/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11685674]

I finished Stoner last night. Beautiful book. But I have questions.
>What the fuck was Edith’s problem? Did she have some sort of personality disorder? Or was Williams making a commentary on the old practice of women being married off without really having much of a say in it?
>What the FUCK was Lomax’s problem? Wee he and Walker gay lovers? Was he just a psychopath?
>Is there a better depiction in literature of “the end” than the last chapter of Stoner? I nearly teared up at the end and I never get emotional from books

[Anonymous No.11685691]

>bitches be crazy
>cripples be crazy

[Anonymous No.11685700]

>>11685674
>Or was Williams making a commentary on the old practice of women being married off without really having much of a say in it?
I don't think it was either. He simply was an insufferable bitch.
>What the FUCK was Lomax’s problem? Wee he and Walker gay lovers? Was he just a psychopath?
yeah, there was definitely some faggot shit going on between Lomax and Walker. That or he protected him because he was a cripple like himself.

>Is there a better depiction in literature of “the end” than the last chapter of Stoner? I nearly teared up at the end and I never get emotional from books
You mean the death of a person? I've heard around here that The Death of Ivan Ilych is the best thing you can read to know death without actually dying.

[Anonymous No.11685707]

>>11685700
I meant "she* simply was an insufferable bitch"

[Anonymous No.11685716]

edith was probably raeped by her dad which i think is a boring interpretation because that sort of backstory is well-trod by now, but there's a lot to support it. she NEVER wants stoner alone with grace, and doesnt she burn her stuff when she hears about her dad passing away or something? amongst other things

yes, gay lovers and he probably thought stoner bigoted about people with diabilities

maybe

[Anonymous No.11685750]

>>11685674
>>What the fuck was Edith’s problem? Did she have some sort of personality disorder? Or was Williams making a commentary on the old practice of women being married off without really having much of a say in it?
proably molested by her father+stoner being your average 4channer beta pushover

>>What the FUCK was Lomax’s problem? Wee he and Walker gay lovers? Was he just a psychopath?
bitter cripple with ego problems identifying with his crippled pupil

[Anonymous No.11686107]

she was molested by her father and raped by her husband, seems pretty clear

[Anonymous No.11686895]

>>11686107
There's evidence for the latter but not for the fomer.

[Anonymous No.11687138]

>>11685674

Edith was a victim of an upbringing that prepared her totally for one and only mode of life, and when Stoner couldn't meet those expectations, she simply was incapable emotionally of reconciling herself to reality. First, it was neuroses and her own sense of inadequacy, then the outward projection of that internalized self-loathing.

The world is filled with Ediths. She's an incredibly believable character.

[Anonymous No.11687156]

>>11687138

Lomax is in the same vein, but he's not quite as well fleshed out.

[Anonymous No.11687172]

Lomax was the hero of his own story. He saw the Academy as a haven for those whose physical frailty made them unable to flourish in the real world, and he developed a selfless love for Walker (whether or not there's anything sexual in that is irrelevant) that made him blind to some of Walker's faults. Walker only seems so horrid an individual from reading Stoner because Stoner is precisely such a kind of person that would focus on Walker's vices.

As for Edith, yeh you're probably right she had a personality disorder as a result of living within a repressive social order. I don't give a shit about these "she was sexually abused by her father and Stoner" theories. Yeh maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, it's a reading that adds nothing to the text.

[Anonymous No.11687205]

>named Walker
>crippled

[Anonymous No.11687207]

>>11687172
Walker was just a hack not fit for intellectual persuits, not some misunderstood genius.

>he developed a selfless love for Walker (whether or not there's anything sexual in that is irrelevant)
It's not irrelevant. The sexual factor would change everything. It's not the same Lomax defending him because he was a cripple and Lomax defending him because there was something sexual between them (which I think is ridiculous but OP brought it up anyway).

[Anonymous No.11687336]

>>11687207
>Walker was just a hack not fit for intellectual persuits, not some misunderstood genius
That begs the question though: What is the purpose of the Academy? Is the sole purpose of the academy the pursuit of intellectual material (knowledge, wisdom, etc)? David Masters (and by extension I assume Stoner himself) would disagree with that.

>It's not irrelevant. The sexual factor would change everything. It's not the same Lomax defending him because he was a cripple and Lomax defending him because there was something sexual between them
The text leaves us in no doubt whatsoever that Lomax defended Walker because he was a cripple, and that his being a cripple was a sufficient reason for everything Lomax did. In virtue of that, whether or not they also had a sexual relationship is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11687356]

>>11687336
What do you think Masters would have done with Walker if he was in the same spot as Stoner?

[Anonymous No.11687395]

>>11687356
The same as Stoner obviously, but the point is that all three of them (Stoner, Masters, Lomax) understood the Academy as more than an institution of intellectual labour - they saw it as a refuge or sanctuary of one sort or another. The particular refuges they each saw it as I don't see any principled reason to choose between.

[Anonymous No.11687403]

>>11687207
The indeterminacy of his infatuation with Walker is what makes Lomax such a good character. If it were precisely sexual (unlikely considering that Katharine and Stoner's relationship was easily found out), or if it were just that Walker was a kindred spirit because of his disability, the intensity of Lomax's hatred for Stoner wouldn't be as profound. Lomax reminds me of Claggart in Billy Budd in that his evil is also obscure and indeterminate. All the reader knows is that "he's hard on you" (a purposely vague pun by Melville), but that can either be a sexual attraction or a deep jealously, but most likely some indeterminable combination of both.

[Anonymous No.11687419]

>>11687403
Once again being way too Freudian in your interpretations. From Lomax's point of view Stoner is evil. Nothing Lomax does in the novel seems objectively and irrefutably evil to me, just evil given Stoner's interpretation of events.

[Anonymous No.11687431]

>>11687138
This is the end all be all posts responding to "What the FUCK is the problem with Edith" comments. That's the one continuously upsetting thing about this book being beloved by a 4chan board, that the people here are so degen as to not recognize somebody totally bitter and vindictive about their disappointing lives. Very ironic, but like pottery too.

[Anonymous No.11687495]

>>11687431
open bob

[Anonymous No.11687496]

>>11687419
He knows exactly what Walker knows and ignores about English literature. He leads him to answer those very specific things he knows during Walker's thesis presentation, he lets him babble and regurgitate general nonsense and firmly believes that passes as talent. He's also getting a preferential treatment. That's playing dirty, and although I wouldn't categorize it as evil, it definitely is against any University's ethics.

[Anonymous No.11687513]

>>11687419
>gives stoner classes he's vastly overqualified for that he doesn't want to teach
>constantly threatens to fire him but can't because of stoner's tenure
>exposes his affair with Katharine and forces her to relocate

I read stoner fairly recently, so these things are more fresh in my memory, but its intentionally very clear that Lomax is supposed to be his antagonist in a basic narrative sense. It even says so on the back of the NYRB version. Saying Lomax doesn't deliberately try to ruin Stoner's career is a misreading.

Also, Freudian/Psychoanalytical criticism isn't any interpretation that infers details about characters psyches that aren't explicitly stated, unless, of course, you are a pseud who has clearly never studied criticism in an undergraduate or graduate context.

[Anonymous No.11687522]

>>11687496
Ok fair enough you got me there. Let me rephrase: Nothing he does seems objectively and irrefutably worse than what Stoner does.

[Anonymous No.11687554]

>>11687513
Yeh obviously he's the primarily antagonist. My point is that objectively he's no better or worse than the protagonist - there's no real good vs evil struggle in Stoner. Lomax believes Stoner has prejudices that affect his ability to teach, so it is justified for him to try to force him out of the academy. As for exposing his affair with a younger university researcher, I don't know what kind of moral compass you have to possess to think of that as an evil thing to do.

>unless, of course, you are a pseud who has clearly never studied criticism in an undergraduate or graduate context
Holy shit dude way to bring down the level of discussion.

[Anonymous No.11687555]

>>11687522
Stoner: "Hey, this student doesn't really know anything besides the eloquent platitudes he espouses about Romantic Poetry."

Other Profs: "yeah we agree."

Lomax: "No, you can't, you're a vile man stoner. I'm clearly the mature and morally right person who doesn't have an infatuation with one of my pupils. So i'm going to deliberately ruin your career and blackpill you until you die."

Not evil, no. But a bizarre and deep hatred that is definitely excessive given the circumstances.

[Anonymous No.11687575]

>>11687555
Well thanks for that paraphrasing that backs up your own view, but from what I remember the other professor on the panel was going to pass Walker until Stoner made his case so eloquently. That implies he was merely acquiesing to the views of his colleagues and didn't really have much of an indepdent view one way or the other. But at any rate, yes I agree with you the episode with Walker's assessment was a case of Lomax's vices shining through. But the episode with Katherine was clearly a case of Stoner's vices coming through, and you'll do well to argue that what Lomax did was less serious than what Stoner did.

[Anonymous No.11687576]

I'm interested to see how the hollywood film version will play out. It stars Casey Affleck Tommy Lee Jones, should be good

[Anonymous No.11687588]

>>11687554
We just have fundamentally different readings. I don't think Stoner is an allegory about good and evil, I just think Lomax has an unjustified hatred for Stoner. I think it makes him a more interesting character, and is refreshing compared to the "from my side, you are the bad guy and i'm the good guy line of thinking". It also says a lot more about the power dynamics of the university. Sorry to call you a pseud, but we are discussing literature on an anime website, frankly we all are.

[Anonymous No.11687593]

>>11687575
Sorry I meant to write "argue that what Lomax did was MORE serious than what Stoner did".

[Anonymous No.11687622]

>>11687576
Affleck plays Stoner, but who's Tommy Lee Jones playing?

[Anonymous No.11687624]

>>11687588
>I just think Lomax has an unjustified hatred for Stoner
That is definitely how it comes across, but I can't help but think that that's because we are seeing things in the main from Stoner's point of view. The novel is essentially ambiguous as to how reliable its third-person narration is - how coextensive it is with the particular ways Stoner sees things. And I'm thinking particularly there of the characterisations of the classes Stoner teaches in which Walker attends. Those are the experiences that cement Stoner's belief that Walker is incompetent and not deserving of a place in the academy, and the way those episodes are narrated certainly suggest Walker is incompetent. But I cannot escape the feeling when reading those parts of the book that things aren't quite as they appear. It just seems a bit too comical, a bit too exaggerated, how the other students all seem to be in on it and looking down on Walker, yet outside of these particular episodes no one else ever comments on it. Also the special interest Stoner seems to take in despising Walker.. I dunno, something about it just seems a little fishy to me.

[Anonymous No.11687655]

fun fact about me: i was born on the day John Williams died. i was supposed to be born in late february but i didn't wanna come out of the womb, so the doctor eventually had to perform a c-section. my poor mother was in labor for days.

[Anonymous No.11687663]

>>11687655
this is not fun at all

[Anonymous No.11687671]

>>11687576
Really hoping they cast a black actress for Katherine.

[Anonymous No.11687676]

>>11687671
why, though? she's described as very pale...

[Anonymous No.11687778]

>>11687576
Ugh
Stoner is going to be ruined by normies isn’t it

[Anonymous No.11687789]

>>11687778
Maybe, but it's the kind of story that lends itself to normie attention.

[Anonymous No.11687791]

>>11687676
I just think it would be nice for diversity: a progressive independent black women. If paleness is the problem than we can cast someone more lighted-skin like Zendaya.

[Anonymous No.11687801]

>>11687791
She is amazingly hot but isn't she too young for Casey Affleck's Stoner?

[Anonymous No.11687843]

>>11687138
nice

[Anonymous No.11687925]

>>11686107
>raped by her husband,
literally impossible

[Anonymous No.11687940]

>>11685674
>tfw I meant to go to /k/ and shitpost about stopping power and terminal ballistics and I thought this was a book about Eugene Stoner

[Anonymous No.11687972]

>>11687624
Not the anon you were talking to but I do agree with his interpretation over yours. It seems like where he has provided concrete examples from the text to back up his idea you have gone with something like this book is ambiguous so I don't actually need things to happen so support my case because all contravening textual evidence can be misleading.

>Those are the experiences that cement Stoner's belief that Walker is incompetent and not deserving of a place in the academy
Edith is a bitch. A deeper reading of the text gives context to that, makes it understandable rather than being an series of random malicious acts, but none of that changes the fact she is a bitch. Walker is clearly incompetent and lazy and any interpretation only contextualises it, it doesn't change his incompetency. The very concrete things he does mean that however you understand it his knowledge and commitment to his degree lack that which is necessary for him to continue. Regardless of how you want to understand Stoner's viewpoint as effecting the way things are presented to us the novel never lies about the events that are described to us and no matter how you spin it Walker is not fit for university.

>It just seems a bit too comical, a bit too exaggerated
This is what I was talking about when I said you are using the ambiguity of the book in lieu of an argument.

>how the other students all seem to be in on it and looking down on Walker, yet outside of these particular episodes no one else ever comments on it
Everyone who goes to university has meet someone like Walker, or any number of differently incompetent people. It's not something that really deserves much comment.

>Also the special interest Stoner seems to take in despising Walker.. I dunno, something about it just seems a little fishy to me
Stoner isn't exempt from criticism. The way he handles the whole affair, especially the way it relates to his love interest certainly have some conflicts of interest. That being said going back to my first point it's impossible to deny Walker's incompetency. Lomax is able to see some of Stoner's inappropriate acting towards Walker and that coupled with his disabled sympathies is perfectly able to explain why he acts the way he does towards Stoner.

[Anonymous No.11688076]

>>11687972
>It seems like where he has provided concrete examples from the text to back up his idea you have gone with something like this book is ambiguous so I don't actually need things to happen so support my case because all contravening textual evidence can be misleading.
Ok, thanks for that.

>Edith is a bitch. A deeper reading of the text gives context to that, makes it understandable rather than being an series of random malicious acts, but none of that changes the fact she is a bitch
No idea what point you're trying to make there.

>The very concrete things he does mean that however you understand it his knowledge and commitment to his degree lack that which is necessary for him to continue.
Those concrete things being what exactly? I've known the academic world well enough to understand that for some students there are special considerations of consideration, where a student suffers from certain private issues that affect his or her ability to study, but where those circumstances are aggravating in such a manner that the supervisor(s) responsible for the student allow the student to continue, rather than expelling them or requiring them to defer their studies. Obviously Stoner sees no reason to enquire as to whether such circumstances hold for Walker, and we may ask ourselves *why* he never makes the slightest effort to enquire into this, but given that he doesn't, it's something the text is in fact ambiguous about, whether you like me pointing out that fact or not.

>This is what I was talking about when I said you are using the ambiguity of the book in lieu of an argument.
Ok but the quotation of my post you are replying to here literally constitutes an argument.

>Everyone who goes to university has meet someone like Walker, or any number of differently incompetent people. It's not something that really deserves much comment
Ok then, if you just assert it I guess that makes it true.

[Anonymous No.11688133]

>>11688076
STONER DID NOTHING WRONG (REGARDING WALKER)

[Anonymous No.11688157]

>Edith
My mom is convinced that her dad raped her so she came to be distrusting towards me especially in the areas of sex and daughter-father relationship.
>Lomax
I think it was just that he was protecting him because he saw himself in the boy. Both being crips. Also has to do with feeling that cripples are attacked. I never thought that they were gay.

[Anonymous No.11688270]

>>11688076
>No idea what point you're trying to make there
I explained directly after how it relates to Walker and I did so again at the end of my post. No matter how you rationalise the actions of Walker it is impossible to escape the fact that he is arrogant, rude and completely lacking in basic knowledge that a graduate would require to be where they are.

>Those concrete things being what exactly
I haven't read the book in four years so my memory is a little hazy but the main things I remember are his late admission to the course Stoner is running, arriving late to class often, interrupting Stoner often during class with pointless non-sequitur questions, and giving his presentation that argues against the very premise of the course and thus avoiding the questions/questions that the presentation was meant to answer.

>I've known the academic world well enough to understand that for some students there are special considerations of consideration
I doubt universities of the 20/30/40 etc were as tolerable as they are today. Even so this I think speaks more to Stoner's failings (and he really does handle the whole thing really badly) and justifications for Lomax's hatred than a real defence of Walker. It is demonstrated to us that Walker only possess rhetorical skills with almost no knowledge of the literary canon. I find it hard to see how any possible difficulties in his life would allow a university to consider his continued study. My point isn't that Stoner is right and Walker is bad but merely that Walker is unsuitable for a PhD.

>Ok but the quotation of my post you are replying to here literally constitutes an argument
I should have said an argument derived from textual evidence. However you actually did provide some in your last post in regards to talking about Stoner not inquiring into any potential needs that Walker might have.

>Ok then, if you just assert it I guess that makes it true.
You just asserted that you thought it was weird that no one mentioned it. For someone that called someone out for being rude you sure are going out of your way to be passive aggressive to someone attempting to engage you civilly in a discussion.

[Anonymous No.11688349]

>>11687624
>>11687624
Yo first Anon here again, I def know what you mean about the narration, but narratorial reliability can be raised as a problem a problem with all works that are third person omniscient with an emphasis on their protagonists thoughts, which is what I would qualify stoner as. I choose to believe that the narration of stoner is straightforward and not attempting to show stoner in a more pathetic light, ie one that would appeal to the readers sympathy. Williams style actually does an amazing job of remaining ambiguous to stoners emotions, he really tells everything as it is. Stoner emerges as the novels hero naturally, and not in a “were all flawed but he’s the lesser of all evils kind of way.” Stoner is a simple many who has only ever found happiness in not literature itself but the intense devotion to it through its study, which is why the university as an institution matters to him so much, and is one of the novels major themes. His hatred for walker then is very much justified, I think, because he is purely a charlatan who likes the sound of his own voice. He doesn’t understand the unrewarding devotion to the work is the reward itself. A cheesy take, maybe, but I thought this was the main theme of the novel, and certainly why Stoner is hailed as a stoic.

[Anonymous No.11688373]

>>11688076
On the character of walker, he may be a little comical in the fact that the degree to which he is a pseud is a little much (late to the class, asks for too many extensions, literally improvises his final assignment and did no work on it) but it’s clear the the type of person who he is trying to represent, and that archetype is a very realistic one. In academic life there always gonna be those people who cut corners and opt for the eloquent platitude over the toil of actual study. Stoner is putting his foot down when it comes to those kinds of charlatans. Williams is probably as well.

[Anonymous No.11688393]

>>11688349
Ambivalent not ambiguous, autocorrect

[Anonymous No.11689373]

>>11687925
fuck you

[Anonymous No.11689426]

>>11688270
>No matter how you rationalise the actions of Walker it is impossible to escape the fact that he is arrogant, rude and completely lacking in basic knowledge that a graduate would require to be where they are
I'm afraid you can't actually extract this from the text. There are two sections in the text that support this conclusion: Walker's behaviour in Stoner's class and his behaviour in the assessment Stoner takes part in. The latter case could, *could*, be chalked up to nerves, for there's also no disputing that Stoner behaves in a cold and aggressive manner during his own questioning. And as for the first case, as I said, Stoner makes no attempt to enquire as to any aggravating circumstances that might explain Walker's behaviour. The text only seems to show so irrefutably that Walker is incompetent because this is so firmly what Stoner believes, I don't dispute that where in the text Walker is described as saying certain things, that he really did say those exact things. What I dispute are the veracity of the sentences that include locutions like "Stoner saw that" or "it was apparent to Stoner that", and so on, which then go on to describe some incompetent characteristic of Walker.

>I doubt universities of the 20/30/40 etc were as tolerable as they are today
So do I, but if there's any chance that at times some of them from that period did exercise such toleration, it would have surely been in a situation akin to Walker's and Lomax's, namely, where an academically failing student's private condition involves (at least according to the theory I'm putting forward) aggravating circumstances related to their disabled physical condition, circumstances which have in fact been experienced by the very supervisor responsible for the student, in their own personal and professional history.

>You just asserted that you thought it was weird that no one mentioned it
But your reply was quiet in response to that: "It's not something that really deserves much comment". Well ok but I did comment on it so I personally think it does. I've known people who outwardly appear incompetent at university, even people at PhD level, but I've always understood that, especially with research work, things aren't always as they appear, and students can be struggling with all kinds of private issues which I am not aware of that might explain why they are allowed to continue their studies at the university. If you say to me that what I'm commenting on doesn't deserve to be commented on, and don't give a substantial reason for it, prepare for the appropriate response. Judge me passive aggressive if you like; I'm not interested in your psychological temper at all.

[Anonymous No.11689453]

>>11688349
>narratorial reliability can be raised as a problem a problem with all works that are third person omniscient with an emphasis on their protagonists thoughts
Very true, but as I said something about the narrative in the sections that involve Walker seems slightly different from the other sections of the book. They are the sections that as I recall focus more minutely on what Stoner himself sees and what he thinks, but where these describes are fused into the third-person narrative in such a way that they come across as reliable third-person truth. It's been long since I read the book so I can't give you specific examples, but it's certainly what I remember from the sections in Stoner's class. I was reading them and I just started to get a bit suspicious of the descriptions I was being given. The sober, matter of fact style characteristic of the earlier sections of the book seemed to have been changed subtly.

I agree in the main with your outlook on the book. I'm not saying my reading is that Stoner is actually someone from a rural, hardworking background prejudiced against cripples. The primary focus of the book is indeed on Stoner and his devotion to literature. It's just my view that the book is genuinely ambiguous as to whether Stoner's battle with Lomax/Walker in the book is one with any objective value in it (e.g. academic integrity vs. nepotism), or just one Stoner projects onto his surroundings, much as Edith projects negative qualities onto stoner to justify her own villainising of him.

[Anonymous No.11689522]

>>11685674
>2018
>Not using the Colbert cover

[Anonymous No.11689823]

>>11685674
>>11685700
Have you ever seen a person who's never really connected with people outside of their family? They're usually repressive introverts who become jealous at the slight moment someone else becomes successful or connects with someone around them. Edith was an insufferable bitch, but psychologically it wasn't her own doing, but her parents.

[Anonymous No.11689836]

>>11689522
so why is Stephen Colbert photoshopped onto the cover? Does he really like the book or something? Is he in the movie at all?

[Anonymous No.11690395]

>>11685674

>when you only just now realise that Stoner raped Edith

I read this book almost a year ago now so it's not super fresh in my mind but he only raped her once didn't he? Which was on their wedding night? After that they didn't have sex for months until Edith got baby rabies and decided to be sexually active with Stoner for a few months until she got pregnant, then they never had sex again after that.

I really liked Stoner as a character. Now I can't after realising this. Fuck. It's just like when Tennessee Williams made me have to hate Stanley from 'A Streetcar Named Desire' because of how he raped Blanche at the end of the second to last act.

[Anonymous No.11690949]

>>11687205
>named stoner
>never tokes up

[Anonymous No.11691004]

I think Lomax protected Walker because they were both degenerate cripples.

[Anonymous No.11691015]

>>11690395
>raped his wife on their wedding night
Anon what the fuck is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.11691018]

>>11690395
There is no such thing as marital rape.

[Anonymous No.11691656]

>>11687419
>Nothing Lomax does in the novel seems objectively and irrefutably evil to me

well, you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.11691676]

>>11685674
>in b4 someone shills the edith was molested for the millionth fucking time
you fucking retards read a theory on this board and regurgitate it ad nauseam hoping your opinion is interesting(it isnt)

[Anonymous No.11691686]

>>11691656
Shit, you convinced me.

[Anonymous No.11691704]

>>11691686
When it comes to matters of academic dishonesty though