Sorry for another Stoner thread but I just had to vent. Got recommended this book randomly and finished it in a day..and cried a bunch. I can't keep it off my mind. Somehow I'm both angry and content.
The "he should have fought harder" interpretation feels like a trap to me. Why should we expect him to fight at all?
There's this instinct, or expectation or some cultural norm, to look at someone's suffering and find where they could have done something. Fought harder. Left the marriage. Demanded more. Played politics etc. We want agency to be the answer because then suffering has a solution, and if you're suffering it's because you didn't apply the solution.
But Stoner did nothing wrong. He worked hard. He was honest. He loved deeply when he was allowed to. He was kind. He held to his principles. He didn't betray anyone. He’s basically a saint. And the people around him, the people who were supposed to be his allies, his partner, his friend, they failed him. Over and over. Lomax was cruel. Edith was horrible . Finch was a coward.
The whole part about him having this bright happy moment with his daughter and it getting stolen from him is the most heartbreaking thing I’ve ever read. And returning to it in my mind just feels terrible.
Why is the burden on him to have fought a war on every front just to get a normal life? Why do we read the book and think immediately"he should have left Edith" instead of "Edith should not have been a monster"? Why is passivity in the face of relentless cruelty a character flaw but the cruelty itself is just what… expected?
“He should have put aside his principles and saved his career…” damn this interpretation. The whole point of this book is to take these surface level judgements and never make them again.
One thing I still can't figure out: what was Edith's game? Why did she rush to marry him? I feel like I understand William completely, but her motivations remain a mystery. What made her who she was?
by lxe