Tao Te 'Stoner'

11/20 2022

For some reason I've been holding off reading Stoner for a long time. Perhaps I was thinking that it'd be another one of those 'depressed man not recognized for how special he is' kinds of books, but oh, how wrong I was. Stoner is a fantastic novel, full stop. It's been long since I read a book where the motivations of each character flow so well with the flow of the book. So, this post is not one of criticism, far from it. The character of Bill Stoner did however make me think of a concept applicable to both himself, as well as ourselves in the process: namely that of the Way in Taoism, and how the character of Stoner shows us the importance in being neither totally complicit in others actions toward ourselves, as well as the importance of remaining as water when facing seemingly unmoving obstacles. Now, I won't go into what the Way is in Taoism (I've written about it before on here, so I don't want to repeat myself), yet I think one should be able to follow along even without knowing anything about it. It is a philosophy of intuition, after all.

Let's begin with the most obvious example of a case where a more laid back approach could've been to Stoner's benefit: the grad student (whose name eludes me for the moment) who he refuses to admit. Now, I think most people reading the novel would agree with Stoner that there is something not entirely right with letting a grad student remain who --- in Stoner's words --- "didn't know things an undergraduate ought to", but was he right in remaining stubbornly steadfast in that principle, even when fully knowing that it would lead to a rivalry between him and Lomax? I would say that even though principles are most certainly important, I'm much more inclined towards the pragmatics of such a situation: in creating a rivalry between him and Lomax he closes every opportunity for himself in the future of being able to work with him (which comes back to haunt him when Lomax is promoted). And additionally, besides that, even if the grad student is allowed to continue, if what Stoner said was right then there is a chance that he'll self-implode as a result of that. If that kind of knowledge is crucial for a university teacher then it would show in his teaching. This is of course a naive analysis of the fictional situation, but it is --- I think --- applicable to other aspects of life. Sometimes we are faced with obstacles that would benefit from a smarter approach, of allowing yourself to float with the river and not work against it.

Another situation that highlights the opposite problem in the story of Stoner is that of Edith. Stoner's total lack of agency and foresight in their relationship is to a reader in the 21th century, at least in my opinion, almost baffling. It almost seems as if he has no will at all regarding anything to do with their relationship after they get married outside of his own self-deception regarding his image of her. Of course getting a divorce at that time was taboo in contrast to how it is now, but even still, he never confronts her about their issues. And when she wants a baby he consents without any real reflection. When she begins emotionally abusing their daughter he is appalled, but does not do anything to change the fact. Perhaps he was afraid that he'd lose her, and later his daughter, if he did. Perhaps that assumption would have been correct, but in not doing anything he becomes complicit in the consequences of other people's actions. In the parable of being like water this seems contradictory however, although is it really so? Well if we use the allegory then it would be true that one needs to be like water so that one doesn't get hurt by the jagged rocks along the river, which if one would have been rigid would have hit and gotten hurt from. But it would also be true that one shouldn't also look forward with foresight to see where the river is going to take you, and try to adjust accordingly. Being afraid of where it takes you is not going to change the fact that it'll carry you along whether you want to or not.

So, I think Stoner gives a painful portrait of the unexamined life, of the life that one never asks oneself what one wants on any level but the most superficial. Yes, the only thing he wants to be is a professor in English literature, but in working toward that goal he misses the fact that even having a single goal comes with the baggage of life itself, and its multiplicities. But then again, perhaps it's just the naivety of youth shining through this meditation, of roman candles burning in the night: rather fleeting than longlasting, rather destruction than regret and a life of quiet servitude.