Speech and Stoner

Appreciations of John Williams’ Stoner have been floating around the blogosphere for a while now, thanks to John SelfdovegreyreaderEmmett Stinson and, more recently, D.G Myers and Rohan Maitzen, but another voice in praise of the novel can’t hurt. Stoner is a masterpiece. There’s no use festooning it with superlatives. They can’t convey how great it is. Read it!

More than its perfect prose, tone, characterisation, and narrative momentum, what impressed me about Stoner was the subtlety of its self-awareness. I expected a reprise of the startling but unwavering realism of Williams’ previous novel, Butcher’s Crossing, which is arguably one of the half-dozen or so truly outstanding New Westerns and which offered me my first taste of Williams’ work. What I found instead was a work of literature that acknowledged and justified its own literariness right from the very first page, and continued to do so throughout:

William Stoner entered the University of Missouri as a freshman in the year 1910. … Eight years later, during the height of World War I, he received his Doctor of Philosophy degree and accepted an instructorship at the same University, where he taught until his death in 1956. He did not rise above the rank of assistant professor, and few students remembered him with any sharpness after they had taken his courses. When he died his colleagues made a memorial contribution of a medieval manuscript to the University library. This manuscript may still be found in the Rare Books Collection, bearing the inscription: “Presented to the Library of the University of Missouri, in memory of William Stoner, Department of English. By his colleagues.”

An occasional student who comes upon the name may wonder idly who William Stoner was, but he seldom pursues his curiosity beyond a casual question. Stoner’s colleagues, who held him in no particular esteem when he was alive, speak of him rarely now; to the older ones, his name is a reminder of the end that awaits them all, and to the younger ones it is merely a sound which evokes no sense of the past and no identity with which they can associate themselves or their careers.

That’s how the novel opens. Straight away it marks out its literary territory. On the one hand, by noting the inadequacy of the sole surviving written record of the life of William Stoner, it implies that what is required is something like itself: an account of Stoner’s life that is both more elaborate and more specific than what currently exists. On the other hand, by noting the “casual” questioning of Stoner’s life and the variations in the verbal accounts offered in response, it implies also that what is required is not only a more elaborate and specific account but, crucially, a written one. What Stoner wants, from its very first page, is an account of Stoner’s life that becomes more elaborate and specific the more it both supersedes the inadequate written record in the University of Missouri library and militates against the transience and ambiguities of speech as an alternative means of superseding that record. Time and again throughout Stoner, as the novel goes about setting the record straight, it casts speech as an act through which its task might be accomplished if only speech was not so capable of misdirection via rhetorical seduction, distraction, and outright deception.

Here, for instance, is the young Stoner’s adviser, Archer Sloane, whose speech mannerisms seduce Stoner into devoting himself to the study of literature:

The instructor was a man of middle age, in his early fifties; his name was Archer Sloane, and he came to his task of teaching with a seeming disdain and contempt, as if he perceived between his knowledge and what he could say a gulf so profound that he would make no effort to close it. … His voice was flat and dry, and it came through barely moving lips without expression or intonation; but his long thin fingers moved with grace and persuasion, as if giving to the words a shape that his voice could not.

And here is Stoner’s first contact with the woman who will become his loveless wife — who will eventually do everything in her power to ruin him — as she, too, seduces him with words, and less with the words she actually speaks than with the simple act of speaking:

Stoner had turned back when she began to speak, and he looked at her with an amazement that did not show on his face. Her eyes were fixed straight before her, her face was blank, and her lips moved as if, without understanding, she read from an invisible book. He walked slowly across the room and sat down beside her. She did not seem to notice him; her eyes remained fixed straight ahead, and she continued to tell him about herself, as he had asked her to do. … And [later] something unsuspected within her, some instinct, made her call him back when he started to go out the door, made her speak quickly and desperately, as she had never spoken before, and as she would never speak again.

And here is Stoner’s first in-depth encounter with Charles Walker, the arrogant student who will destroy Stoner’s professional life just as Stoner’s wife destroys his life at home:

[Walker’s] voice rose and fell, his right hand went out with its fingers curled supplicatingly upward, and his body swayed to the rhythm of his words; his eyes rolled slightly upward, as if he were making an invocation. … Walker’s voice dropped to a conversational level, and he addressed the back wall of the room in a tone that was calm and equable with reason. …

Anger, simple and dull, rose within Stoner [when he realised the extent of Walker’s intellectual vapidity], overwhelming the complexity of feeling he had had at the beginning of the paper. His immediate impulse was to rise, to cut short the farce that was developing; he knew that if he did not stop Walker at once he would have to let him go on for as long as he wanted to talk. … He had waited too long to interrupt, and Walker was rushing impetuously through what he had to say. …

After he became used to his anger Stoner found a reluctant and perverse admiration stealing over him. However florid and imprecise, the man’s powers of rhetoric and invention were dismayingly impressive [and] Stoner became aware that he was in the presence of a bluff so colossal that he had no ready means of dealing with it.

And here is Walker again, delivering a presentation followed by a question and answer session that has been scripted by his supervisor, Hollis Lomax, precisely in order to distract Walker’s listeners from noticing his limited intellectual capabilities:

Walker’s presentation was lucid, forthright, and intelligent; at times it was almost brilliant. Lomax was right; if the dissertation fulfilled its promise, it would be brilliant. Hope, warm and exhilarating, rushed upon [Stoner], and he leaned forward attentively.

Walker talked upon the subject of his dissertation for perhaps ten minutes and then abruptly stopped. Quickly Lomax asked another question, and Walker responded at once. … Walker’s voice continued, fluent and sure of itself, the words emerging from his rapidly moving mouth almost as if — Stoner started, and the hope that had begun in him died as abruptly as it had been born. … Lomax finished his questioning, and Holland began. It was, Stoner admitted, a masterful performance; unobtrusively, with great charm and good humor, Lomax managed it all. … He rephrased [other listeners’] questions… changing them so that the original intent was lost in the elucidation. He engaged Walker in what seemed to be elaborately theoretical arguments, although he did most of the talking. And finally… he cut into [other listeners’] questions with questions of his own that led Walker where he wanted him to go.

During this time Stoner did not speak. He listened to the talk that swirled around him. … He was waiting to do what he knew he had to do, and he was waiting with a dread and an anger and a sorrow that grew more intense with every minute that passed.

At one point, when Lomax threatens to charge Stoner with professional misconduct and construes actual events in a way that makes them appear sinister, Stoner cries out: “How you make it sound! Sure, everything you say is fact, but none of it is true. Not the way you say it.” And later, when Stoner’s retirement dinner offers him an opportunity to publicly construe events however he pleases, he is rendered powerless by his inability to speak:

As the applause dwindled someone in the audience shouted in a thin voice: “Speech!” Someone else took up the call, and the word was murmured here and there. …

[Stoner] got to his feet, and realized that he had nothing to say. He was silent for a long time as he looked from face to face. He heard his voice issue flatly. “I have taught…” he said. He began again. “I have taught at this University for nearly forty years. I do not know what I would have done if I had not been a teacher. If I had not taught, I might have–” He paused, as if distracted. Then he said, with a finality, “I want to thank you all for letting me teach.”

And finally, at the end of his life, Stoner receives news of Katherine Driscoll, the colleague and lover he was forced to abandon when their affair jeopardised both of their careers, and this last encounter with Katherine affirms the strength of the written word:

In the early spring of 1949 he received a circular from the press of a large eastern university; it announced the publication of Katherine’s book, and gave a few words about the author. … He got a copy of the book as soon as he could. When he held it in his hands his fingers seemed to come alive; they trembled so that he could scarcely open it. He turned the first few pages and saw the dedication: “To W.S.”

His eyes blurred, and for a long time he sat without moving. Then he shook his head, returned to the book, and did not put it down until he had read it through. … The prose was graceful, and its passion was masked by a coolness and clarity of intelligence. It was herself he saw in what he read, he realized; and he marveled at how truly he could see her even now.

Whether or not he can “truly” see her is, of course, an open question, and is just one aspect of the broader question of whether or not the written word is in fact more capable than speech of conveying the “truth” of a human life via the elaboration and specification of circumstantial detail. But with its continual ambivalence towards speech, Stoner seems to me to close off that broad open question in favour of the written word and thus in favour of richly detailed humanist realism as the literary mode best suited to its purposes — although, unusually for that sort of realism, it senses its own lack of intrinsic authority and works hard to accrue and justify it.

19 responses to “Speech and Stoner

  1. I just finished reading Stoner and am very much impressed. You shouldn’t read a novel anymore for sometime after reading Stoner.
    You give a very good observation of what the novel is about. The importance of the written word –

  2. I have just finished reading Stoner and I also appreciate it in many ways but I also have my problems with it. What I like is the clear, unambiguous prose, words like a painting by Edward Hopper. I love the way Williams uses all sensory experiences to enrich the experience his character goes through: from the smell of flowers to the touch of things…
    my problem is the ‘and-then-and-then-and-then’ quality to the story.

    Also, Williams tends to reveal conclusions behind the incidences in the story rather then referring to them, subtly. For instance, when Grace returns and has become an alcoholic, he tells the reader, outright: “Grace had begun to drink with a quiet seriousness…” whereas a writer can also create the implication of the behaviour by setting it in scéne, and allowing the reader to reach the conclusion implied. I prefer the latter: I don’t like to be told what is going on, I like to figure it out for myself: that is, in my opinion, the effort the reader needs to be allowed to make.
    Also, Williams manages to build up considerable suspense in certain sections, for instance the situation with Charles Walker, wherein you have no idea how it will turn out, but in other pages he will bluntly say “…and that was the last time he would see Katherine.” Or: “…and indeed Lomax didn’t speak to him again in twenty years”, which works like a ‘spoiler’ for his own work.

    All said, I do certainly agree that the writing is very elegant, and the characters are well developed – except in the cases of Walker (what happened to him, was there no aftermath?) and Grace (who was shunted off to St Louis, “it doesn’t matter, father” and did not further influence the story.)

    Maybe I will write a paper on it, and fill in the quotes properly.
    I hope you appreciate my opinion even if it is not all praise.

    • I think you are right in your observation that Williams tells the story very explicitly. I also prefer stories in which the author leaves something to guess for the reader. The reader filling in certain things himself. But isn’t this a (post)modern way of seeing literature. And also, the way Williams wrote Stoner, explicitly and chronlogically (and than etc), fits the story very well.
      By the way, I am from the Netherlands and Stoner is a real bestseller here since a couple of months. I hate bestsellers, but this one really got me.

      • Ik woon ook in Nederland, Gerrit. 😉 Goede vraag, trouwens, maar nee, ik denk niet dat mijn verwachting post modern is, met dat ‘and then and then’. John MacDonald says: “you break the spell with author intrusion” (= ‘and then, and then…”) [no mini lectures! – just get on with the story]
        J.P MacDonald, ‘introduction Night Shift, Stephen King, New English Library, 1978’

  3. There is something devastating about this novel. Almost every interaction between Stoner and his parents left me close to tears. Maybe I’m just overly sentimental.

  4. no need to downplay true feelings as being sentimental. Sentimentality is Hollywood, girly-programmes and what we say after 3 bottles of wine to good friends. Stoner may just put a finger on the timeless empathy we may feel… eh…

    • Damn straight. I don’t think I can talk about how this book makes me feel without sounding trite though – and obviously thats the genius of Williams, he describes matters of the heart so wonderfully – evoking all the beauty and strain of love in such a sparse way without ever resorting to cliché.

      • nicely said, indeed I agree with you: talking about it will result in cliché – I think one’s relationship with this book ends up being a ‘private matter’ because of that… in a way I feel cornered. 🙂 And yet, the guy died an unknown writer. All this hoo-hah now, like we all have collectively recognised his genius – are we not leaning on each other?

  5. I too have reservations about this book. While I accept that people may have behaved in this curiously stilted and incoherent way (Stoner and his parents, Stoner and his teacher, Stoner and his wife, etc), the book gives me no real insights into WHY they behave like this. Were they all deficient in some way? I just got annoyed with the way the author was writing these characters, kept finding I couldn’t really believe in them. It reminds me of some visual works of the Art Déco period – curiously flat, pastel-coloured, stunted. The clarity of the writing is admirable, but time and again it leads to a sense of exclusion. The remarks made here by Ambernowak are welcome!

    • I think Williams make it pretty clear why they behave the way they do. They are farmers that have worked the land all their lives and know nothing else – they have never learned to be social beings. This was before much value was put on having a “winning personality” and being a good conversationalist.

  6. I am bewitched by this novel because for me, Williams’ sustained focus on inarticulacy is fascinating and I believe the kernel of the book.

    Initially, such inarticulacy is demonstrated in the speech sparse stoicism of Stoner’s parents. Almost mute like they accept their son’s decision to espouse working the land for a living only because in their knowledge realm, and who can condemn them, the only possible way to view such a choice as meaningful is to understand it in terms of it promising better returns from their labours.

    Stoner, shunning agronomy, decides to cultivate words and their habitat – put crudely he chooses to use brain over brawn hence exchanging the prospect of back breaking and grinding manual labour for a life of literature. Stoner chooses a life of soft hands rather than calloused.

    When he makes this decision we see he too, is unable to convey the meaning of his choice in any conventional sense to his parents – all three are plagued or perhaps blessed – with inarticulacy.

    Having hogtied his readers throughout the book with his literary flair and ability to express the inexpressible, Williams consciously chooses to ‘close the circle’ of inarticulacy by ensuring Stoner’s voice is silenced at his retirement ‘celebration’.

    Despite the fact that Stoner is fully equipped with the tools of his chosen trade/vocation he does not bring home the harvest. Like his parents before him he has laboured hard and yet is still not able or perhaps inclined, to maximise the yield from his endeavours.

    Stoner and his parents are not dissimilar – preparing the soil, planting seeds, labouring long and hoping for just enough sustenance to get by until the cycle begins again.

  7. I have never found any text that delineates mundane human suffering and joy as elegantly as Stoner. The clarity of writing paradoxically illuminates characters marked by inarticulate passion, guilefull speech and otherwise faulted talk. In this way it locates that profound linguistic vantage point which Wittgenstein said we must pass over in silence.

  8. I thought it a horribly self-serving book. It was well written. The writing was precise. This guy knew what he wanted to say. His childhood on the farm and his parents were wonderfully done. As soon as the character became a professor, the dishonesty began. I didn’t notice it at first but then it was too much in my face. His horrible wife. His enemy on the faculty who he made into a dwarf! His student lover whose heart beat uncontrollably at the sight of him or some such, before he initiated the affair.
    It was bad and all the worse for being so well written, so literate.
    It’s really more a book about the pretensions and uselessness of academia as we have come to know it.
    Disingenuous, self-important, effete ‘teachers’ like Williams are the reason we have Trump.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.