Dublin: One City, One Book

[Niamh]

Dublin: one city one book is about the writers who were born or lived in the city. Wilde was born here in Dublin city hence the selection of his work.

[Quark]

I got the understanding of why he wrote the preface, but i still cant help but feel that it is quite moralistic.

Below are spoilers:

Yeah, it's quite moralistic. It's almost parable-like. The story gradually builds up its heroes dissolute lifestyle, and then slowly unravels him. Often it feels like the story is just about refuting Dorian and his ilk. Yet it gets much more complicated than that when we consider the preface and Wilde's own choices. Either this is a complete refutation of everything that Wilde himself believed and lived, or something else is going on. Some have argued that the story is about the excesses of Dorian, rather than his actual beliefs--that Dorian overreaches. This reading makes the milder epicurean Henry the hero. But, it's difficult to glorify him too much in the novel. After all, his wife eventually leaves him. In fact, it seems like everyone leaves him. In the end, he may be likable, but he's no hero. So if Dorian's excesses lead to death and Henry's moderation leads to isolation, then what? It's hard to pin down a moral to the story--even though it reads like it should have a moral. In that sense, it's moralistic, but it doesn't really have a moral.

[Niamh]

Right so i'm just at the part where Dorian has made Henry promise that he and Basil with attend the theatre with him the following evening to see Sybil. There have been many time up until this point in the book where i couldnt help but chuckle at Wildes writing and thoughts projected through Henry. He really does use him as a tool to express his opinions of the British aristocracy and the stuck up self centred upper and middle class ideals.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes there is much of Wilde in Lord Henry at times. I am glad you are enjoying it, more is to come - enjoy. I have been meaning to post about morality and the preface following on from Quark etc, but have been busy with a few family issues and stuff. I will post at a later stage. No rush all round, just enjoy the book.

[Rores28]

I just finished the chapter where the three of them go to see Sibyl.

Henry's endless paradox's are both endlessly hilarious and endlessly frustrating.

One quote that really hit home with me (and I dont have the book by me so I may butcher this)
"People who seek to exhaust a subject only succeed in exhausting their audience"

I often feel this thought running through my girlfriend's head as I delve into excruciating detail over a subject (typically of a fairly simple variety) to make sure that she knows exactly what I mean. Its like I can't stand there to be any sort of knowledge or experience gap when I explain something to her, and as in the paradox I actually produce the opposite of my intended effect.

[caspian]

I got CD Book first, so listened to 1st disc halfway while i was busy in the kitchen. Easy listening. I stopped where Dorian enters the picture. Now I have book too.It shouldn't take me long to finish it.
Thank you for preface information. That's helpful. I've already used a quote from the preface in another topic.

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all."
He didn't live to see Henry Miller's prose and Jack Kerouac's "On the road" . If he did. He would agree that "There're immoral well written books.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don’t have long (I’m going out dining at the finest restaurant my money can’t buy and I have even been working, ish) but I promised to throw a few thoughts out there.

Firstly, I’m glad that people are reading and enjoying this, some of them for the first time, that’s great, keep sharing your thoughts, but don’t feel rushed to read it, I was only being impatient - that is my manner sometimes.

In terms of morality, which is a very interesting and detailed subject, Quark's right, it might seem moralistic in tone but I would strongly argue that there is no overall moral, or at least, that the moral is entirely subservient to the work itself or an accidental product – as it should be. I first brought up morality I think, in talking about his wonderful preface which he purposefully wrote intending to hit back at critics who criticised it, amongst other things, for immorality, namely of its allusions to homosexuality and its at times, effeminate prose style (effeminate to Victorian readers that is). Take even the first two paragraphs:

The studio was filled with the rich odour of roses, and when the light summer wind stirred amidst the trees of the garden, there came through the open door the heavy scent of the lilac, or the more delicate perfume of the pink-flowering thorn.

From the corner of the divan of Persian saddle-bags on which he was lying, smoking, as was his custom, innumerable cigarettes, Lord Henry Wotton could just catch the gleam of the honey-sweet and honey-coloured blossoms of a laburnum, whose tremulous branches seemed hardly able to bear the burden of a beauty so flamelike as theirs; and now and then the fantastic shadows of birds in flight flitted across the long tussore-silk curtains that were stretched in front of the huge window, producing a kind of momentary Japanese effect, and making him think of those pallid, jade-faced painters of Tokyo who, through the medium of an art that is necessarily immobile, seek to convey the sense of swiftness and motion.

To many stern contemporary Victorians, the sensuality and sort of decadent feel of this prose would have been a bit of a tut tut to say the least. Today we would merely say this is wonderful, beautiful prose, but of course, put this together with the strong allusions to homosexuality or the suggested eroticism and we have the reason why some critics, most critics in fact, considered this work “immoral” in nature. Also note the interest in Japanese art which was popular at the time, particularly with aesthetes/decadents etc. To quote some remarks:

The puzzle is that a young man of decent parts, [Oscar Wilde] who enjoyed (when he was at Oxford) the opportunity of associating with gentlemen, should put his name (such as it is) to so stupid and vulgar a piece of work. Let nobody read it in the hope of finding witty paradox or racy wickedness.
From the St James’s Gazette, June 1890.

It is a tale spawned from the leprous literature of the French Decadents – a poisonous book, the atmosphere of which is heavy with mephitic odours of moral and spiritual putrefaction – a gloating study of the mental and physical corruption of a fresh, fair and golden youth, which might be horrible and fascinating but for its effeminate frivolity, its studied insincerity, its theatrical cynicism, its tawdry mysticism, its flippant philosophisings, and the contaminating vulgarity.
From the Daily Chronicle.

So Wilde hits back with his preface, and in particular the line quoted by the good fellow above,

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all"

also perhaps of importance here from the preface:

The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.

Whether or not Dorian is breaking codes of morality (by Victorian standards) it is of no interest to the artist, it merely adds another colour to his “imperfect” palette.

No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.

Here once again with Wilde he places creativity above realism in literature or even that of science or anything fact based. Art is above everything else.

Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

Again, whether Dorian or anybody else is involved in “vice” it is of little interest to the artist, it is just another colour, because:

The artist can express everything.

*Potential Spoilers*
(There is a section further down completely free from potential spoiling.)





In terms of the actual moral or lack of the moral within the story, there is an interesting letter from Wilde to Arthur Conan Doyle (Doyle had published his second Sherlock Holmes story“The Sign of Four” in the same magazine ) on the matter, which I’ll quote in part:

I do aim at making a work of art, and I am really delighted that you think my treatment subtle and artistically good. The newspapers seem to me to be written by the prurient for the Philistine. I cannot understand how they can treat Dorian Gray as immoral. My difficultly was to keep the inherent moral subordinate to the artistic and dramatic effect, and it still seems to me that the moral is too obvious. Wilde April 1891.

Wilde writes in response to Doyle’s defence of Dorian Gray. It is interesting that Wilde says that the “moral is too obvious” however, it is very important to keep in mind that it would seem that Doyle was entirely misreading the moral within Dorian Gray and that Wilde was merely going along with Doyle a little here or speaking at cross purposes. I suspected, independently of one of my tutors, who thought the same that Doyle read the moral in terms laid out by Quark, namely that Dorian is punished due to his immoral behaviour. As already detailed above it is all but unthinkable that Wilde would go along with this as the moral of the story. No, if there is a moral within the story it has to do, for me, with Dorian polluting art (life) with that of crime, “all crime is vulgar” says Lord Henry, or with not following the ideal aesthetic to the full. It is after all, only when Dorian tries to have a conscience that he is ultimately punished. What is certain is that Wilde intended the portrait to be a symbolic representation of Dorian’s conscience, so that would at least tally with that particular reading, though overall I prefer no moral, despite of what Wilde claims here.

*Potential spoilers end*






Also of interest within the preface, well one more thing that I want to pull out, is in Wilde’s last line:

All art is quite useless.

I believe that this isn’t originally Wilde’s, I think it comes from Gautier first, but that is of little importance. What Wilde means here is not literally that art is useless, heaven forbid, quite the opposite. The importance of art to Wilde should never be underestimated (I’m writing a dissertation on part of this aspect) what Wilde is referring to is that, like in his preface, “It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.” Art in itself merely causes the reflection. I’ll quote from one of Wilde’s letters on the matter:

My dear Sir, Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is sterility. [...]
A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but his has nothing to do with the flower. April 1891.

The letter in question is to a R. Clegg who is an unidentified person. He was obviously asking Wilde what he meant by the phrase “All art is useless”.


Anyway, to lunch...keep reading, chop, chop.

[Quark]

No, if there is a moral within the story it has to do, for me, with Dorian polluting art (life) with that of crime, “all crime is vulgar” says Lord Henry, or with not following the ideal aesthetic to the full. It is after all, only when Dorian tries to have a conscience that he is ultimately punished. What is certain is that Wilde intended the portrait to be a symbolic representation of Dorian’s conscience, so that would at least tally with that particular reading, though overall I prefer no moral, despite of what Wilde claims here.

Again, Beware of Spoilers!

It's interesting that you see art and life as synonymous in this novel. I had always taken Lord Henry's point about crime to show that those two terms are opposites. Henry says something like (I don't have the novel in front of me) crime is the ugly art of the impoverished or the lower class. I had taken that to mean that the social and material exigencies of life--which the poor are the most subject to--are what ruins art. In that sense, it's essentially life which hurts art.

Spoilers Finished!

Anyway, I'm curious what people think of the violence in this book. The death by jewel-encrustation is a little funny, but there are some other rather gruesome images in the work. I'm thinking of something particularly graphic toward the end.

[LitNetIsGreat]

*Potential Spoilers*

Yes I very much see life and art as synonymous in the novel, and in fact, throughout Wilde’s life and work. Take for example Lord Henry’s insistence of living life like an art form, this is for me part of what Dorian tries to do during the course of his life and essentially comes through Wilde from the likes of Pater – “to burn always with this hard, gem-like flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life” as echoed in Wilde’s work all over in the “drifting with every passion” which pops up frequently. This is a sense of what Dorian tries to do from Lord Henry’s insistence, to “be always searching for new sensations” and it is with that which he and Wilde push life as the ultimate art form. Take this from one of Wilde’s early lectures:

Love art for its own sake, and then all things that you need will be added to you.

This devotion to beauty and to the creation of beautiful things is the test of all great civilized nations. Philosophy may teach us to bear with equanimity the misfortunes of our neighbours, and science resolve the moral sense into a secretion of sugar, but art is what makes the life of each citizen a sacrament and not a speculation, art is what makes the life of the whole race immortal.

It is more than just valuing art highly, it is as if he is using art as the ultimate guide to life, as if the distinction between what is art and life is completely blurred (think of the obvious relationship between Dorian and his portrait, literally they are one and the same.) It is the art of living, art and life as synonymous together.

Yes Lord Henry talks of crime being an art form, but it is a low art form and as such probably only fit for the lower classes who can do no better, which is why he can’t believe Dorian would commit crime; it is beneath him.

(Don’t think however that Wilde/Lord Henry is particularly “elitist” in the sense which he speaks of the “lower orders” he, Wilde, was much more open minded about blurring the distinction between social classes than the vast majority of Victorian society, he doesn’t mean to speak derogatory to anyone, he is just being matter of fact.)

[caspian]

Is anyone else annoyed by Lord Henry's views on women and marriage? and how easily he convinces Dorian to kill his conscience. isn't he evil?
I was beginning to feel bored with male friendship. But things turned interesting with Sybil's appearance.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Is anyone else annoyed by Lord Henry's views on women and marriage? and how easily he convinces Dorian to kill his conscience. isn't he evil?
I was beginning to feel bored with male friendship. But things turned interesting with Sybil's appearance.

Ha ha, no I am quite amused by Lord Henry's views on women and marriage, though I can see how others might be annoyed. Is Lord Henry evil? Do you think so?

I think that Dorian is very much under Lord Henry's spell, so I'm not surprised how Dorian is able to kill his conscience relatively easily.

[JuniperWoolf]

Neely's enthusiasm is infectious. I'll be picking up a copy of Dorian Gray tomorrow (from either the library or a friend) and will start re-reading it immediately (only the second time for me).

[Niamh]

Wow neely and Quark! Amazing! I've had to take a little hiatus from the book (moving + college assignments!) I'll be back to it next week to give my 2 cents worth!
But i will say this... I find Dorians character flat and irritating. I think Henry is fantastic!

[caspian]

Below are spoilers:

Yeah, it's quite moralistic. It's almost parable-like. The story gradually builds up its heroes dissolute lifestyle, and then slowly unravels him. Often it feels like the story is just about refuting Dorian and his ilk. Yet it gets much more complicated than that when we consider the preface and Wilde's own choices. Either this is a complete refutation of everything that Wilde himself believed and lived, or something else is going on. Some have argued that the story is about the excesses of Dorian, rather than his actual beliefs--that Dorian overreaches. This reading makes the milder epicurean Henry the hero. But, it's difficult to glorify him too much in the novel. After all, his wife eventually leaves him. In fact, it seems like everyone leaves him. In the end, he may be likable, but he's no hero. So if Dorian's excesses lead to death and Henry's moderation leads to isolation, then what? It's hard to pin down a moral to the story--even though it reads like it should have a moral. In that sense, it's moralistic, but it doesn't really have a moral.

Yes, it's complicating if you consider Wilde himself said the main characters were reflections of himself: "Basil Hallward is what I think I am: Lord Henry is what the world thinks me: Dorian is what I would like to be—in other ages, perhaps"
I wonder if Wilde relied on strong Faustian theme of the book saying "moral is too obvious"
Lord Henry plays evil role. After all his cynical, hedonistic wordview & his French poisonous book destroys Dorian.
Another thing, we don't learn much about Dorian's sins. we're aware there were drugs, prostitutes, murder crime. Wilde made interesting statement : "Each man sees his own sin in Dorian Gray. What Dorian Gray's sins are no one knows. He who finds them has brought them."
Any ideas for Dorian's possible sins?

[Quark]

It's been a while since I've looked in on this thread. Sorry about that. I was trying to get another thread going on Our Mutual Friend, and things got busy. I wasn't even sure the discussion was still going until caspian just posted.

Yes I very much see life and art as synonymous in the novel, and in fact, throughout Wilde’s life and work. Take for example Lord Henry’s insistence of living life like an art form, this is for me part of what Dorian tries to do during the course of his life and essentially comes through Wilde from the likes of Pater

That's certainly the ideal for Wilde, but the text seems to show how distant that ideal is. One can't combine art and life successfully in The Picture of Dorian Gray. If they could, you would think Lord Henry or Dorian would have done it. Unfortunately, the ugly and mundane of everyday life infringes on Dorian. I think this is a problem that Wilde explores in "The Soul of Man Under Socialism." It's been a while since I read that, but I remember Wilde pointing out how human necessities and the carking cares of life prevent certain segments of the population from achieving the aesthete lifestyle. I wonder whether we're getting some of that argument infused into The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Wilde made interesting statement : "Each man sees his own sin in Dorian Gray. What Dorian Gray's sins are no one knows. He who finds them has brought them."
Any ideas for Dorian's possible sins?

Here Be Spoilers

Well, he "ruins" some women, crushes a tortoise, stabs someone, takes drugs, gets a friend hopelessly in debt. Those are some sins that come to mind. Wilde does leave room for the imagination to invent, though. There could be so much more Dorian is doing--at least, that's what Wilde wants us to think.