he raped Edith, right? or is my reading comprehension that fucked?

her father raped her. that's why the robotic retelling of her past when stoner first visits her,
that's why she forbids stone and their daughter from being alone together, that's why she burns all her childhood shit and reinvents herself after her dad dies

>>9699503
still no evidence this is anything but a bullshit theory

OK. So I have a little problem with this book.
So Stoner is a complete autist.He has no idea how other people feel so from his perspective he dindu nuffin so why are people so mean to him?
I can understand that. He is just like that and he didn't mean wrong.
What bothers me is that the narrative voice seems to agree with Stoner's perspective and to try to convince us that it is right. Or is my perception wrong?

>>9699367
>>9699503


is this the /lit/ version of "was it rape"

>>9700056
The narration seemed more sympathetic to me, but then again I think that stoner wasn't majorly guilty of anything aside from the wedding night scene. The point of the novel seemed to be that all characters were sympathetic in some way or form, it just looks like the book is more sympathetic to Stoner due to the focus on him.

>>9699367
Stoner was a good man and did nothing out of the ordinary for the time. By getting married Edith implied consent, on their honeymoon they did what was natural for two sexually inexperienced and uninformed people. He didn't rape anyone.

You're reading comprehension isn't fucked, you're actually on the cutting edge of a new experimental evolution in literary theory making the rounds among the brightest and most ambitious young scholars now emerging from the best universities in America. Some call it "Rape Reading" or "Hymeneutics." You basically just search for some ambiguous point in the story where it's even loosely possible that a rape could have occurred and then interpret all subsequent narrative and character developments within the context of rape and its associated traumas. Really cool stuff, especially in Shakespeare scholarship! Dare yourself to re-imagine Julius Caesar as being gang-raped by the Senate instead of stabbed to death. Sheds interesting new light on the play, no?

>>9700129
>I think that stoner wasn't majorly guilty of anything aside from the wedding night scene
Stoner really didn't do anything wrong, he didn't do anything other than what he thought he was supposed to do. It's just that even then it was still his own fault and his own responsibility that his life turned out the way it did.
It's not that the story didn't acknowledge his shortcomings or that it didn't portray other people's situation as being understandable but it felt like it refused to acknowledge that Stoner held any responsibility at all for himself and people around him just because he didn't have bad intentions.
It's all like "he's a gud boy, he did well, leave him alone". He did not do well. It's not OK to believe he did well.

>>9700611
Bullshit. Read it again. The story is all about how Stoner could've behaved differently and handled things better. It's about stoicism and knowing your place is in the larger world. Stoner is sympathetic due to his passion for literature - he's surrounded by fucking crazy people, and he made some huge miscalculations that limited his freedom for life. It's about the power of books to transfigure and improve our lives in the face of adversity and stupidity.

>>9700153
But did Edith have the mental capacity to consent?

>>9699367
I thought about it over the years and I think it reminds me in various ways of Madame Bovary.

Marrying at the impetus of the moment with the hope for something that will surely realize later only to find oneself stuck in a loveless relationship, which will take a turn in death with the idea that they understand one another.

Both character betray the other one to once again find their true soul while being unable to leave their spouse due to social norms.

In both cases I don't like the most important female character.
Or maybe these are just recurring plot points and character traits even since then.

>>9699367
Fuck off, roastie.

>>9701889
> It's about stoicism and knowing your place is in the larger world.
Are those good things? So you are saying he did well after all? Refusing to engage and take responsibility is "knowing your place"? A good thing?
>he's surrounded by fucking crazy people
So other people are bad?
>and he made some huge miscalculations that limited his freedom for life
He shouldn't have let the bad people get him?
>It's about the power of books to transfigure and improve our lives in the face of adversity and stupidity
Poor Stoner, he dindu nuffin, he was a gud boy, his only fault is being too nice to those assholes!