/lit/ - Literature

daily reminder that stoner was a rapist and if you think otherwise you are one too

>>5843011
If you read the intro the authour says everything you want to know, pleb

Stoner is my literary husbando

>>5843046
>no free thought

>>5843011

Isn't this just a ripoff of Jude the Obscure?

We need a Hollis Lomax spinoff

>>5843011
i ordered this shit on amazon about 20 days ago and it still hasn't come yet, tomorrow is the last day of the expected delivery window, what do?

>>5843186
is your package not being tracked?

>let's discuss this book in a nonspecific way!

it seems you got what you wanted

>>5843147
We need a Walker short story about how he fucks up when he actually gets a teaching job.

>>5843298
I hated walker so much because he reminded me of myself and I most of lit feels that way too

Edith was a fucking bitch with no redeeming features.

>>5843318
>that scene where stoner is questioning him heavily on a specific topic and he keeps jumping around the question so he doesn't seem stupid

>>5843318
I hated Lomax more than Walker.

What was up between those two anyway?
At first I thought Lomax helped Walker so much because they were both cripples, but after Stoner told Finch "It isn't what you're thinking", I felt that was John Williams way of telling us "it isn't because they're both cripples you dumbass".

>>5843336
I've been Walker in that situation.

Not a good feel.

>>5843011
The characters never really came to life for me and I didn't care for it that much.

>>5843339
when finch said that i thought he meant "they're not fucking" for some reason

does he blaze it?

Can you believe how shit the UK Vintage edition's cover is? Literally looks like clip art.

>>5843339
it's because walker is lomax's clone
that's why he has the same disability and why lomax has such a vested interest in him succeeding

>>5843383
Cubert was such a cunt.

>>5843186
wait another day, then email them to say it hasn't arrived
answer a couple of quick questions (is the address correct, have you checked the post office) and then ask them to send you another one
or have a refund

>>5843355
That's very funny, anon.

I'll have to write that down.

>>5843106
No, Stoner is more modern. Also, originality is non-extant, and both books are great.

>>5843339
I felt like Lomax drew his battle lines arbitrarily. At some point he decided to support Walker and he was going to do everything in his power to oppose Stoner. I think Stoner realized that there were no connections to be drawn between events and the behaviors of others. Everyone else was stuck on finding these connections because they believed there was something to be understood about the unpredictable nature of everything. Stoner accepted that Lomax had simply decided to hate his guts for no reason in particular. Walker was nothing more than another chance to rub salt in the wound.

>>5843330
Was I the only one that liked her after she acknowledged and accepted Stoners affair? I mean she was by far my least favorite character, but after that point she at least jumped ahead of Walker and Lomax.

>>5843374
That sticker gave me cancer

the love affair made me feel so warm and fuzzy.
what a true feeling of happiness

>>5843486
That's academia for you

>>5843374
I still think this one is worse.

>>5843531
>tfw Stoner read Katherine's book
>"To W.S."

>>5843566
I'm glad I wasn't the only one that cried

that was one of the most singularly passionate and faith-restoring parts of the book

I had to bite a trembling lip on the train

>>5843566
Jesus, I didn't even remember that. I think I cried as well.

I remember definitely tearing up when his parents died, but I don't remember much of it either

>>5843566
I don't usually get overly emotional when I'm reading but damn, that part almost had me in tears.

>>5843566

Goddamn. A tear rolled down my cheek. My favourite part.

>>5843374

I had the chance to buy the non-shit cover when I was in New York in January, why did I pass it up in favour of some Faulkner?

>>5843104
>mfw when someone asking for opinion on a Nepalese Yak breeding forum accuses me, who read the book, of not having free thought.

>>5844444
>mfwnf
>mfwquint4
>mfwnf4meeither

>people call it "the greatest novel you've never read"
>everyone's read it

>>5843350
That's what I got from it. Stoner had no way of knowing whether they were or not, but he still defended the two from Gordon's suspicions

>>5844444
>quints
>Nepalese Yak breeding forum
100/10

>>5843011

god this book really hit upon the disafected white english-speaking male demographic, didn't it?

i'm almost tempted to disavow this book because the lessons that young men seem to be taking away from it (such as "women are evil" and "i'm a nice guy but the world has aligned itself against me") are so toxic and reprehensible.

>>5844771
what are you even talking about

>>5844840
white men = bad

>>5844840

just pointing out a troubling trend

>>5844771
>young men
>reading this book
Dunno what age group you're referring to though.
>toxic lessons
>in Stoner
m8. Stoner is the purest man alive. All he wanted was to follow his passion and he got stuck in a load of shit. Not once does the book even hint at women being evil. Edith was an awful person but the picture portrayed never goes farther than showing her to be awful (and the daughter I guess, but she was the product of some shit). Katherine was a shining exemplar of a good person in that book and saved Stoner's life probably and she was female.

I dunno what you're trying to get at. Maybe I misread your post? Sorry for going all Stoner Internet Defense Force but I heavily identify with Stoner and he is the spitting image of me in terms of personality.

>that part when Stoner is in college and cannot answer the teacher's question about Shakespeare because he is so in awe with a world he never experience before
Fucking bets scene.

>>5844771
The theme isn't that women are evil. It's that all human life is valuable.

>>5844878
>>5844889
Why are you m8s taking the b8?

>>5844878

that's not what i meant. i didn't say the book was inherently misogynistic, what i'm saying is that many of the young men who have been responsible for the resurgence in this book's popularity appear to be walking away with a pretty consistent misinterpretation of the book--which includes misogyny as well as a certain type of entitlement seemingly distinct among males.

just like i don't blame salinger for lennon's murder.

>>5844444
>Nepalese Yak breeding forum
kek

>>5844905

and by young men i mean the 20-something college educated as well as the college-aged men who are picking up this book in droves

women are certainly not reading this book at the same rate and with the same enthusiasm. why not?

>>5844878

but she didn't save his life. he died alone and unrecognized anyway. however it could be argued that she was his manic pixie dream girl.

>>5844915
They're too busy reading Hunger Games and other books with strong female protagonists. They have no time for books about white privileged men.

>>5844905
>>5844909
Fair enough. I see your point. I guess I just let myself take some b8 (whether it was intentional b8 or not). I just love this book and felt a strong urge to defend it.

Sorry for kinda attacking you.

>>5844917
She kept him going and gave him purpose and something to work towards (her phd). He was also able to experience actual love for the first time. That's what I meant.

>>5844905
who fucking cares about misogyny

hating the opposite gender is a beautiful pastime and deeply therapeutic to the heartbroken

the type of male you're describing is completely benign and the woman-hating phase is usually temporary and following a rejection or being dumped

>>5844952
also god women are so fucking sensitive

>>5844952

i'm sorry you're so allergic to critical thought.

>>5844955

see, now that's a misogynistic comment. you are precisely the type of reader i'm talking about.

>>5844956

>>5844905

by the way, i should point out that i am limiting my criticism to stateside readers. i'm not sure what the cultural takeaway has been for euroopeans (who trumpeted this book for a looong time before american audiences finally caught on 2 or 3 years ago)

>>5844959
>>5844956
>>5844955
>>5844952
>>5844905

So now that this kind of people is here, where should I go to chat about books, /lit/?

>>5844959
exhibit a. i'll proudly admit that all my evidence to the proposition that women are more sensitive than men is anecdotal, but such that i could not believe otherwise.
>>5844956
i'll use critical thought when it's necessary. in 2014 opinions on gender are not relevant and just as much good can come of thinking about gender rationally as emotionally, that is to none because it's so goddamn insignificant.

>>5844971
>>>/out/

>>5844986
I like /out/ a lot, but that really isn't a place to talk about books, you know.

>>5844994
you could just use filters, you know.

>>5844981

in that case i'm sorry you're so allergic to the word "misogyny" that it causes you to react at such an emotional register. i'm making a reasoned criticism of the book and reactions to said book. you are taking it personally and reacting from a place of anger, apparently.

>>5845009

of course then again it is entirely natural that you would respond as such seeing as the very mechanism of misogyny is emotional in nature and defies rationalism. but of course your view hilariously is inverted (i.e. "my hatred of women is rational because one person hurt me" is somehow supposed to be reasonable--in fact it is definitely UNerasonable)

Did anybody else actually feel sympathy for Edith?

Not in a muh soggy knees sort of way, but I felt this weird sensation when Stoner and Edith were courting, and that part where she blurts out suddenly that she would do her best, when they're about to be married really got me.

It felt almost as if his courtship was my courtship, and I felt hella bad for Edith, if I was Stoner I would've cuddled her gently.

>>5845073
rapist

>>5845073
Jesus have you read the rest of the book?
Edith is simply selfish and conceited.

>>5845073
>>5845445
I absolutely hated Edith as much as the next person, but I think Stoner's ignorance of the world landed him in the mess. The romance, I think, happened exactly as a romance should according to a story in Stoner's book. He falls in love at first sight at the ball and the two very briefly court and Stoner just expects that she should drop all of her life plans to be with him. Everyone but Stoner can see the coming storm and he has every possible warning. Her father explains that Edith has zero experience at, you know, actually having relationships. Edith is aware of this too and is freaking the fuck out, even though she likes Stoner, but isn't aware of what a relationship should be or demands. And then you have Stoner's father who sees it too and says something to Edith about how Stoner deserves care and Edith starts to cry, because she doesn't know how. Through the entire process Stoner is, I think, willfully blind to this and can only appreciate the aesthetic of how it should be. He is like /r9k/ or waifufags who have an idea of what a relationship should be and do not realize that what is in their imagination is just a fake ideal that causes alot of their problems in the first place.

Does this mean Stoner deserved what he got and this justifies Edith and makes her not a total bitch? No, of course not. It's not like he didn't have every warning though.

>>5844771
>>5844905
i don't know what to say, this has really, really not been my experience with people who have read and enjoyed Stoner

I mean, this may be presumptuous, but i'd say that if you're into this type of book at all there are small chances you'd be the type of person who holds views like that, let alone attempt to validate them through literature

it sounds a lot more like you read the book assuming what the average channer's misguided reaction to it would be, and you were so convinced by your conclusions that you now believe they're a real thing

>>5845073
I can easily imagine a book centered on her life that would track her psychological development and make it all behavior seem justifiable and right. The same definitely goes for Lomax. Seen from a outside perspective, Stoner himself is often a dick.

I think Stoner hits a nerve with us "drifting" people, the ones who don't know what to do with their life and just go along with whatever's being thrown at them. That's why he marries Edith, because it's the thing he's walking in. That's why he works for the university since that's where he started.

He doesn't have a large "plan" for his life, in fact, he's pretty "lebensdumm" (new German word: life-stupid, when you don't know how to live properly. I have it, you have it) He doesn't know what to do with his life (or rather, career) apart from one affair and that's what resonates with mid-20s kids so much. He just walks the path of least resistance (which is why he switches from a "hard" field [forgot what] to literature, where he has to study less).

He deserved Edith, but I can't say whether she deserved him.

>>5845525
he learned latin and greek in two years. someone has been reading into the text, not out of it :)

>>5843318
Yep. I would like to think every bit of my literary endeavors since reading that part have been to become less like Walker. It was very humbling reading that.
>>5843350
I got this from that too. Which leads me to:
>>5843339
>>5843383
I think that the whole situation was partially set up to show the reasonable counterpoint to social progressives who place their social goals over the value of the literature itself and it's value as a institution. I think Lomax really does believe in what he is doing. He knows the discrimination that cripples suffer from firsthand experience and even though he knows the boy doesn't know much, he believes it is more important to make the boy a professor as a sort of early affirmative action. Stoner, in contrast, places the institution and value of the literature above all else and tries to kick Walker out of the university. I don't think I have to point to this division with the academic and literary community, especially in today's era of "social justice". I think about line "there are wars that will never be written down in any history book". The war is still going on today.

>>5845445
I don't disagree, but she is that way because she was too passive early in her life. She seemingly married Stoner without even committing to loving him first, so she dug herself into a hole. I can feel sympathetic toward a character when they make mistakes over and over again to the extent that it turns them into a bad person. Because if she had married someone whom she actually loved, then she might have become a much better person. Edith was too sheltered and never got to properly experience romance, so she was terrible at it going into adulthood.

It's definitely weird, because she's brought it all on herself (obviously some environmental factors made her that way such as her parents' sheltering) but in a way she can still be seen as sympathetic, because she was only making mistakes because she didn't know the correct method of action. As a result, she becomes a cynical, bitter old woman. It's her fault, but in a strange way you feel sorry for her.

At least for me.

>>5845525
>He just walks the path of least resistance (which is why he switches from a "hard" field [forgot what] to literature, where he has to study less).

Isn't this like very wrong

The first university course he really struggles with was the one about English literature, he had maintained decent grades up until that point and faced little adversity. Switching his major was definitely a choice made out of passion, not apathy. it's also pretty clear in the text that he has a passion for the institution of the academy, otherwise he wouldn't have remained so true to his principles when facing Lomax over his student.

>>5845525
Ok, more than any other post in this thread, that is just bullshit. You missed the entire point of the book and, honestly, I have doubts you even read it. Do you think the Walker incident was easy? Do you think staying up late studying literature remarkable dedication lacked direction? I can't think of a description that less describes Stoner.
>>5845543
This
>>5845563
Yep

>>5844771
realtalk the way that picture has his skin lightened is both telling and terrifying

>>5845544
Your last point is so horrible I have no words for it

>>5845575
It did become a little talking pointish, but I stand by it. Those who find value and purpose within institutions and the foundations of art forms have the goals to maintain those things and what they stand for. Stoner was one of those people. Those whose primary focus is "social justice" or some social movement they place other goals first. I've talked to these people and they have often said "If literature doesn't benefit "society", I don't see what the purpose is." Is the "enemy" of such movements more sympathetic than you would like? The book was written during the 60s and if we want to go off the authorial context, such issues make sense to come up in such a turbulent time. The concept of war definitely comes up because of it. I think it is a fair reading. Does it feel off somewhere? Explain.

>>5843954

probably because Faulkner was ten times the writer that John Williams was?

>>5845592
>"If literature doesn't benefit "society", I don't see what the purpose is."
philosophy bros: was this not the guiding principle of the solipsists? philosophy/rhetoric in the service of some goal (political, personal etc) rather than for the pursuit of knowledge and self-betterment?

What do you make of him as a character? He is pretty inert (like a stone lel), it seems all of his decisions are made for him and he simply goes along, like he has no will of his own. It's been a year since I read it, but I seem to remember the only things that counter this passivity would be his affair and his passion for literature itself. Someone else in this thread called Stoner the purest man alive, but isn't one essential aspect of man volition? The whole book is like a hazy journey of a man being pinballed around by other people and events.

>>5845073
She was a straight bitch but she wasn't some cardboard villain, the background was there, Edith was in a lot of pain all her life. I wouldn't say I sympathise, because I still hate her with a passion, but it certainly does round her character off and make her more understandable. She's a tragic bitch.

>>5843391
>originality is non-extant
what the fuck no

>>5844771
>people who dont get the story
for you fucking plebs out there that think edith was horrible an poor stoner was such a beatiful and nice person: go work on reading comprehension. Stoner isnt a bad guy buy SPOILERS he admits at the end he generally didnt look after his family and pushed himself into edith. He shouldve done something when edith was fucking with his child. He shouldnt of had stopped edith from going to europe for his own selfish impulsiveness. He shouldnt of retreated into his writing/reading everytime something bad happened and he confesses to this at the end. He also believes his life was pleasurable abd lovely, though. He also admits this at the end of the book in the dying scene. He dies happy, something some people dont quite understand.
thats all i got and im sure its got a bunch of grammatical errors but whatevs. Just makes me sick everytime some fag says one of these horrible misunderstandings

>>5844956
inflict death upon oneself
you fukken hoe

>>5845009
>i'm making a reasoned criticism of the book and reactions to said book.
top fucking kek
Firstly, whether or not the audience of a book is misogynist unimportant and unprovable: it's not a book about gender issues; it is unprovable to say that an audience of a novel is misogynist. Furthermore, the evidence in this thread and other threads that you could possibly have is that people are calling Edith - the novel's antagonist - a cunt. Is it misogynist to hate any woman? If the antagonist of the novel is a woman, that means the audience hating her is misogynist? Is it the word cunt? In that case, I have no clue how you got on 4chan without the preliminary knowledge that political correctness is absolute horseshit.

> the lessons that young men seem to be taking away from it (such as "women are evil" and "i'm a nice guy but the world has aligned itself against me") are so toxic and reprehensible.
Are they? For most, those beliefs are nothing more than a passing phase, a short emotional burst which - believe it or not - is completely inconsequential except for rare rare cases such as the photo you posted.

>>5846328

Stoner was even putting money aside for the Europe trip, he really should have traveled with her. I can imagine though why he didn't want to wait to marry her. A lot could have happened to her in the months she stayed without him and it's so sad how the daughter got all fucked up when she could have had a great time with her dad :(

>>5844463

only because it took 50 years before people started giving a shit about it

>>5845479
you said it yourself m8
both parties in the relationship were products of ignorance.
that being said, a relationship can only be so bad when both of the parties are civil and withdrawn. edith actually went out of her way to be evil and nasty to stoner.
I don't know if it was rape... it was ignorance. and you know it was so hard to read the scene of their wedding night. I was just thinking "FFS stoner don't! she's woman and you have to treat her like one! stop! just cuddle her and show her real love and tender affection!"
I think what williams was trying to do was show how you can go through your life thinking that you are being a moral person and not setting a foot out of line yet still phenomenally fuck everything up.
it's basically just plato in action

>>5846328
>shouldn't of