Thursday, 21 April 2016

John Edward Williams, "Stoner"

 – e-book



Read from May 6th to 13th 2014

My rating:


An Old-Fashioned Hero

It was impossible for me to read Stoner in one breath, even though it is not a long novel, nor a particularly intricate one. I had to stop after every thirty pages or so, before sadness ate my soul whole. My sadness, I soon realized, had however that cathartic quality the ancient tragedies usually inspire and made me remember an old definition of the tragic hero: he is always defeated and dies, but the ideas he fought for and believed in forever live.

William Stoner is not so different from a Greek hero. His tragic destiny seems to be the result of the same disobedience of the three laws: gods’, by refusing to accept his destiny as a farmer, society’s by fighting authority when unjust, and family’s by breaching the “sanctity” of his unfortunate marriage. His backbone, his quiet dignity, his resigned understanding of the world are permanently challenged by the two implacable, malevolent divinities who will never let him go, who will never let him be: his wife Edith and his colleague Lomax.


Edith will try to punish his soul by denying him the home she is unable to build herself. She is the merciless fairy, a beautiful creature whom Stoner invested with more depth she was capable of, and whose bridal, ghostlike apparition is a too late warning of her true nature:

In her white dress she was like a cold light coming into the room.

Lomax will try to punish his mind by denying him the fulfilment of his vocation and assigning him menial academic duties in revenge of what he apparently considers an affront to his authority, but in reality because he is insulted by Stoner’s very existence in whose mirror is forced to contemplate his crippled soul. He is the dwarf, the hunchback, the satyr whose fascinating and repulsive apparition has that cardboard quality that robs him of all humanity to transform him in an instrument of the celestial payback:

He was a man barely over five feet in height, and his body was grotesquely misshapen. A small hump raised his left shoulder to his neck, and his left arm hung laxly at his side. His upper body was heavy and curved, so that he appeared to be always struggling for balance; his legs were thin, and he walked with a hitch in his stiff right leg. (…) And then they could see his face.

It was the face of a matinee idol. Long and thin and mobile, it was nevertheless strongly featured; his forehead was high and narrow, with heavy veins, and his thick waving hair, the color of ripe wheat, swept back from it in a somewhat theatrical pompadour.

Then there is also the monster that besieges the citadel, bringing corruption and hypocrisy and all the other Pandora gifts of the petty outside world. The monster has a delusive pitiful appearance, a cleverness disguised as intelligence and the support of the authority that seem to assure him a place in the stronghold, so that it is the hero’s duty to chase him away:

Dave would have thought of Walker as —as the world. And we can't let him in. For if we do, we become like the world, just as unreal, just as... The only hope we have is to keep him out.

And Stoner does chase him away, just as he will chase his own soul away when he is forced to choose between integrity and sentiment, by choosing to remain true to his nature for he knows that otherwise he will erase himself together with the purity of his love:

"Because in the long run," Stoner said, "it isn't Edith or even Grace, or the certainty of losing Grace, that keeps me here; it isn't the scandal or the hurt to you or me; it isn't the hardship we would have to go through, or even the loss of love we might have to face. It's simply the destruction of ourselves, of what we do."

In the end, when all his work is done, he can quietly pass away. He didn’t enter the glory of the world he kept away from, he didn’t shine and didn’t let a lasting impression among his peers. But he remains like the stone in the river that cannot be moved, even though it is often hidden by the swirling waters. An old-fashioned stone called probity, carelessly thrown away by most of us.

He had dreamed of a kind of integrity, of a kind of purity that was entire; he had found compromise and the assaulting diversion of triviality. He had conceived wisdom, and at the end of the long years he had found ignorance.

10 comments:

  1. O întrebare ruşinoasă: care dintre cele două variante oferite de google translate e valabilă pt traducerea titlului: 'stoner>substantiv:
    a person who regularly takes drugs, especially marijuana.

    a person or thing that weighs a specified number of stone.
    a couple of 16-stoners'.
    Mi-am cumpărat şi eu cartea de curând, dar probabil o să mai treacă ceva timp... fiindcă am o anume reticenţă când vine vorba să citesc o carte în vogă şi super lăudată. Altă recenzie n-am citit, nu ştiu despre ce e vorba mai precis, dar din câte am înţeles de aici, atât cât mi-a permis engleza mea deplorabilă, este că protagonistul 'se luptă' cu sine, cu soţia fermecătoare, dar constrângătoare, cu un prieten (?) Nuuu, mă las de meserie. Mai mult n-am înţeles, chiar dacă am avut voinţă! :((((

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooo, câte recenzii, atâtea opinii despre Stoner. Nu i-aș zice "în vogă", fiindcă nu este o carte promovată artificial (deși la început a fost - zilele astea e musai să promovezi ceva dacă vrei să vinzi), ci o carte care se vinde singură prin valoarea ei. Precum De veghe în lanul de secară, să zicem. Lectură plăcută!

      Delete
    2. De acord cu K.J.. Este vorba mai curînd despre o carte descoperita mult dupa publicare, vreo 50 de ani dupa, si evident dupa moartea autorului, care se resemnase deja ca romanul lui n-o sa ajunga nicicînd o carte de referinta! Si evident, mai întîi Europa l-a descoperit, ca nimeni nu-i profet în tara lui!
      Cît despre titlu, tre' sa recunosc ca fiind vorba de un nume propriu, nu prea m-am gîndit la alte conotatii decît aceea la care fac aluzie în final si care e oferita de proverbul "apa trece, pietrele ramîn" :).
      În fine, referitor la ceea ce ai înteles, nu spun nimic, pentru ca as vrea s-o citesti, dac tot o ai :D

      Delete
  2. Aha! Știam eu că are să-ți placă, Stela! Acum mi-ai făcut poftă să o recitesc :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mi-a placut mult, dar am citit-o acum doi ani, cred ca se impune si la mine o relectura, da' nu stiu cînd, ca am un teanc de carti care se urît la mine de pe birou :)))).

      Delete
    2. …se uita urît… asa-i cînd te grabesti, tabarnak!

      Delete
    3. Ok. Din secunda următoare mă voi apuca de citit Stoner.
      Câteva secunde-dispensă:
      P.S. Şi-aşa, observ că am mari dileme când vine vorba de alegerea următoarei cărţi, fiindcă în ultimul timp mai mult am cumpărat decât am citit. Şi am cam exagerat.

      Delete
    4. Mda. Aceeasi problema si la mine. Ca sa nu mai spun de cartile virtuale care s-au adunat într-un folder la al carui numar de biti mi-e si frica sa ma uit :D

      Delete
  3. Revin acum cu câteva impresii după lecturarea cărţii. Pe scurt, nu mi s-a părut o capodoperă sau ceva extraordinar. Nu sunt dispusă nici să-i fac o recenzie, poate pentru că părerile mele nu sunt chiar aşa de închegate. Pe vremuri, mă entuziasmam la culme atunci când mă identificam cu personajele cărţii, dar acum mi s-a întâmplat, nu ştiu cum, să nu mă entuziasmez tocmai fiindcă m-am identificat. Părerea mea e că ar fi trebuit scrisă la persoana I pentru a-i conferi cărţii nu neapărat autenticitate, dar mai multă pasiune... un ton mai alert (?) hmm are o anume monotonie care mă 'deranjează' :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pe mine tocmai "monotonia" aia m-a impresionat - tonul acela calm, egal, de o tristete, ca sa zic asa, detasata. Zau ca mi-ar fi placut sa citesc recenzia ta, am citit atîtea ridicari în slavi ca mi-ar fi facut bine o repunere în perspectiva :D :D :D.

      Delete