In 1972, Mark Moskowitz read a review of a novel called The Stones of Summer by Dow Mossman. The review was extraordinary—it promised a masterpiece, a Great American Novel, a book that would define its generation. Moskowitz bought the book but didn’t read it for nearly twenty-five years. When he finally did, in 1998, he was overwhelmed. This was the great novel the review had promised. So why had no one heard of it? Why was Dow Mossman unknown? Why was the book out of print, forgotten, vanished? Moskowitz, a commercial filmmaker with no documentary experience, picked up a camera and began searching—for the book’s history, for the people who had read it, for Dow Mossman himself. Stone Reader is the record of that search: a documentary about one man’s obsessive love for a single book, and the larger questions that obsession illuminates—why some books endure and others vanish, what reading means in a life, and what happens when you follow your intellectual passion wherever it leads.

Content Breakdown: This is among the gentlest films imaginable. Language is clean throughout—the subjects are articulate literary people speaking thoughtfully. Violence is completely absent. Sexual content is nonexistent. Substance use is limited to background social drinking. The film contains nothing that could concern any parent on a content level. The only challenge is the runtime (127 minutes) and the deliberate pacing—this is a film for viewers who can appreciate slow, thoughtful conversation about books, reading, and the life of the mind. The documentary consists almost entirely of interviews and Moskowitz’s narration; there is no conflict, no danger, no dramatic tension beyond the mystery of a forgotten book and its vanished author. For students who love reading, this film is a gift. For students who don’t, it may feel slow. Know your audience.

Why This Film Works for Focusing on Study that Makes You Happy

Mark Moskowitz didn’t set out to make a documentary. He set out to understand why a book that moved him so deeply had disappeared from literary memory. His investigation wasn’t academic research or professional obligation—it was pure passion, the irresistible pull of a question he couldn’t stop asking. The film that resulted documents what happens when someone follows their intellectual curiosity without knowing where it will lead.

This is what “study that makes you happy” actually looks like: not grinding through material for grades or credentials, but following questions that genuinely captivate you. Moskowitz isn’t assigned to care about The Stones of Summer; he can’t help caring. He isn’t rewarded for his research; he spends his own money traveling across America to interview people who might have answers. His obsession costs him time and resources and leads him far from any practical outcome. And he does it anyway, because the question won’t let him go.

The film also shows what this kind of passionate study creates: not just answers to the original question, but connections, discoveries, and meaning that couldn’t have been predicted. Moskowitz meets writers, editors, critics, and ordinary readers who share his love of books. He discovers a community he didn’t know existed. He reconnects with his own younger self, the reader he was before life got busy. He finds Dow Mossman and learns a story far richer than he expected. None of this was the goal; all of it was the gift.

For students learning to identify and pursue study that genuinely engages them, Stone Reader provides a model: someone who found a question that mattered to him, followed it obsessively, and discovered that the pursuit itself—not any external validation—was the reward.

Subjects to Discuss

• Mark Moskowitz: The filmmaker as detective, following clues about a forgotten book with obsessive dedication. He’s not a professional literary scholar; he’s a reader who cares intensely. What drives his quest? What does he gain beyond answers to his questions?
• Dow Mossman: The author of The Stones of Summer, who wrote one brilliant novel and then… stopped. His story—revealed gradually through Moskowitz’s investigation—is both inspiring and sobering. What does his trajectory suggest about the relationship between talent and recognition?
• The literary figures: Writers like Robert Ellis Gordon, Carl Brandt, and Leslie Fiedler appear as interview subjects, sharing their perspectives on books, publishing, and why some works endure while others vanish. What do they add to the film’s meditation on reading?
• The ordinary readers: People who discovered The Stones of Summer years ago and never forgot it. Their passion matches Moskowitz’s, suggesting that he’s not alone in his obsessive love. What does their existence mean for understanding how books find their audiences?
• The book itself: The Stones of Summer functions almost as a character—we hear about it, see it, understand its power through others’ descriptions, but never read it ourselves. How does the film create presence for an absent text?
• The literary world: Publishers, critics, bookstores, writing programs—the film explores how books reach readers and why some never do. This system is both necessary and imperfect. What does the film suggest about how literary value is created and sustained?

Parent and Educator Tips for This Film

The runtime requires commitment: At 127 minutes, this is a long film, and its pace is deliberate—long conversations, slow revelations, accumulating meaning rather than dramatic momentum. Consider whether to watch in two sessions. Frame the length as appropriate to the subject: “This movie is about deep reading and patient investigation. It moves slowly because that’s how this kind of study actually works.”

The subject matter is literary: The film assumes viewers care about books, reading, and literary culture. For students who love reading, this assumption is a relief—finally, a film that takes their passion seriously. For students who don’t read for pleasure, the subject may seem obscure or irrelevant. Know your audience; this film works best for students already inclined toward reading.

The vocabulary is sophisticated: Interview subjects use literary vocabulary without explanation—words like “epiphany,” “narrative,” “canonical,” “obscurity.” This isn’t a barrier for strong readers but may challenge others. Consider whether to pause for vocabulary clarification or let context provide meaning.

The investigation has no villain: Unlike most detective stories, this search has no antagonist—no one is hiding Dow Mossman or suppressing his book. The “mystery” is simply how books get forgotten in a culture that produces too many to remember. This absence of conflict may disorient viewers expecting dramatic tension. Frame this: “This isn’t a mystery with a villain. It’s a mystery about how culture works—why some things are remembered and others aren’t.”

Dow Mossman’s story is complicated: Without spoiling specifics, Mossman’s life after his novel contains difficulty—not dramatic tragedy, but the quieter sadness of unfulfilled potential. The film handles this with compassion, but viewers may find his story bittersweet. Prepare them: “When we finally meet the author, his story isn’t exactly what we might hope. The film treats him with respect, but there’s some sadness in what happened to his career.”

The film’s argument is implicit: Stone Reader doesn’t lecture about the value of reading or passionate study—it demonstrates these values through Moskowitz’s example. The teaching is indirect, which may be more powerful but also less obvious. Discussion after viewing can make the implicit explicit.

The book exists: The Stones of Summer was republished in 2003 after the documentary’s release. Students who respond to the film may want to read the book itself—an opportunity to extend the film’s lessons into actual practice.

The Central Mystery

The film investigates several interconnected questions:

Why did The Stones of Summer disappear? The novel was published in 1972 to enthusiastic reviews—critics compared Mossman to Joyce, Wolfe, Faulkner. A few years later, the book was out of print, Mossman had vanished from the literary world, and almost no one remembered it existed. How does a book praised as a masterpiece simply vanish?

How do books survive or die? The literary world produces thousands of novels each year. Most disappear; a few endure. What determines which is which? Is it quality alone, or something more complicated—timing, marketing, chance, the mysterious dynamics of cultural memory?

What happened to Dow Mossman? The author wrote one extraordinary novel, received significant attention, and then… nothing. No second book, no literary career, near-total silence. What happened? Where did he go? Is he even still alive?

What does obsessive reading mean? Moskowitz’s quest is also self-examination—an investigation into why books matter to him so much, what reading has given his life, and what kind of person organizes his existence around a forgotten novel. The documentary is partly about the book and partly about the reader.

Themes for Deeper Discussion

Following passion without knowing the destination:

Moskowitz didn’t know his investigation would become a documentary. He started because he couldn’t not start—the question pulled him forward.

Discussion questions:

• What question or subject would pull you forward like this?
• Have you ever pursued something purely because you were curious, without knowing where it would lead?
• What’s the difference between study driven by external requirements and study driven by internal passion?
• What might you discover if you followed your intellectual passions without worrying about practical outcomes?

The life of books:

Books have lives—they’re born (published), they find readers or don’t, they endure or vanish, they’re sometimes rediscovered.

Discussion questions:

• What determines whether a book survives?
• Is obscurity the same as failure? Can a book that only a few people read still be valuable?
• What books do you think deserve more readers than they have?
• How do you decide which books are worth your time?

The community of readers:

Moskowitz discovers he’s not alone—other people have carried The Stones of Summer in their hearts for decades. Reading, often solitary, turns out to connect people.

Discussion questions:

• Have you ever felt connected to someone because you loved the same book?
• What does it mean that strangers can share deep experiences through reading the same text?
• How do readers find each other?
• Is there a book you wish more people knew about?

Talent and recognition:

Dow Mossman wrote a book critics called a masterpiece, then never published again. The relationship between talent and success turns out to be complicated.

Discussion questions:

• Does Mossman’s obscurity mean his book wasn’t actually great?
• What does his story suggest about the relationship between talent and recognition?
• If you created something brilliant that no one noticed, would it still matter?
• How do you measure success in creative or intellectual work?

The documentary as study:

Moskowitz’s investigation—interviewing, traveling, researching, connecting—is itself a form of study, though not academic.

Discussion questions:

• How is Moskowitz’s investigation similar to and different from school research?
• What did he learn that he couldn’t have learned from books alone?
• How did making a film shape his understanding?
• What would it mean to pursue a question with this level of dedication?

Visual Literacy

Mark Moskowitz, a commercial filmmaker making his first documentary, develops a visual style that serves his subject:

The interview as revelation: Most of the film consists of interviews—people talking about books, about reading, about Mossman. These conversations are filmed simply, emphasizing faces and words. What do these long conversations communicate that faster editing would lose?

The road as metaphor: Moskowitz travels across America seeking answers—Iowa, New York, small towns and cities. The driving footage becomes visual meditation, emphasizing the journey as much as the destination.

Books as objects: The film lingers on books—their covers, their spines, their pages. Books aren’t just content here; they’re physical objects with presence and weight. How does the film’s treatment of books as objects affect your response?

The bookshelf as autobiography: The film frequently shows bookshelves—Moskowitz’s, his interview subjects’, bookstore shelves. These shelves represent lives organized around reading. What do bookshelves communicate?

The absence of Mossman: For most of the film, Dow Mossman is absent—talked about, searched for, but not seen. This absence creates anticipation and mystery. How does the film use absence?

The Book: The Stones of Summer

The novel at the documentary’s center deserves attention:

What is it? A semi-autobiographical coming-of-age novel set in Iowa, following Dawes Williams through childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. It’s long (580 pages), dense, experimental, and—according to those who’ve read it—brilliant.

The style: Mossman’s prose is often compared to Faulkner and Joyce—stream-of-consciousness, poetic, demanding. This isn’t beach reading; it requires commitment and patience.

The reception: Published in 1972, the novel received ecstatic reviews. Critics declared it a major work. Then it vanished—out of print within a few years, forgotten by literary culture.

The republication: Partly due to Stone Reader‘s attention, the novel was republished in 2003. Students who respond to the documentary can now find the book and judge for themselves.

The question: Is the book actually a masterpiece? The film presents it through others’ enthusiasm but never shows us the writing directly. Viewers must decide whether to trust the testimony—or read and find out.

The Culture of Reading

Stone Reader implicitly explores what reading means in contemporary life:

Reading as community: Despite the solitary nature of reading, readers form communities—book clubs, literary journals, shared passions. The film discovers that Mossman’s forgotten book still has devoted readers scattered across the country.

Reading as identity: For Moskowitz and his interview subjects, reading isn’t just entertainment—it’s central to who they are. Books have shaped their minds, their values, their sense of possibility.

Reading versus other media: The film, made in 2002, predates smartphones and social media but captures anxieties about reading’s place in culture. These anxieties have only intensified since.

The economics of publishing: The film explores how market forces shape which books reach readers. Publishing is a business; literary quality is only one factor in a book’s survival.

The arbitrariness of canon: Why do some books become “classics” while others of equal quality vanish? The film suggests that cultural memory is partly arbitrary—a matter of timing, marketing, and luck as much as merit.

Creative Extensions

The obsessive investigation: Identify something—a book, a film, a song, a historical event—that captivates you but seems underappreciated. Investigate it: Who made it? What happened to it? Why isn’t it better known? Document your investigation.

The reading autobiography: Write the story of your reading life. What books have mattered most to you? When did reading become important (or fail to become important)? What has reading given you?

The forgotten work: Research a book, album, or film that was praised when released but has been largely forgotten. What was the initial reception? What happened? Does it deserve rediscovery?

The interview project: Interview someone about the books that have shaped their life. What emerges from this conversation? How is their relationship to reading similar to or different from yours?

The bookshelf essay: Photograph your bookshelf (or someone else’s) and write an essay analyzing what it reveals—about the reader’s interests, history, identity. What story does a bookshelf tell?

The Film’s Legacy

Stone Reader had concrete effects:

The book’s republication: Barnes & Noble republished The Stones of Summer in 2003, directly responding to the documentary’s attention. The film literally brought a book back from oblivion.

Mossman’s recognition: After decades of obscurity, Mossman gained new readers and critical attention. The documentary gave him a second act as a literary figure.

A model for obsessive inquiry: The film inspired other projects—people investigating forgotten works, pursuing questions with passionate dedication, documenting their intellectual journeys.

The reading community: The film demonstrated that passionate readers exist, that literary culture matters to people, that there’s an audience for thoughtful engagement with books.

Related Viewing

Documentaries about literary obsession:

• Crumb (1994, R—content) — Artist’s obsessive vision; ages 17+
• American Movie (1999, R—language) — Filmmaker’s obsessive pursuit; ages 16+
• Word Wars (2004, Not Rated) — Scrabble obsessives; ages 12+. Also in this curriculum.

Documentaries about reading and books:

• Wordplay (2006, PG) — Crossword puzzle culture; ages 10+
• The Booksellers (2019, Not Rated) — Rare book world; ages 12+
• Ex Libris: The New York Public Library (2017, Not Rated) — Library as institution; ages 12+

Films about passionate pursuit:

• Searching for Sugar Man (2012, PG-13) — Hunt for forgotten musician; ages 12+
• Jiro Dreams of Sushi (2011, PG) — Obsessive dedication to craft; ages 10+
• The Mystery of Picasso (1956, Not Rated) — Artist in creative flow; ages 8+. Also in this curriculum.

Films about writers:

• Capote (2005, R—some content) — Writer’s obsessive research; ages 15+
• Finding Forrester (2000, PG-13) — Young writer meets reclusive author; ages 12+
• Wonder Boys (2000, R—language, content) — Writer’s complicated life; ages 15+

Recommendation: Suitable for eighth-graders (ages 13+) who enjoy reading and can appreciate deliberate pacing. Content is entirely benign—nothing to concern any parent—but the 127-minute runtime and literary subject matter require the right audience. This is not a film for all students; it’s a film for students who already care about books, or might discover they do. For students learning to identify and pursue study that genuinely engages them, Stone Reader offers a compelling model: a man who followed his intellectual passion without knowing where it would lead, and found in that pursuit connection, meaning, and a life shaped by genuine curiosity. Mark Moskowitz didn’t read The Stones of Summer for a grade, didn’t research Dow Mossman for professional advancement, didn’t make his documentary for commercial success. He did all of it because the question wouldn’t leave him alone—because something he’d read had lodged in his mind and demanded investigation. That’s what study that makes you happy actually looks like: not the grim completion of required tasks, but the irresistible pull of questions that matter to you. The film doesn’t lecture about the value of passionate inquiry; it demonstrates it. By the end, we understand not just Dow Mossman’s story but something about what it means to care deeply about the life of the mind—to let books shape who you are, to follow questions wherever they lead, to discover that intellectual passion, pursued honestly, creates its own rewards.