accept that there are people who lead lives of minimal action, minimal reaction and I have no problem with their chosen philosophy (it's true I don't have to live with one;-)
My negative reactions to this book were all reserved for the author and the choices he made in creating this story - some of which you've pointed out, eg, how Edith is portrayed (or not portrayed) - and I laughed at your Zappa parallel.
The book lacked something fundamental for me - I'd almost say 'coherence'. And I somehow mistrusted the author's motives in writing it, the more I read on...

"But what about the effect of his stoic attitudes on the lives of the others in his life? His parents, wife, daughter, lover? Does he really care?"
Pertinent questions that go beyond the picture Williams takes pains to portray about a pseudo-unorthodox hero (maybe himself?), Ilse. Questions that didn't even cross my mind because Stoner's restrained account pulled at hidden heartstrings that I still can pin down into words. The experience was repeated again with Butcher's Crossing and it's now even more intense with Augustus, which I am currently reading rationing. There must be something in Williams' sober prose that I respond to...truth is I have never scrutinized my reasons, maybe because I sense they are fragile, highly subjective and prone to counterargument; that's why I admire your capacity to articulate thoughts I never allowed myself the opportunity to formulate.
Brava for such eloquent, refreshing perspective, which stealthily warns me again re-reading this book, least it should fall down from my high literary pedestal...

But what about the effect of his stoic attitudes on the lives of the others in his life? A timely question, Ilse.
I don't know why I already 'liked' this, I don't remember reading this sublime review. As Fionnuala says, I have also read many reviews of this book (many of them with a 5-star rating) so I really can't explain why I haven't read it yet. But I know I will, eventually. This is another beautifully written review filled with truth and wisdom, my friend.

P.S. As I was writing I didn't see that Dolors quoted the same sentence! :P Haunting question, indeed.

Regardless of my not having read the book yet, I think I do understand what you mean with your criticism toward the way Stoner’s wife is depicted. It reminds me of my own reaction toward Cathy Ames from “East of Eden”. It was maybe the main reason for me to not be able to warm up to this much loved classic. She was absolutely demonized. And in a way that didn’t add anything to the story. Villain just for the sake of being a villain. I read somewhere that she was most likely based on one of Steinbeck’s wives. Maybe it’s true. I wish he hadn’t taken it all out on Cathy. This reminds me of what Virginia Woolf says in “A Room of One’s Own”. That writing should be devoid of ”all desire to protest, to preach, to proclaim an injury, to pay off a score, to make the world the witness of some hardship or grievance”. Thank you for this very personal and touching review, Ilse.

Well, this is interesting, Ilse. You present, as always, a well-argued and well-presented review - but from what you present here it's almost as if I read a different book from you. Your initial motif of the teacher being the person who chooses the path of least resistance is one I've heard over the years but never understood, being a college teacher myself. In fact, I believe in its opposite: only by knowing the complexity of something can you pass it on in simpler forms and connect it to other subjects, topics etc. Only by being impassioned about something can you pass on that passion. (Einstein reformulated, I guess). But that's a long story. Short story is: I didn't see the teaching as Stoner's escapist path of least resistance but the very path which gave him some meaning in life. I agree that he was stoic (or whatever) in the extreme, but I felt he was an Ethan Frome kind of person (from Edith Wharton's amazing novel of the same name): he couldn't help it, though I felt like knocking some sense into him once or twice. It was, partly, his temperamental make-up. And I guess I just never questioned Williams's motives but again likened the story to Wharton's: we are all sometimes imprisoned in our life circumstances. Some have the gumption (money, luck, etc.) to break free, and some don't. How interesting the way in which we approach novels, though. I intend to re-read this at some point because I loved it so much. I have a naive idea that I will love it again, but who knows?

Gosh, you took me on a journey with this, Ilse. I adore this book, and your 4* were reassuring, but you opened with a saying I abhor. And then you drew me in with your bewitching analysis.

Regarding Edith, I didn't think Williams was generalising about women. I inferred specific reasons as to why she was as she was: (view spoiler)[I think her father abused her emotionally, and probably sexually (hide spoiler)].

Do you know what, each time I read a review of this book, I learn something new about the book. I love your careful dissection of Stoner's detached attitude; it is true that I almost completely read the whole book only from Stoner's perspective, and what you have articulated here is a whole new way of looking at it.

Splendid review, Ilse! :D

Ilse wrote, "Wisdom lies in tuning our lives to the divine order of the universe and to want what actually is the case. As emotions have an external source, as we are being moved, touched, affected, impassioned, be the Master of Yourself and control your emotions."

I believe you are correct that this is finally what John Williams wants to leave us with. To quote myself on this, "Go with the flow, but take your own paddle." As for Stoner, his life turned out the way it did and so it goes.

Since reading Stoner, I have recommended the book to several people. Surprisingly, none of them see the book as I do. They all find it depressing, but then, they all would describe themselves as optimists. i.e. They believe, as you said, "Happiness is the result of your approach to life, not of what happens to you." It would be nice wouldn't it? If it's all just a state of mind, I don't have it.

Another wonderful review Ilse.

You raise a hardcore philosophical issue, Ilse, and one with great practical-ethical implications. Stoicism has a great appeal to anyone who has been hurt by life. But certainly in our modern western society (and through globalism gradually worldwide) it is – negatively – seen as fatalism and even worse, as a kind of capitulation. I’m a strong believer in voluntarism: we have to make our own life, fulfill our destiny (if we can ascertain one), or at least try, and if necessary try again; I don’t think it is right to just hold on to what you referred to as “minimal action, minimal reaction”, that just isn’t ethical. And so you’re right to stress the effect Stoner’s attitude has on the lives of the others in his surrounding! In this sense I tend to reject Stoner’s choice. But I’ve learned we all have to cope with the human condition, with the limits we bump into or with what we have to live through. And then you have to make a choice (if you can) and discern what you can live with and adapt to, taking into account the perspective of the people around you. In that sense, I can understand and follow a certain, moderate stoicism. But it still remains a very difficult and delicate issue.

Another lovely review, Ilse. I feel sorry for university that lost a student like you. This book seems to find a new lover from among my friends every other month. Must read it someday.

Simon wrote: "That life of quiet desperation. Good book!"
I agree, Simon. Enduring despair without wailing or drowning in useless self-pity, which is admirable in some respects and perhaps unlike what many people in his shoes would do.

I keep seeing reviews of this - though few of them as appealing as yours - and the book is somewhere in the middle of a stack of those in my 'work'room patiently waiting to be read. He's so stoical, he won't mind waiting a bit longer...
It is one that I think I'd like to read in order to join the conversation with you, or Fionnuala, or Helle, for example, such worthwhile conversations, but somehow I'm reluctant to launch out on a life of minimal action, minimal reaction. It sounds so deadening.

Abubakar wrote: "Not trying too hard is the key, and I agree with you on that. Life is to be lived, with all the suffering and happiness it brings, it has to be lived in the hope that somewhere someday, someone wil..."
Thanks Abubakar! And even if that day wouldn't come, there still are books to accompany us, our ever truthful friends, making life worthwile, whatever comes on our path, isn't it :))?

Jean-Paul wrote: "This is a wonderful review Ilse. I love the very personal way in which you approached the content. I'm currently reading this novel, as you may have seen from my updates. "
Evidently I am very curious on your thought about Stoner, Jean-Paul! I hope to read soon what you were missing in this novel - as my response to it was very much coloured and perhaps even distorted by my own experiences, a more detached view should be more worthwhile and fair. I am looking forward to your observations.

A lovely dissection of themes and characterization of one of my most favorite novels of all times (for reasons quite personal), Ilse. I found Edith's depiction problematical too and found her slightly psychotic tendencies a fallout of probable childhood abuse. She could have been fully developed had the author not chosen to bestow all the limelight on Stoner, making all the side characters appear as mere narratorial accessories to the tale of his growth in the process. In any case, erudite review as ever.

Fionnuala wrote: "I've seen many reviews of this book here on goodreads, Ilse, but your very subtly worded account comes closest to expressing what I felt while reading it - though my review turned out far more negative"
Thank you, Fionnuala. I tried to give a balanced account of my mixed feelings on it. I found myself nodding reading your review yesterday, Fionnuala, in agreement on some of your views on the book and its flaws. I did the same while reading some highly positive reviews. This book puzzled me, and reading the reviews (which I deliberately avoided before reading the book) reminds me of listening to lawyers in court - I know I would make a lousy judge, as I can mostly agree with the arguments of both parties :). Mistrusting somehow Williams's motives on writing this, do you refer to possible autobiographical traits of the novel? I didn't dig into Wiliams's background yet.

Ilse wrote: "...Mistrusting somehow Williams's motives on writing this, do you refer to possible autobiographical traits of the novel? I didn't dig into Wiliams's background yet."

I didn't check out his background either, Ilse, so I don't know if the story is in any way autobiographical, though from the introduction, I understood Williams spent most of his life teaching at university level.
I do try to avoid reading an author's life in his work, but in this case, the unlikely enemies Williams chose for Stoner struck me as odd narrative choices, and I wondered if there wasn't some score settling going on. (view spoiler)[The likely enemy would have been Finch who returned from the war without many of his friends/colleagues but was faced daily with Stoner who'd escaped all that and who he now had power over (and note that I agree with Stoner in choosing not to join up).
Even if there was nothing autobiographical about the story, and if Williams wasn't settling any scores, the way it was written left me cold, except in a few places when I really admired the phrasing, but there weren't enough passages like that. It's true that I'd heard it was something exceptional before I read it - and I read it on that basis, so I think it is fair to ask more of it than of a contemporary novel that hasn't yet been canonized in any way. (hide spoiler)]

You have summed up Stoner in your torrential analysis, Ilse! The solipsistic angle caught my eye and I did think over it for a while. It is often a bit of a debate in drawing a line between existence and exile. And I felt Stoner didn't really belong to one particular side; he loitered at the boundary, much like most humankind. He became unforgettable because he was commonplace but he recognized the same and didn't overdo it; what you beautifully term as keep breathing. Ah! A lovely walk down the memory lane! Thank you :)

Seemita wrote: "He became unforgettable because he was commonplace"

Brilliant!

Really enjoyed your take on Stoner , especially all these personal snippets , Ilse . Unfortunately I wasn’t under the spell of that one . It’s not that I totally disliked it but there was something that didn’t allow me appreciate it as I was expected . Maybe too monotonous , in my opinion of course , narration , maybe too less life and ardour that finally turned for me Stoner’s stoicism into passivity . I couldn’t approve though in a way understood his reasons that he didn’t face his wife to protect their daughter . And portrait of the wife , oh dear me , grotesque beyond imagination ! Anyway , I'm always curious to know different opinions and your an excellent review completely satisfied me !

Dolors wrote: ""But what about the effect of his stoic attitudes on the lives of the others in his life? His parents, wife, daughter, lover? Does he really care?"
Pertinent questions that go beyond the picture."
Please do not let this all too personal musings ever affect the rightful place this novel has in your heart and memories and just forget having read them, dear Dolors! As I told Matthias after finishing this, I sincerely doubted to add my observations, reluctant because of them being too personal. As I didn’t read any reviews before reading this, I simply was not aware this novel provoked such strong feelings and very divergent opinions, but while reading them now, I am very intrigued and excited by the various personal responses to it – looking at it from different angles, picking up different themes, inciting moving personal recounts – as literature and books are at the core of the novel, perhaps it was written in the stars that this novel would touch deep layers within us, avid readers, whatever our opinion on the common novel’s components like style, story, characters. Thank you for your thoughtful comment, which genuinely moved me.

Florencia wrote: "As Fionnuala says, I have also read many reviews of this book (many of them with a 5-star rating) so I really can't explain why I haven't read it yet."
I also waited a long time, Florencia, while the novel's praise was sung intensely at work (which happens rarely, but mostly ends in disappointment; comes the dreadful moment someone lends me the book I 'have' to read, and as I am too shy and polite to refuse, compelling me to do so). And then expectations just rise to a frantic level - a less excited state of mind helps to better appreciate the novel :). Thanks for your gentle response, I'd be happy to read your thoughts on it when you ever get to it.

Vessey wrote: "This reminds me of what Virginia Woolf says in “A Room of One’s Own”. That writing should be devoid of ”all desire to protest, to preach, to proclaim an injury, to pay off a score, to make the world the witness of some hardship or grievance”.
I couldn't agree more, Vesey, with this wonderful quote from Woolf! I admit to look for aesthetical bliss in fiction. I do not remember Cathy anymore (read it more than 20 years ago) but I prefer villains with more dimensions too, especially in marital battles :). Thanks for your incisive comment, and for reminding me of Steinbeck, I should read more by him - and perhaps more American literature, too, but I feel not ready to do so yet.

Helle wrote: "Well, this is interesting, Ilse. You present, as always, a well-argued and well-presented review - but from what you present here it's almost as if I read a different book from you. "
Helle, don’t let me be misunderstood: to me, the saying about the choice of teaching is a sarcastic sneer to all people thinking it is the easy way out, so I am very much on your side! Other than this saying suggest, I am very much convinced it is passion one needs to teach, and that is precisely what I see amongst my teaching friends (and husband-), so much and so alluring that both my children want to become proud teachers too. In my clumsy way, I tried to link a running joke in conversation to this book, as Stoner’s choice to teach in my eyes isn’t an escapist one at all. His stoicism applies to his health and relationships, at work and at home, but not to the teaching itself (I liked the way he stood up for his ethical standards in the evaluation of Lomax’s pupil). By the saying, I tried to insert some critic on today’s academic (and society) beliefs, where teaching and education is only a means to and end: for the professors, it is often secondary, the less effort they put in it, the better for their career; for society, education is mainly aimed to deliver manpower for the enterprises, manpower which is acting, instead of learning and teaching. I guess my point wasn’t that clear). Thank you for your expansive comment, I’d love to read your ‘long story’ on your vision on teaching! And thanks for reminding me of Ethan Frome, it is already on my list, but this parallel you draw with Stoner only makes me more eager to read it. I think I first need a week to read so many reviews on Stoner as possible, I love these bookish discussions!

Excellent and evocative - beautiful review of a book that remains an unread enigma for me, and the protagonist who comes across as an extraordinary man in the garb of the ordinary. I love how you lent a personal touch to Stoner's story. In a world of competitive rate race self-satisfied people come across as defeatist losers, or that's how we're trained to see them having it been hammered into our heads since childhood "to succeed." Basically seek at any cost the highly stylized lifestyle whose images assail us incessantly through media. I find it scary to imagine a world in which everyone "succeeds."

Jibran wrote: "In a world of competitive rat race self-satisfied people come across as defeatist losers"

Yes, or possibly smug, which is almost worse.

Jibran wrote: "I find it scary to imagine a world in which everyone "succeeds." "

But you don't need to: if everyone "succeeded", the barrier would rise, and there would still be a hierarchy.

this book is horrible

I remember lyrics from one of my favorite bands which goes thus:
"In this endless race of property and privilege to be won
We must run, we must run, we must run"

I haven't read this book but I loved your intimate review which, however fraction of, gave me glimpses to the culmination of a beautiful person you are today. Your kids are lucky and so is your husband, Ilse!

Hi Ilse, I am pleased to see you clarify your stance on teaching in response to Helle's comments. I too was under the impression you were using the sneer held against teachers against yourself - or us. Outside of hearing student voices first thing in the morning, seeing the dedication of my colleagues to the community and the school was my greatest inspiration for doing good work. But you two are in the university community, which is much different, I suspect, from the junior high and high school one I am familiar with. Still, I think we know enough how to appraise this book.

The other day I heard the writer David Brooks describe what it means to be a journalist. His assistant brought in baked goods, and announced to the staff at the New York Times here are the goodies. They all took what they wanted - and then went back to their desks. At more community-oriented organizations the gesture would have been an opportunity for everyone to relax around the table and converse. That's what happened at our school whenever one of the parents would bring in for us one of their home baked goods. The tea would boil. Soon we'd be laughing. Journalists are observers. They may be socially awkward, but it's their role to try and present all sides of the story. This is something I feel this novel fails to do.

I notice in this comment thread as well as elsewhere the sentimentalizing of the notion of people who live lives of "quiet desperation." That's not meant to be celebrated. Those words come from the opening pages of Thoreau's Walden where he criticizes those very people who will do nothing to improve society. If it's to understand the nature around you, do it. If it's to go to jail for protesting a war you do not believe in, do it. But for god's sake, don't sit around and whine and say the system is against me. Act, absorb everything the world has to offer, especially in your solitude - that was Thoreau's view, and he would have despised this book too. It turns a terrible character flaw into one to be admired. Of course everyone has their own view, and your very personal one is the best approach - especially coming as it is from a fellow teacher ; )

Cecily wrote: "Gosh, you took me on a journey with this, Ilse. I adore this book, and your 4* were reassuring, but you opened with a saying I abhor. And then you drew me in with your bewitching analysis".
Thank you for reading and for your thoughtful comments in this tread further on too, Cecily! I tried to explain to Helle why I linked this awful saying to the novel, but I don't know if I managed to make it more clear. I agree on your point about Williams's take on the women in his novel, mainly when thinking on the personalities of Catherine and Grace, so different from Edith. I can understand your analysis on the causes of Edith's behaviour (view spoiler)[, having similar suspicions when she destroyed her toys after the death of her father (hide spoiler)], I just hoped for a more subtle approach from Williams on her character, perhaps mainly because it is so hard to observe a mother failing to take care of her child. Poor Grace!

Anuradha wrote: "Do you know what, each time I read a review of this book, I learn something new about the book. I love your careful dissection of Stoner's detached attitude; it is true that I almost completely read the whole book only from Stoner's perspective."
Thanks, Anuradha. I see what you mean and agree, as while reading the reviews now, I have a similar experience. I love to read on the different angles and themes readers discover in it, prolonging the pleasure of reading :).

Cecily wrote: "But you don't need to: if everyone "succeeded", the barrier would rise, and there would still be a hierarchy. ."

True, and that would be even more scary! But I'm thinking along the lines that if everyone "succeeded" into becoming suited booted bankers, airline owners, Amazon executives, media gurus, deified stars etc etc, then who would build our houses and plazas, work in NHS, run the municipality, sort the queues at Asda, pick fruits at the farms, drive buses, and man the airport chek-in desks?

RK-ique wrote: Since reading Stoner, I have recommended the book to several people. Surprisingly, none of them see the book as I do. They all find it depressing, but then, they all would describe themselves as optimists. i.e. They believe, as you said, "Happiness is the result of your approach to life, not of what happens to you." It would be nice wouldn't it? If it's all just a state of mind, I don't have it.
Well, I do not think it a surprise that I neither thought the book was depressing, RK-ique, and that I also have some difficulties with that 'it is all your mind' approach - there is a harshness in that, almost blaming people facing horrible events for their natural feelings of pain and grief, instead of helping them as we should. I couldn't call myself an optimist, though I'm getting better in letting go:). I loved your self-quote, RK-ique, especially the paddle! Thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comment.

Jibran wrote: "if everyone "succeeded" into becoming suited booted bankers... etc, then who would build our houses and plazas..."

In the UK, we've often relied on immigration to partially fill such gaps, but the rhetoric is less favourable as the migrant crisis and EU referendum fill the front pages.

A more amusing approach is the one Douglas Adams took in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where (view spoiler)[people thought to do useless jobs (including telephone sanitisers, management consultants, and hairdressers) are given first priority to settle another planet (hide spoiler)].

Marc wrote: "You raise a hardcore philosophical issue, Ilse, and one with great practical-ethical implications. Stoicism has a great appeal to anyone who has been hurt by life. But certainly in our modern weste..."
Thanks a lot for this very incisive and wise comment, Marc. You manage to articulate very clear what I tried to communicate talking about Stoicism. A certain dose of it can be very helpful for finding peace, but it could never be an excuse not to take responsability for the people in one's surroundings (and as far as possible, for society too, in my opinion).

Stephen wrote: "I notice in this comment thread as well as elsewhere the sentimentalizing of the notion of people who live lives of "quiet desperation." That's not meant to be celebrated. Those words come from the opening pages of Thoreau's Walden where he criticizes those very people who will do nothing to improve society. If it's to understand the nature around you, do it. If it's to go to jail for protesting a war you do not believe in, do it. But for god's sake, don't sit around and whine and say the system is against me. Act, absorb everything the world has to offer, especially in your solitude - that was Thoreau's view, and he would have despised this book too. It turns a terrible character flaw into one to be admired. Of course everyone has their own view, and your very personal one is the best approach - especially coming as it is from a fellow teacher ; )"

I'm taking the liberty to respond to this portion of your comment despite this being Ilse's thread. Since you reference Thoreau's quote which I have included in my review (taking it out of context somewhat), I think it is only fitting that I respond. Even though I do not feel the necessity of explaining why I liked a book when I have already written a review of it, I'd still like to mention that Stoner is not always as passive. He takes pleasure in teaching, reading, writing, resolutely adhering to his principles even disregarding the fact of nasty workplace politics (by refusing to humor that grad student). He even manipulates manipulative Lomax into giving him the better classes to teach at the fag end of the novel. I think that the writer purposefully chose to leave Stoner out of the War is because his intention was to hint at the fact that no less-great wars are fought at the home front and within the walls of a hallowed institution where high ideals are forevermore at risk of being eroded into oblivion. Also his is not a life without achievement. A farmer's son who couldn't envisage a life beyond that of the hardscrabble one, mustered the courage to switch paths, and follow his one true love (literature) to the dark ends it took him. That in itself is one of the unnoticed, unacknowledged acts of courage I was speaking of in my review. I do not think his was a wasted life at all.

I would like to mention that I only politely disagree with your view just as you probably disagree with mine.

Samadrita wrote: "Stephen wrote: "I notice in this comment thread as well as elsewhere the sentimentalizing of the notion of people who live lives of "quiet desperation." That's not meant to be celebrated. Those wor..."

I wasn't going to join in the discussion again, but since you, Ilse, said in your reply to me that you love these bookish discussions (and thanks for the empathetic response), I just need to say about Samadrita's comment here: Yes. Exactly so. I couldn't agree more.

And as to the discussions, I think they are often interesting, fruitful and necessary, but it freaks me out and saddens me when I read in some of the comments about the novel's alleged 'flaws' - as if that was an inherent aspect of the book and not something perceived by a reader. Surely, when we talk about a book like this (which is not exactly Fifty Shades of Gray), and indeed about any piece of art, beauty or lack thereof is in the eye of the beholder?

Likewise, in extension of Samadrita's point, how on earth can anyone presume to know what Thoreau would have thought of this book? Sorry, but I just don't believe in talking about literature that way. (And now I should probably take a break from GR, Ilse, apropos of our comments on another thread because my emotions are in a turmoil over this).

@ Ilse: Thanks for your warm and incredibly articulate response. I want to assure you that reading what you call your "personal musings" was as eye-opening as it was inspiring; so please have no concern about expressing your personal thoughts in the way you deem fit. It's in divergence of opinions where nuance can be discovered and new angles brought to light, and that is precisely what makes of reading such an enriching activity. What a better way to cultivate open-mindedness than exchanging thoughts on books with other keen readers? :)

@Sama: "I'd still like to mention that Stoner is not always as passive. He takes pleasure in teaching, reading, writing, resolutely adhering to his principles even disregarding the fact of nasty workplace politics.".
Like Helle, I couldn't agree more with your intake of Stoner's apparent passive stoicism, Sama. Thanks for phrasing it so eloquently. Also, I would like to add that, having recently finished Williams' Augustus; I can easily compare both protagonists. Both the victorious hero, the man of action, venerated by the masses, and the faceless nobody that vanishes without leaving a trace, face mortality with dignified calm, finding comfort in the fact that, regardless of their many failures, they dared to love, and that love, no matter how imperfect, was worth it. In addition, both wonder whether the most powerful means to express that elusive and ever changing feeling is through the written word, through literature. I can't help but admire both men and the fiery, yet quiet force that moved them.

Sidharth wrote: "Another lovely review, Ilse. I feel sorry for university that lost a student like you. This book seems to find a new lover from among my friends every other month. Must read it someday."
University didn't lost me a student, Sidharth, it was working there for 6 years as a researcher and assistent professor that opened my eyes to its more problematic sides (as a student I was very impressed by some professors, perhaps it is only logical that they had to fall from their pedestall at a certain moment :). I'd love to read your opinion on it!

·Karen· wrote: "I keep seeing reviews of this - though few of them as appealing as yours - and the book is somewhere in the middle of a stack of those in my 'work'room patiently waiting to be read. He's so stoical he won't mind waiting a bit longer......"
Very good one, Karen :)), thank you for making me smile. I'm becoming to get rather inquisitive why precisely this book suscites so much often passionate discussions, but psychological or other insights on this are shortfalling me - such an analysis would be interesting, to my opinion. And please do not let my rather bleak thoughts on Stoner's personality dissuade you from reading this: I am quite sure you would enjoy to embark on discussing it.

Samadrita, your point about Stoner being a farmer's son was what excited me about the book at first, for the reasons you mentioned. Then Williams/Stoner's narcissism took over from good beginnings. It's very interesting that you refer to the "nasty workplace politics (by refusing to humor that grad student)." First of all, I can tell you are not a teacher, humoring the young is a big part of the job; it's what we do for a living : ) "That grad student", as you call him, from what I recall he was physically handicapped - or what they used to call in the old days, cruelly, "a cripple." It was generous for this university to admit him considering "cripples" were sources of ridicule a hundred years ago. No one would give them a chance, which, according to my reading, Lomax would. It is part of the pattern of this book that Stoner ruins the lives of people who are weaker than him. The psychology of this confrontation scene isn't difficult to read (from my standpoint). Stoner sees himself in this crippled boy, someone who doesn't really belong at the university, and for reasons of self-hatred has the student removed from the school. It was my impression up to this point that Stoner was a mediocre teacher, tolerated by the students, barely. It was only in his old age, for reasons of seniority, probably, that he started earning some respect. In this physically handicapped boy, Stoner was confronted for the first time with someone challenging his views. He obviously didn't like it. Any teacher worth his or her salt learns to work with disruptive students like this. It comes with the job, like humoring them. Which leads me to my next point...

Dolors, buddy. I thought you said you were a feminist!? Are you really willing to defend this monster? Stoner's wife was driven to insanity. His daughter was driven to alcoholism. Stoner's was hardly a marriage of equals. His wife's affections weren't responded to from the beginning. Imagine how heartbreaking that must be. There is the time she returns to St. Louis and goes through an image change. Did she meet someone else? Is she trying to add some spark to a dead marriage? It's hard to say, because Williams is extremely vague about this whole episode. But as Ilse says, she comes across as a shrew. Blame it on Williams's writing, blame it on Stoner, personally I blame both, but admire Stoner, I'm sorry, it's just not in my makeup to respect people who treat others this way. It sounds like you are arguing for the "bad boy" theory: you can treat people like crap, as long as there's art on the other end? The one perceptive comment that gives me pause about the Stoners' household is the one someone mentioned in the thread to my review. A psychiatrist by trade, she felt that at some point in the past Stoner's wife was sexually abused. Personally I didn't see it, but if so, that would make this story tragic more than one to admire. Stoner is not one to ask women how they're feeling. In fact, it crossed my mind that he might actually be gay considering what utter disinterest he takes in women. That would make this doubly tragic, but again, Williams is irritatingly vague about all this.

Helle, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a banal argument. Of course it is, because if it wasn't we would have nothing to discuss with our differing views. How boring would that be? The same goes for what Thoreau might have thought about this book. These are social ideas we are dealing with, and as such, moral ones. Martin Luther King Jr. took Thoreau's ideas and applied them to what he saw was wrong with the world around him. That's what we do with imaginative literature, take old ideas and apply them to today, by making value judgments. Thank goodness MLK Jr. read Thoreau and not some mediocrity like Stoner, otherwise black Americans would have never received the right to vote!

Jean-Paul wrote: I don't believe that your response was distorted at all Ilse. Personal experience often makes something abstract more palpable. I think you hit the nail on the head and exposed some of the major weaknesses of this novel. Mine will go in a similar direction, but be a little more aggressive and will include an additional point which has particularly bothered me over the last couple of days - hence my desperate need recently for Verhaeren's poetry :-)
Thanks for your kind words of understanding, Jean-Paul. I have just re-read your sublime review on Stoner, so your desire to read Verhaeren makes perfect sense to me :).

Samadrita wrote: "A lovely dissection of themes and characterization of one of my most favorite novels of all times (for reasons quite personal), Ilse. I found Edith's depiction problematical too "
Thanks a bunch, Samadrita, I am more aware now that this novel means a lot to many people, and I feel rather uneasy in trying to articulate the mixed thoughts it is stirring up in me (which are in my opinion perhaps more due to personal circumstances than to the book itself). I agree on your analysis of the role of the other characters as accessories to Stoner's - Williams's choice to highlight Stoner only perhaps sharpens my judgement on Stoner's flaws on the rebound, instead of inspiring a more compassionate view on his fate.

Really liked your musings over Stoner's life and stoicism, Ilse. It is strange how every review of this book highlights something new of his supposedly common life. Strengthens my belief that this book was, is, and forever will be necessary.

Fionnuala wrote: I didn't check out his background either, Ilse, so I don't know if the story is in any way autobiographical, though from the introduction, I understood Williams spent most of his life teaching at university level.
I do try to avoid reading an author's life in his work, but in this case, the unlikely enemies Williams chose for Stoner struck me as odd narrative choices, and I wondered if there wasn't some score settling going on.

Thanks for sharing your insights, Fionnuala! (view spoiler)[ Most of the academia novels I read settled at least some scores, but with a more satirical take, which I liked. I agree on Finch as his likely adversary, instead of Loomax, but perhaps Finch was too shiny an ennemy, the 'crippled' and gloomy Loomax making Stoner's defeat look more bitter to us? (hide spoiler)])

Seemita wrote: "You have summed up Stoner in your torrential analysis, Ilse! The solipsistic angle caught my eye and I did think over it for a while. It is often a bit of a debate in drawing a line between existence and exile"
How well put, Seemita, thank you for this insightful comment! Most of us indeed are somewhere in between, more or less balancing in our daily lives, except when real disaster hit us. I just wonder if Stoner is really that commonplace. As things get as sharp in life as in his (as in his relationship with his daughter), are his choices the ones that most of humankind would take?