Dorian Gray

[WICKES]

I finally read Wilde's Dorian Gray. But I'm a little confused. Is Lord Henry an evil character whom the reader is supposed to despise? He seems almost Devilish- a devil who has tempted Dorian to fall. It also feels to me like a satire on Nietzsche. Would that be accurate? I know Wilde had read and was influenced by Nietzsche. Lord Henry preaches the ideal of the Ubermensch. Here he is tempting Dorian at the beginning:

"...to influence a person is to give him one's own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts or burn with his natural passion.... His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed... I believe that if one man were to live out his life fully and completely, were to give form to every feeling, expression to every thought, reality to every dream- I believe that the world would gain such a fresh impulse of joy that we would forget all the maladies of Medievalism and return to the Hellenic ideal...Every impule that we strive to strangle broods in the mind and poisons us. The body sins once and has done with its sin, for action is a mode of purification...The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it and your soul grows sick..."

That to me seems very VERY Nietzschean:

- There is no such thing as sin (i.e morality is all relative, we should live beyond good and evil etc)

- Individuality, being authentic, is everything (Lord Henry also says to Dorian: "The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly- that is what each of us is here for")

- The reverence for the Greeks and criticism of Christianity

- Someone who did all this would be a kind of redeemer (Thus Spake Zarathustra?)

- "beauty is a form of genius- is higher indeed than genius...It cannot be questioned. It has its divine right of sovereignty". Again, this is Nietzsche. As I understand it, Nietzsche admired the Greeks for regarding beauty as a form of moral goodness and despised Christianity for praising things that we should consider evils- meekness, ugliness etc.

Could it be said that Dorian Gray is a man who tries to be an Ubermensch? Or am I talking a load of pretentious nonsense?!

[Charles Darnay]

Could it be said that Dorian Gray is a man who tries to be an Ubermensch? Or am I talking a load of pretentious nonsense?!

When you are talking about Wilde, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Lord Henry is in all likelihood a satire on the "cultivated man": whether he is a satire on Nietzsche or not, I don't know. Your points seem apt to me, but Nietzsche was not the only one promoting the values that Lord Henry espouses; he might be a more general fin-du-siecle figure, I don't know Wilde's specific influences.

As for whether he is good or evil, this is a bit narrow sighted. You do not have to categorize everyone into these neat boxes. He represents a philosophy that Dorian takes to and you could say is corrupted by, this does not make Henry evil.

[Des Essientes]

WICKES, you've asked an interesting question about the relation of Nietzsche's philosphy to "The Picture of Dorian Gray". The reverence Lord Harry expresses for the Hellenic and his disdain for Christianity is indeed Nietzschean, but as for Dorian being an ubermensch, he is most certainly not one. Dorian does live beyond good and evil, but Dorian is decadent. The ubermench is a being that has transcendended decadence- an atavistic being that embodies the Hellenic ideal- vigorous and powerful. The ubermensch is above all else a creative being and Dorian creates nothing but scandals. Dorian is not a genius nor even an artist. If you want to understand the real inspiration for Wilde's novel you need only read Joris-Karl Huysmanns' book titled "Against the Grain" or "Against Nature" (Au Rebours). Wlide testified in his own trial that the green book that Lord Harry gives to Dorian in the novel is none other than "Against the Grain". The protagonist of "Against the Grain" (from whom I have taken my screen name here) is Dorian's model. He is not an ubermensch but rather an arch-decadent- the last scion of a once noble line. The ubermensch is a new beginning. Des Esseintes and Dorian Gray are naught but endings.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Another model which Wilde used was the aesthetics of Walter Pater. Pater was a big influence on Wilde, especially in the early years. Part of my dissertation was all about Pater's influence in DG. So as you quoted "The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly- that is what each of us is here for" comes straight from Pater's own philosophy of aesthetics/life as found in Pater's conclusion to his Renaissance. He was also influenced by Ruskin and the Aesthetic movement in general, but I argued that Pater was the bigger influence, even if he just produced the seed in Wilde's mind as Pater's work was not really an aesthetic manifesto at all.

...

Here, I've just found my dissertation and dusted it down, I'll quote you a bit of of the intro:


...The conclusion of this argument will read the novel as an experimental critique of aestheticism, rejecting the notion that the novel should be seen as a simple moral tale or a tale that cautions against the dangers of aestheticism. Instead, it suggests that the novel operates as a way to explore these notions as derived from Pater, albeit at a safe distance within the novel form. The suggestion is that the failure of Dorian results not from the dangers of replacing ethics with aesthetics, showing the novel as expressing the dangers of too much indulgence, but that Dorian fails by neglecting his own aesthetic self-development. Dorian fails not because of excessive indulgence, as is often argued, but from too little detachment, he fails because he eventually chooses life over art.

In other words Dorian fails because he tried to develop a conscience and fails to follow through Lord Henry's/Pater's/Wilde's form of individualism. Wilde himself writes in 'The Critic as an Artist' that to live life fully one must realise their own individuality, even if this means breaking moral limits. The great Richard Ellmann also sees the novel as a 'critique of aestheticism' leading us to examine the results of what occurs when ethics is replaced by aesthetics.

Here's Wilde again on the matter from 'Critic as an Artist': 'What is termed sin is an essential element of progress. Without it the world would stagnate, or grow old, or become colourless. By its curiosity sin increases the experience of the race, through its intensified assertion of individualism.' Here you come across the ethical and aesthetic conflict which the novel, I argue, explores.

In the longer passage you quoted:

I believe that if one man were to live out his life fully and completely, were to give form to every feeling, expression to every thought, reality to every dream- I believe that the world would gain such a fresh impulse of joy that we would forget all the maladies of Medievalism and return to the Hellenic ideal...

I argue that Lord Henry is collapsing the distinction between art and life and preaching the notion of living life as a work of art. This is something that Wilde spoke a fair bit about in various places. Dorian himself is soon to follow this philosophy, and will blur the boundaries of art and life, when he swaps places with that of his portrait. Lord Henry pressing the idea of self-development through sensual experience with the idea of curing the soul through the senses. Christopher Craft calls this the muttering of 'Paterian nothings' which I quite liked. Dorian's actions from then on are clearly therefore the attempt of living out Lord Henry's Paterian ideals to the full. It must be said that Pater in real life strongly distanced himself from the novel, for fear of public attack I think, though clearly Dorian goes beyond Pater, Wilde and Lord Henry during the course of the novel.

Wilde writes in his own personal letters, which were not meant to be published, the following (which I use as head quotes):

The aim of life is to realise one's personality - one's own nature, and now, as before it is through Art that I realise, what is in me.

Any one day in your life could be converted into a work of art.

[WICKES]

. Your points seem apt to me, but Nietzsche was not the only one promoting the values that Lord Henry espouses; he might be a more general fin-du-siecle figure

Yes, I can see that. I think fascism, with its psuedo-Nietzschean philosophy, was, in spirit, a reaction against people like Lord Henry and the time that produced him. I know he is a late 19th century English aristocrat, but he represents much more than a particular social or national group. He is the embodiment of the modern, over-educated, atheistic urban dweller. There is something about him that makes the reader uncomfortable: he is almost too clever, too cynical, too knowing, too witty, too urbane and sophisticated. He posses a tired worldliness that makes you want to smash everything apart and start again. Maybe decadent is the word I'm looking for? He is ultra civilized and yet corrupt- too intelligent to fall for organised religion or nationalism or, in fact, to believe in anything. Is he a nihlist? He is certainly the kind of person the fascists hated.

[WICKES]

as for Dorian being an ubermensch, he is most certainly not one. Dorian does live beyond good and evil, but Dorian is decadent. The ubermench is a being that has transcendended decadence- an atavistic being that embodies the Hellenic ideal- vigorous and powerful. The ubermensch is above all else a creative being and Dorian creates nothing but scandals. Dorian is not a genius nor even an artist.

Interesting. I guess the Ubermensch is also free of guilt. Dorian's picture is transformed so horribly because his soul is poisoned not so much by evil as by guilt. If he were a true ubermensch he would feel no guilt or shame- he would be living by a whole new moral code (or simply refuse to recognise such a thing altogether).

[WICKES]

[QUOTE=Neely;1166769] Part of my dissertation was all about Pater's influence in DG. So as you quoted "The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly- that is what each of us is here for" comes straight from Pater's own philosophy of aesthetics/life as found in Pater's conclusion to his Renaissance.

I think Aristotle argued something similar (I think). Sounds an interesting dissertation Neely.



a 'critique of aestheticism' leading us to examine the results of what occurs when ethics is replaced by aesthetics.

Yes, this dimly flickered through my mind. I guess part of the problem with that is that everything depends on your definition of beauty. To a psychopath a sobbing, tortured child is aesthetically pleasing.


I argue that Lord Henry is collapsing the distinction between art and life and preaching the notion of living life as a work of art.

That's fascinating. Now I'm sure Nietzsche argued for something similar to this. There is even a book on Nietzsche titled 'Life As Literature'.




The aim of life is to realise one's personality - one's own nature, and now, as before it is through Art that I realise, what is in me.

Yes, but what would Wilde say to someone like Ian Brady? He has argued something along these lines. He often quotes Blake's "it is better to strangle a child than nurse an unsatisfied desire" in defence of his actions. I think he has called the rape and torture of those children an "existential experiment".

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, but what would Wilde say to someone like Ian Brady? He has argued something along these lines. He often quotes Blake's "it is better to strangle a child than nurse an unsatisfied desire" in defence of his actions. I think he has called the rape and torture of those children an "existential experiment".

Yes this is exactly the sort of conflict you get between ethics and aesthetics when you follow through this form of 'individualism'. 'Existential' is also a word closely associated with such things. There is in this philosophy a problem of where to set moral limits which is of course one of the paradoxes of the whole thing. I suppose on a pure theoretical mode the rape and torture of children is partially acceptable, but I also know for an absolute fact that Wilde would certainly have abhorred even any thought of any such actions and would have been disgusted by Brady. I am absolutely certain of this.

[WICKES]

I suppose on a pure theoretical mode the rape and torture of children is partially acceptable, but I also know for an absolute fact that Wilde would certainly have abhorred even any thought of any such actions and would have been disgusted by Brady. I am absolutely certain of this.

I'm sure you are right. I am equally certain that Blake would have been nauseated by someone like Ian Brady or Fred West (they are serial killers here in the UK in case any non-Brits are reading this).

It is something I occasionaly ponder. People like Blake, Nietzsche and Wilde are very interesting, but there are real dangers to their whole "self-exploration is everything" philosophy. I have no time for people who revere the 18th century ideal of the rake or libertine for example. These were essentially selfish rich men who did whatever the hell they liked, regardless of the consequences to others (such as the vulnerable, poverty-stricken, working class girls they got their kicks out of). Byron is held up as a hero of a devil may care, to hell with the consequences kind of hedonism- the "I'm not going to be tied down by the petty, reactive minds of the bourgeoisis". But there is a story of him, when his looks had gone and he'd put on weight, haggling with a young girl's parents over the price for taking her virginity. The image of this fat man in early middle age falling upon a, most likely, terrified young girl is not quite so romantic. But that is where this philosophy can, and often does, lead. On a crude, superficial level the novel is certainly a criticism of hedonism. The fact is, Dorian 'goes for it'- he lives life to the full and ends up lonely and miserable, with a sick, ugly, twisted soul.

The novel is also a criticism of superficial notions of physical beauty. We all know people who are physically attractive, yet seem somehow ugly because their soul is ugly- their selfishness, spite and lack of empathy somehow shines through and distorts their face. Then you have the opposite- people who are physically plain or even ugly, but who radiate such warmth, love and kindness that as you get to know them their looks almost seem to change.

[LitNetIsGreat]

On a crude, superficial level the novel is certainly a criticism of hedonism. The fact is, Dorian 'goes for it'- he lives life to the full and ends up lonely and miserable, with a sick, ugly, twisted soul.

I think that is how the decadents usually end up. Though in DG you could also argue that Dorian ultimately fails because he doesn't follow through the philosophy, like when he tries to do good by that village girl he was seeing. Choosing life over art (ethics over aesthetics)? Maybe conscience was his ultimate downfall? In the novel Sybil is also punished for turning her back on art, as was her mother, as was Basil. Only Lord Henry remained unscathed as he always was going to be, with his role in the novel being the observer of life (there are many references to this). It's interesting.

Yes I agree, the image of Byron as the middle aged letch is not usually one put forward.


The novel is also a criticism of superficial notions of physical beauty. We all know people who are physically attractive, yet seem somehow ugly because their soul is ugly- their selfishness, spite and lack of empathy somehow shines through and distorts their face. Then you have the opposite- people who are physically plain or even ugly, but who radiate such warmth, love and kindness that as you get to know them their looks almost seem to change.

That's another interesting thought, it would go almost directly against the 'passion cult of pure beauty' that Wilde voiced here and there, especially early on though. I'm not sure.

[WICKES]

[QUOTE]Though in DG you could also argue that Dorian ultimately fails because he doesn't follow through the philosophy, like when he tries to do good by that village girl he was seeing. Choosing life over art (ethics over aesthetics)? Maybe conscience was his ultimate downfall? In the novel Sybil is also punished for turning her back on art, as was her mother, as was Basil.

Ah...yes, it never occured to me that both Sybil and Basil were punished for turning their backs on art. Interesting thought

But then, even before he had his attack of conscience and was wholeheartedly living out the 'life as art' philosophy, the portrait was changing into someting ugly. Isn't it more a matter of living your life as art rather than choosing art over life? I read it not so much as an attack upon aestheticism as an attack upon a warped or twisted aestheticism. It all comes down to taste doesn't it? Replacing the Judeo-Christian moral framework, which is based upon the dictates of a God, with a morality based upon art ("why be good?..because it is beautiful") is fine ifyou have flawless taste. Wilde would perhaps say that Dorian's cruelty towards Sybil is not 'immoral' but ugly ? Maybe I've misunderstood aestheticism (I probably have).

It seems to me to be a novel about self-deception. What Dorian thinks is a heroic life of self-exploration, an authentic life free of the moralizing of middle England, in fact turns out to be an ugly, crude life of shallow thrill-seeking at the expense of others (the life of the Libertine in fact).


hmmm...well, I can certainly see why you chose Dorian for your dissertation
Neely. Interesting stuff.

[LitNetIsGreat]

[QUOTE=Neely;1167003]

Ah...yes, it never occured to me that both Sybil and Basil were punished for turning their backs on art. Interesting thought

But then, even before he had his attack of conscience and was wholeheartedly living out the 'life as art' philosophy, the portrait was changing into someting ugly. Isn't it more a matter of living your life as art rather than choosing art over life? I read it not so much as an attack upon aestheticism as an attack upon a warped or twisted aestheticism. It all comes down to taste doesn't it? Replacing the Judeo-Christian moral framework, which is based upon the dictates of a God, with a morality based upon art ("why be good?..because it is beautiful") is fine ifyou have flawless taste. Wilde would perhaps say that Dorian's cruelty towards Sybil is not 'immoral' but ugly ? Maybe I've misunderstood aestheticism (I probably have).

It seems to me to be a novel about self-deception. What Dorian thinks is a heroic life of self-exploration, an authentic life free of the moralizing of middle England, in fact turns out to be an ugly, crude life of shallow thrill-seeking at the expense of others (the life of the Libertine in fact).


hmmm...well, I can certainly see why you chose Dorian for your dissertation
Neely. Interesting stuff.

Yes it's certainly interesting, if confusing, stuff. The whole thing is crammed full of paradox as well, in fact this is part of the philosophy - to be able to drift on a whim for that of sensual experience. Drift in this context comes from Pater, as does burn, Lord Henry uses this language early on. Of course there is further paradox or contradiction in the notion that art is necessarily anything but spontaneous, upon a whim (though maybe the best of it appears to be?) and requires a degree of sustained control. Wilde was of course aware of this too. See for example his poem Helas, the first part of which goes:

TO drift with every passion till my soul
Is a stringed lute on which all winds can play,
Is it for this that I have given away
Mine ancient wisdom, and austere control?

Clearly the tension between Pater's/Wilde's aesthetic of individualism and the 'austere control' needed for the creation of most art, is evident. It is also important I think, that this poem is the very first poem featured in Wilde's collection of poems, Poems 1881, it is clearly fairly central to Wilde, as was his strange flirtation with religion around this time. He was interested in the 'Romanticism' of the Catholic faith, the ceremony, prop - aesthetics of it all, but didn't convert. This is quite obvious, take for example, and I've picked this from random almost, this passage from his poem "Rome Unvisited":

When, bright with purple and with gold,
Come priest and holy Cardinal,
And borne above the heads of all
The gentle Shepherd of the Fold.

O joy to see before I die
The only God-anointed King,
And hear the silver trumpets ring
A triumph as He passes by!

Or at the altar of the shrine
Holds high the mystic sacrifice,
And shows a God to human eyes
Beneath the veil of bread and wine.

Clearly he sees religion even as an aesthetic experience. Religion is not even held in opposition for Wilde's aestheticism, it's part of it. There's even something quite pagan about it.


But then, even before he had his attack of conscience and was wholeheartedly living out the 'life as art' philosophy, the portrait was changing into someting ugly. Isn't it more a matter of living your life as art rather than choosing art over life?

Yes it is a good question - another paradox or just something that doesn't quite fit? I'll have to read over my notes, it has been about two years since I did it. Art vs life, in this context, should really be seen as ethics vs art, which is different from 'life as art.' I'll try and have a dig around.

[LitNetIsGreat]

OK, I've got a little bumpf for you...that you might be interested in. I'm in a bit of a rush so I'll just post it and get back later.

Some things that touch upon what we was talking about earlier I wrote with my conclusion (the whole of which makes winceworthy reading) include:


...This is clear in the way Dorian views Sibyl Vane, showing that he comes to view life through the prism of art and that she is “never” Sibyl Vane. It is also evident in the way that Dorian seeks to self-develop through sensual aesthetic experience, whether this is through art, music or via the darker, seedier aspects of the self, aspects of the novel that Pater himself was critical of...


…the novel can itself be seen as a paradoxical commentary of the inconsistences of Pater’s suggestions and as a result the novel, despite criticisms to the contrary, has not a simple moral...


...Dorian Gray should be seen as exploring the aesthetic question from which there is no given answer or as Wilde would argue “there is not one answer only, but many answers.” In this regard the novel can be seen as an experimental framework for the exploration of Pater’s aesthetic ideals...

I'm not sure any of that answers anything but I thought I would add it in anyway.

This passage is from John Sloan - Oscar Wilde, Author's in Context, great book, I like a lot of what Sloan has to say:


Dorian’s quest for new sensations leaves him ultimately a prisoner of desire. On one level, nemesis, or punishment, might be read as the result of Dorian’s descent into lower meaner pleasures and sensations. The ugliness of the portrait increases in proportion to his crimes and sinful indulgences. The moral reading is of a piece with Wilde’s own regretful recantation of his life of ‘senseless and sensual ease’ as unworthy of the artist. Yet the change to the picture begins when Dorian cruelly abandons his mistress, the actress Sibyl Vane, for choosing life over art. It is the consequence of an intensified yet limited aestheticism on his part, of a ‘new-born feeling of luxury’. Art and indulgence become inseparable under the sign of the commodity. The attempt to suspend time and history and to transcend human relationships fails at les. In Dorian Gray, these return in fury, first in the form of SV’s would be avenger, James Vane, and finally in the repressed, guilt-ridden vision of the corporeal life mirrored in the painting. The ending offers no reassuring fantasy of control. Written when, in Wilde’s words, ‘unnecessary things are our only necessity.’ Dorian Gray is not so much a moral tragedy, as a paradoxical commentary on the aesthetic tendencies of its time that would conceal the repress the true relations between people and things.

There's a lot of stuff in there that is of interest I think.

[WICKES]

Yes it's certainly interesting, if confusing, stuff.

Perhaps the main reason for this confusion is Lord Henry. He is far more interesting than Dorian, interesting but unnerving. He doesn't seem to really believe anything he says, and people like that are frightening. You can see why all the great dictatorships and great political experiments of the 20th century, whether fascist or communist, persecuted intellectuals. It's not so much that people like Lord Henry are going to fight you, but that their detached, contemptuous sneer prevents you going for anything heart and soul. To attempt some great transformation of society, whether in the name of Maosim or Stalinism or any other ism, you need faith. And that is what the Lord Henrys undermine. It would be interesting to attempt an essay or dissertation on him as representative of the fin de siecle attitude and how Fascism was in part a reaction against such people, against that tired, all-knowing nihilism. The Nazis were very influenced by their (mis) reading of Nietzsche, who in turn was trying to find a way out of exactly the kind of nihilism Lord Henry expresses (or at least a way of living with it). Well, I don't even know if he is a nihilist really. Hmmm...he's a very, very disturbing character.

[WICKES]

[QUOTE=Neely;1167104]

Some things that touch upon what we was talking about earlier I wrote with my conclusion (the whole of which makes winceworthy reading)

Haha...yeah, I wince at everything I've ever written or painted, so don't worry! Thanks...interesting stuff.