I wouldn't have insulted Stoner if he used his triumph (abandoning his parents) for something positive. Instead he remains rotting. Nothing changed. He never seized control of his life, instead he was content with mediocrity. Thus, what is tragic is that he betrayed his parents for nothing. There's no contradiction here.

specialberry1 year ago

Mediocrity defined by who? If judged by the standards of common people, then sure, Stoner was a failure, but you shouldn't listen to common people. And I really mean 'common' in the pejorative sense— if you're worth anything, you don't slavishly follow the direction given to you. Stoner found something that made him happy and desired no more. He was content, and if he left his happy station to pursue something worth higher stock to society, then he would be a cuck.

1Reply

casablanca1 year ago

Do you think Stoner's life wasn't pitiful?

Reply

specialberry1 year ago

I do not think Stoner's life was pitiful.

2Reply

Show 1 reply

I'll address your criticism point by point. 1. Agree. I couldn't think of a title. I could have done better, maybe, if I thought for it longer. In retrospect, I believe pornography is pornography for losers. 2. Never said anything about "radical success." I'm a believer that we should help those who are in need, especially when they're your parents, and especially when they're the ones who paid for your tuition. The most depressing part of the book is Stoner's parents dying in old age still working like horses. If he had any kind of virtue he would have obeyed his parents and gotten his degree in agriculture, this would ensure him and his parents an upper-middle class status at the least. In conclusion, I reject your binary interpretation. 3. I don't care about William's intent. A novel is something to be experienced, not understood. Quoth Williams himself: Then, more specifically, Williams complains about the changes in the teaching of literature and the attitude to the text “as if a novel or poem is something to be studied and understood rather than experienced.” Wooley then suggests playfully, “It’s to be exegeted, in other words.” “Yes. As if it were a kind of puzzle.” So your point of Williams "framing" a scene is moot, as he himself would disagree. To your other point, yes, I see the rape as a triumph, the same way I see Stoner abandoning his parents as a triumph; both of these things are considered immoral, yet in these actions Stoner exercised his will, instead of just being carried by the current, which is what he does most of the time. Notice how I don't have to agree with an action to consider it a triumph. 4. Revisit the aforementioned quote. There's no "meaning," Williams himself said so. What we can do is discuss our different interpretations, but please stop being condescending, implying that I didn't "understand" the novel. I'll address your point: Do you believe Stoner's life wasn't worth of pity?

mimishifolia1 year ago(edited)

1. Ok. 2. Ok. I simplified your position on success vs death, but now I don’t really see what you’re arguing? That Stoner does morally wrong things? That he’s a “loser”? I don’t disagree with you there, I was saying it’s reductionist to say his life wasn’t one worth living. Do you only want to read about virtuous characters? 3. Ok, it’s all well and good if you don’t care about what Williams intent was. It’s still valid literary analysis. Ok, I can see why you would argue martial rape is triumphant. The question is what makes Stoner seizing what he wants (pursuing academia, taking personal agency) not triumphant but morally objectionable, whereas marital rape is triumphant? You’re not consistent. 4. “The novel, it seems to me, is a place where one can try to make an experience more available to people than it is in ordinary life. It has the capacity to help us understand our own experiences in ways that are not immediately obvious.” The idea that these themes exist to be experienced is not a rejection of meaning, but a call to reflect upon that meaning in a more personaland less intellectualized way “It seems to me that one of the things that Stoner experiences is how the world and the people in it do not cooperate with his desires or his expectations. It is not that he fails to live a significant life, but rather that life itself sometimes seems indifferent to him and his dreams” There absolutely are meanings to every text. I don’t know how you derived from your quote that Stoner has no central themes or meaning. As you can see above it was written with intention, the idea that there is still dignity in trying to find meaning in life, even if it's quiet/ unseen. We’re not discussing interpretations, all you’ve really said is it’s a book about a loser who does bad things that other losers like to read. I would explain the difference between interpretations and observations but you’ve banned me from being condescending:( I’m not going to engage anymore

2Reply

1. I never said marital rape is good. Don't put words in my mouth. I explicitly explained that I was not making any kind of moral argument, read carefully. 2. By "divine act" I was simply drawing references to instances of rape in classical mythology to the case of Stoner, the similarities are there for those who have eyes to see. 3. As I wrote on the review, I'm not making any kind of moral argument, thus when I bring up marital rape in regards to Stoner I'm seeing this through a judicial framework mainly. At the time, "marital rape" was not considered a valid concept, as it was believed that when the people married this implied their eternal consent. The foundations of this concept are laid by Paul in the New Testament. Thus, Stoner sees nothing wrong in "raping" his wife, because this concept simply wasn't in the moral code at the time.