No, this won't be another tired Stoner thread about how it was the first book that made me cry or whatever the fuck people always say on this shitty Kurdish meat curdling website. Instead, I want to talk about quality that exists in Stoner and the rest of Williams' work, and also exists in the work of others writers like, say, Kazuo Ishiguro: humility. I get the feeling that one of the reasons I am able to appreciate the work of Williams to the extent that I do is that there seems to be no ego whatsoever in them. Williams seems to be writing not to impress anyone. And don't get me wrong: Williams has a very careful and balanced style and is a very good writer, but he doesn't seem to ever be trying to prove his intelligence in the likes of Joyce or Wallace. And there's something almost pure about it: I get the sense that he writes not at all to impose himself and his ego on the reader, to make a name for himself, but for the love of literature itself, for the love the expression, the words, the emotions, etc. This humility is even mirrored in the character of Stoner himself. And with regards to Ishiguro, when I was reading the Remains of the Day, I felt a very similar feeling. Ishiguro never made any unnecessary references to prove how well-read he was, nor did he really do anything that was ever unnecessary, each sentence seeming to be crafted for the purpose of telling the story and evoking a feeling, not ever to prove his intelligence. So, my question is: how important do you think humility is in the crafting of a work of art? When does the ego of the writer get in the way of the efficacy of his art? While literature is obviously an academic pursuit, and the desire to prove one's intelligence will always be embedded deep within it, at what point do you think this desire should be suppressed, if at all?
>>8048611
Authors who wisely know their powersknow them to be small
>>8048611
Yes.
That's really all I have to say about it.
I don't feel the same ego or flare you're commenting about Wallace. From what I've read, it seems as though it reflects humbleness of knowledge and all those footnotes not only highlight the obscurity in his text but also demonstrate the many influences that help in concluding an idea. From that, I think it shows a great deal of humility although I can see how it may seem as if he's throwing all this unnecessary stuff as an ego boost. There shouldn't exist an urge to let loose your knowledge over your text unless the value would improve the piece. I don't think most writers would care in earning the approval of readers and critics who care only for the superfluous form and neat little connotations. However advanced or balanced the text, writers should have more credibility in the word rather than an ulterior motive in scattering minute pieces of their ego in what they're trying to convey.
Unless there's a reason in determining the value of the text, no egotistical desire should be reflected in the piece.
Nice analysis, I think you've explained what it is that makes me really like Williams' books. Seeing as you've read (I'm assuming) all his work, would you say that Augustus has the same kind of style as the other two books? Also, besides Ishuguro, is there anything similar to those two? I've read "The Unconsoled" by Ishiguro, but I didn't think it was similar to John Williams at all, though.
>>8049126
Not OP, but I'd guess Ishiguro's The Remains Of The Day is close to Stoner in tone
>>8049126
Augustus is pretty different from Stoner and Butcher's crossing, but is still a very good book. And yes, >>8049141 dude is kind of right. Remains of The Day is a very sincere and touching book. Not that the protagonist himself is sincere, but you can tell that Ishiguro definitely is. Great mix of light English humor, emotion, and an exploration, in my mind, of how letting the public identity/character/mask that you put up bleed into your everyday thoughts/private identity is a very dangerous thing, how upholding a certain value as a value that will someone grant you a salvation of sorts leads to some delusional and painful occurances.
>>8048611
There is an interview with Wallace where he discusses this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w5R8gduPZw4
It's near the end of this video.
>>8049857
I'm new to /lit and am reading Stoner. My mind is being blown right now.
>>8050113
I didn't find it mind-blowing, totally the opposite in fact. The meticulously subtle style has a way of keeping you grounded throughout the entire novel even as you watch his life erode to nothing.
>>8050510
The verbiage itself is humble. I'm mind blown by finding /lit after coming here from reddit.com/r/books. I'm home.
>>8048727
Hahahaha you've never fuckin read DFW!
>>8050650
ha
hahahaHA
HHAHAHAHA
HA
haha
wew
don't get too comfy.
and don't mention you're from Reddit.
>>8050650
Welcome, friend. Grab your pipe and plenty of sherry. We will supply the meme books, backgammon, and modest women.
