Why did Edith become such a bitch?

>>9413684
search the archive

>>9413684
Edith was raised as a human ornament, married because 'that's what you're supposed to do', resents Stoner for the state of her life, and honestly was probably extremely mentally ill to begin with

>>9413684
You didn't always have that impression of her?

smoke weed get high

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/classic-stoner-not-so-fast/2015/11/02/9f0ed5aa-7db3-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html?utm_term=.ff055a711e1a

>>9415559
this is offensive

>>9415559
this is genuinely awful and not even in a hackneyed piece of shit way the dude just missed multiple core parts of the story. you'd have to be fucking retarded to think stoner is supposed to be a 'blameless martyr'

>>9415559
>Stoner isn't a classic book.
>The book sucks because I don't like the character.
>Lets ignore the fact that it was set in the 1920s.

Since when was Stoner a blameless martyr?

File: (((hmmm))).jpg (12KB, 559x29px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 559x29px

>>9415559
my noggin is joggin

>>9415559
>women
>literary criticism

pick one

its implied she was abused by her father. possibly married to get out of that situation. then stoner bungles their marriage night by forcing himself on her like her father. there is a point where she freezes but stoner doesn't pick up on it and keeps going. I think from her pov, stoner and her father were forever lumped into the same basket.

>>9415684
In what way is reacting with moral offense to something you find morally offensive offensive?

>>9415698
My intention is not to argue and dismiss other people but to genuinely correct my impression if it is wrong so please don't be offended at what the following.
While I agree with and appreciate the fact that Edith and Lomax and some minor characters are not vilified and portrayed in as unduly unsympathetic and that their behavior is accounted for in a realistic way this account never goes beyond the purely factual. While a knowledgeable reader may deduce from these facts what their circumstances, mental state and feelings were and sympathize with them this would not be trough the intent of the story. If the story itself ever portrays them as sympathetic it is only in a hypocritical way that implies Stoner's moral superiority to them.
This is the way I see it. I'd be glad if you could you point out for me the multiple core parts of the story that disprove this view.

>>9415756
>The book sucks because I don't like the character
It's not the character(s) but the moral implications that bother me.
>Lets ignore the fact that it was set in the 1920s
It's not the content of the story but its presentation that bothers me.

>>9415559
>But I am not a fan of “Stoner.” First, along with other female readers, I am put off by Williams’s misogyny.

Like an anon who insists on identifying as a woman though that identification is used for nothing more than a 'look at me, I'm special,' Elaine Showalter inserts her own gender into an article on which it has no bearing.

And therefore, into the trash that article goes.

´Stoner raped her

>>9415559
>But Williams’s insistence on making Stoner a blameless martyr, rather than a man with choices, and denying him any ironic self-awareness about the causes of his Job-like misfortunes leaves the novel far from perfect

>ironic self-awaraness is what's missing from Stoner

>>9416795
>>ironic self-awaraness is what's missing from Stoner
Can you expound on this? In what way is the book ironically self-aware?

>>9416795
that's a quote from the article and my sarcastic response to it

>>9416855
The article stated that the book lacks self-awareness. Was it wrong to deduce from your sarcastic response that you are of the opposite opinion?
Or did you mean to say that the reviewer is criticizing an aspect of the story that you consider integral for the appreciation of its superior quality.
Something else?

>>9416882
Probably the point was that it's the article that could really use some self-awareness. That, and the fact that _ironic_ self-awareness is reddit-tier trash 95% of the time.

>>9416759
>>9415875
>>9415698
>the dude

lol no surprise none of you even know who showalter is and just react with (t-t-triggered) tears bc lady was mean to your little book friend stoner

>>9416893
>>9416795
you morons, she's not saying there should be ironic sardonic one liners in it, she's talking about literary irony ie Stoner having little insight into why his life is the way it is and his part in that