I recently finished "Stoner" by John Edward Williams for my book club, which we all really enjoyed and had a lot to say about. One topic that we discussed a lot was whether Stoner is ultimately a figure to admire or a cautionary tale. Like most interesting questions in art I think the answer is nuanced and multifaceted; Stoner's stoicism is simultaneously awe-inspiring and infuriating. While the norms of his time meant getting divorced was much more difficult, both legally and socially, I was screaming for him to at least try to do something, but even after realizing how much better his life was without Edith in it he just kept on trucking through his comically awful marriage. Similarly, with his daughter Grace, I desperately wished he'd done more for her beyond a single, half-hearted attempt to get Edith to back down, and the way her life ends up going is one of the most heartbreaking parts of the book.
I personally ultimately leaned more towards pitying him than admiring him, but I think by nature I'm just too ambitious and restless to be happy living a life like his, at least not without trying a bit harder than he did to change things for the better. Stoicism in the face of that which you truly cannot change is wise and correct; but not trying to change anything is simply passive and cowardly.
What does everyone else think?
by Funplings