Stoner, by John
Williams, was first published in 1965. The book was reissued in 2003 and
again in 2006. We filled 2 full rows of chairs plus the bench at Barnes &
Noble for our discussion of Stoner, and we covered lots of thoughts about the
book but didn’t touch on why the book went 38 years without republication and
then was reissued twice within 3 years. The book industry is interesting, but the
books we read interest us more.
I counted 7 or 8 hands raised for “liking’ the book, and 1 raised
for a “didn’t like,” with an explanation later.
The first topic we discussed was the introduction. This was added to the book in 2003.
Introductions can be dull and analytical at worst and enticing at best. This one
was, to me, analytical without being dull, but instead infuriating. I, and some
other readers in the group, thought that too much of the story was given away
in the introduction. I stopped reading it before finishing it, because I didn’t
like the spoilers. Jay, who nominated the book, explained that introductions to
novels were originally for enjoyment and later became more of a venue for
analysis. Jay somewhat vindicated the introduction by saying that reading the
book means experiencing the book, regardless of whether you read the summarized
part in the introduction before reading the book. This did turn out to be true.
While reading, I only occasionally thought of the introduction, though it was
mostly with disappointment at remembering it as foreshadowing a part of the
plot. To write this blog post, one of my rewards for the effort is that I
reread the introduction after reading the book, and I found it most interesting
and understood it better than I had before reading the book.
As a retired professor, Jay mentioned that he had changed
majors in college 5 times before working on his doctorate and starting his life’s
work; he also needed an extra year of college to graduate with all the
requirements fulfilled for a major. Dennis changed majors once before graduating, earning a
doctorate and becoming a professor. Cindy T. changed once to major in something
that was more practical for the job market. I changed from an interpretive to a
more concrete and literal major that I felt worked better in a structured
educational environment. My notetaking lagged behind the conversation, but I
think there were a few others in the group who had changed majors during
college. This makes me think of a difference between older generations and newer
ones; that youth who are interested in their education today might be more focused on
future work prospects as they enter the expensive system of higher education.
Talking about the character Stoner, Jay mentioned Stoner’s “stumbling
blocks:” his wife (creepy feelings set in just thinking about her), Lomax,
money, and later the whole gossip mill of his university. Jay thinks that Stoner's passive attitude may have come about because of his strong commitment to teaching all that he learned and loved about English literature. Pam said that Stoner
let things happen rather than making them happen. Then, when Dennis used the
word, “spineless” to describe Stoner and said that this trait caused him to
consider the book one that he didn’t enjoy reading, Pam said that when the book
was written, people were often spineless about letting things happen to them and
stayed with jobs for as long as they could. (Jobs used to reward those who
stayed, whereas we now see much more job-changing and less loyalty or rewards
for loyalty in work.) Dennis said that Stoner seemed to always avoid
confrontation. Ken noted that while reading, he was glad when Stoner did stand
up for himself. Joyce found the first half of the book frustrating because
Stoner didn’t stand up for himself, and she liked when he stood up to Lomax. I
would say that Lomax won the war, but Stoner did win some battles. Or maybe it was that Lomax won all the battles, but Stoner won the war?
Pam said Stoner wanted to move away from his dead-end job; and
though Edith refused to move and threatened to keep Stoner’s daughter from him
if he moved away, Pam thought Stoner could have worked harder to convince Edith
to move. With the conversation turning toward Edith, Linda H. asked us what we thought was wrong with Edith, because she was clearly “not normal.” Florence
remembered the episode when Edith went to her father's funeral and then burned all the toys her father had given her. There was perhaps a hint of abuse here, though only the lack
of communication in Stoner’s family had been mentioned.
Some theories arose during our discussion. Ken suggested
that Stoner was depressed and said that chapter 12, paragraph 1 describes a
depressive syndrome. Ken said that Stoner knew the first day of the marriage
that Edith was a poor choice for a wife and that he shouldn’t have married her.
Dennis thought Walker might have written Katherine Driscoll’s paper. Someone said that Stoner did Walker a disservice by not trying to help
him develop. Dennis agreed that Walker might have developed well with some
encouragement. Florence suggested that Walker might have been Lomax’s son;
Lomax certainly expressed that he felt a kinship with Walker. Joyce said that
Stoner didn’t like Walker’s habit of cutting corners. Linda H. said that Walker
was arrogant and that Stoner thought he was using his disability to get away
with cutting corners. Linda also noted that Walker had a narrow range of
knowledge of his subject and that this is not a valued trait in a doctoral
program.
Jay suggested comparing Stoner to 2 other books our group
read about professors: Straight Man, by Richard Russo
and Famous Writers I Have Known, by
James Magnuson. Also, there was Wonder Boys, by Michael Chabon. I don’t think there were enough of us present who had read those books with the group to go into that topic. We had great discussions
about all of those books, and you can read about the discussions in the blog. Further
discussion centered around the university culture, past and present. Stoner is
yet another of our chosen books that seems to lend itself to numerous extended
discussions.
