dorian grey

[paola]

in order to become a critic you have to be wise and intelligent, just for you to know there are many ways of apreciating a work of art in this case, to judge a novel, one of them is by the way is written the other is by the way the writter used the manuscript to express his ideas and feelings, both are important but only when is not invalidating the other one, you have a very limited perspective because you are just seeing the first one, my suggestion...open you mind and try not to hide in retoric words and quotes...it suggest a lack of intelligence covered with false ellocuency...excuse my english...im not a native speaker.

[buddy fields]

"Art for arts sake," as well as for the sake of money. Some of the most popular artists in history died young and penniless (the Wilde life burns 'um up) and this was a prominant goal of the Romantics of the 19th century. How much of their talent were we robbed of by this philosophy? Talent for writing is talent for writing, whether it's subject is monastic records or fantasy. Wilde himself undertook much work to support his family, Michelangelo worked for the Pope (how trashy) and Leonardo D.V. worked for many prominant families and lieges to keep himself in the inner circle of his compatriots. Only the rich have the liberty of creating art without having to bend to the needs of their stomachs. To be rich and talented...well most of the rich are talented, at making money. The art that breeds and feeds all other art. Notice all his characters are much better off than Wilde. Not a Christian or a Muslim myself but to quote another poet "Service to others is the rent we pay for our time here on earth" (M. Ali.)