It’s time for more Oscar Wilde talk. This week, the conversation explains how this section made Tim a fan of the book, digs into Dorian’s psychological complexity, and explores the role external and internal factors played in Dorian’s decline. Happy listening!
In that section where Dorian is going from “thing to thing” it reminded me of Solomon in the Bible - going from “thing to thing” searching for the meaning of life; and yet Dorian ends no wiser at the end. It was sad.
I do think it's worth noting that Basil is worried from the very beginning about Lord Henry "corrupting" Dorian, and keeps trying to get him to promise to not, which Lord Henry blows off. Basil does seems to have a much more unified view of the transcendentals, and knows that if Dorian ceases to be good (or he may put it as innocent) then the beauty will fail to be the inspiration it has been to him.
Hello, I'm new to substack and the podcast and loving it! One question I have, which I would love to hear others' thoughts on, is what to make of Dorian's "personality." Time after time he is portrayed as charming almost everyone he encounters (while also repulsing many of them), first Basil and then so many others in upper British society. As I read the novel, I find myself wondering what makes Dorian so compelling? He seems to be a "blank slate" who allows others to influence him and doesn't have a sense of self outside of other people either idealizing him or seeing him as a vessel for their own ideas. Where is the "personality" in that? I've reconciled Dorian's ability to be compelling by thinking of him in the same way we think about celebrities--we are fascinated that they are seemingly always beautiful, rich, immune to consequences or everyday life problems, just like Dorian. But this fascination has little to do with their actual personalities. We are fascinated by them without any idea of who they actually are as people. Am I missing something? Does anyone find Dorian compelling, or having a sense of self outside of his "celebrity like" status?
I'm a little bit behind the schedule. I'm reading chapter 11 now. At the beginning of this chapter Oscar Wilde is explaining that people are fascinated with Dorian only because of his beauty. He really doesn't have any other high quality.
There is a ton of research that confirms people trust beautiful people much more. People vote for nice looking candidates because they think they have other qualities too.
I obviously wasn't on this week's episode, but If we have some time I'll bring this up for next Monday's episode (and we always have the Q&A, too), but I think is a bit of a flaw in the book personally. I don't know that Wilde's earns this reputation for Dorian. He just tells us it is so.
I don’t know if I agree with Heidi about Basil (thank you for the proper English pronunciation ;) being just as bad as Henry. Is the creator of something that is used for evil necessarily guilty? It’s like the technology question. Is the painting itself bad/evil? Should Basil not have painted it? I probably don’t understand completely his inspiration for it. But I don’t think Dorian would have had his revelation without Lord Henry. I’m not sure he would have even looked at the painting, he’s so un-self conscious and impressionable - which is why Lord Henry can influence him. Did Lord Henry plant the seed it just water it? I think he planted it - and watered it. Though it didn’t need much watering until the death of Sybil.
I like Tim’s theory about the preface. One sentence that really stood out to me, similar to the one about the “sordid room of the little ill-famed tavern” and only two pages later, is this: “Yes: there was to be, as Lord Henry had prophesied, a new Hedonism that was to re-create life, and to save it from that harsh, uncomely puritanism that is having, in our own day, it’s curious revival.” The narrator’s voice suddenly sticks out here (for the first time?), and again in the next paragraph, “There are few of us...” I wonder if this is Wilde’s own “moral axe” to grind that Tim was talking about. I could see him wanting to create his work of art and explore the ideas of the book freely, come what may, but getting stuck here on his own Victorian Puritanism axe.
I loved this section. I was particularly intrigued by Wilde’s approach in chapter 11. Maybe it was because I was reading it late at night, but the repetition of references and descriptions of these interests that Dorian pursues lulled me into an almost nauseating tiredness. I felt like I was eating pounds of baklava. I am, however, struggling to marry Wilde’s reputation as a maximalist with this passage. Does he approve of this approach to pursuing “beauty”? He is presenting it in such an exhausting way that it’s hard for me to believe he approves of it. Does anybody else feel the same way about this section?
Yes, I felt similarly! I was also reading it late at night as it went on and on. I was wondering what they’d say about it on the podcast. They did talk about the kind of mythologizing of Dorian’s life In its aestheticism - Sybil being just one scene or chapter - andI think this chapter serves that as well. I’m so glad they finally expressed my same feelings about Wilde’s discordant views against the morality of the book, and I wonder if this is a good example. It’s like he wants us to get bored and nauseated, as you said, with Dorian’s excesses like Dorian surely does.
In that section where Dorian is going from “thing to thing” it reminded me of Solomon in the Bible - going from “thing to thing” searching for the meaning of life; and yet Dorian ends no wiser at the end. It was sad.
I do think it's worth noting that Basil is worried from the very beginning about Lord Henry "corrupting" Dorian, and keeps trying to get him to promise to not, which Lord Henry blows off. Basil does seems to have a much more unified view of the transcendentals, and knows that if Dorian ceases to be good (or he may put it as innocent) then the beauty will fail to be the inspiration it has been to him.
The claim that books are not immoral or amoral does not last the first five pages of anything written by the Marquis de Sade.
Hello, I'm new to substack and the podcast and loving it! One question I have, which I would love to hear others' thoughts on, is what to make of Dorian's "personality." Time after time he is portrayed as charming almost everyone he encounters (while also repulsing many of them), first Basil and then so many others in upper British society. As I read the novel, I find myself wondering what makes Dorian so compelling? He seems to be a "blank slate" who allows others to influence him and doesn't have a sense of self outside of other people either idealizing him or seeing him as a vessel for their own ideas. Where is the "personality" in that? I've reconciled Dorian's ability to be compelling by thinking of him in the same way we think about celebrities--we are fascinated that they are seemingly always beautiful, rich, immune to consequences or everyday life problems, just like Dorian. But this fascination has little to do with their actual personalities. We are fascinated by them without any idea of who they actually are as people. Am I missing something? Does anyone find Dorian compelling, or having a sense of self outside of his "celebrity like" status?
I'm a little bit behind the schedule. I'm reading chapter 11 now. At the beginning of this chapter Oscar Wilde is explaining that people are fascinated with Dorian only because of his beauty. He really doesn't have any other high quality.
There is a ton of research that confirms people trust beautiful people much more. People vote for nice looking candidates because they think they have other qualities too.
I obviously wasn't on this week's episode, but If we have some time I'll bring this up for next Monday's episode (and we always have the Q&A, too), but I think is a bit of a flaw in the book personally. I don't know that Wilde's earns this reputation for Dorian. He just tells us it is so.
I don’t know if I agree with Heidi about Basil (thank you for the proper English pronunciation ;) being just as bad as Henry. Is the creator of something that is used for evil necessarily guilty? It’s like the technology question. Is the painting itself bad/evil? Should Basil not have painted it? I probably don’t understand completely his inspiration for it. But I don’t think Dorian would have had his revelation without Lord Henry. I’m not sure he would have even looked at the painting, he’s so un-self conscious and impressionable - which is why Lord Henry can influence him. Did Lord Henry plant the seed it just water it? I think he planted it - and watered it. Though it didn’t need much watering until the death of Sybil.
I like Tim’s theory about the preface. One sentence that really stood out to me, similar to the one about the “sordid room of the little ill-famed tavern” and only two pages later, is this: “Yes: there was to be, as Lord Henry had prophesied, a new Hedonism that was to re-create life, and to save it from that harsh, uncomely puritanism that is having, in our own day, it’s curious revival.” The narrator’s voice suddenly sticks out here (for the first time?), and again in the next paragraph, “There are few of us...” I wonder if this is Wilde’s own “moral axe” to grind that Tim was talking about. I could see him wanting to create his work of art and explore the ideas of the book freely, come what may, but getting stuck here on his own Victorian Puritanism axe.
I loved this section. I was particularly intrigued by Wilde’s approach in chapter 11. Maybe it was because I was reading it late at night, but the repetition of references and descriptions of these interests that Dorian pursues lulled me into an almost nauseating tiredness. I felt like I was eating pounds of baklava. I am, however, struggling to marry Wilde’s reputation as a maximalist with this passage. Does he approve of this approach to pursuing “beauty”? He is presenting it in such an exhausting way that it’s hard for me to believe he approves of it. Does anybody else feel the same way about this section?
This is a good question
Yes, I felt similarly! I was also reading it late at night as it went on and on. I was wondering what they’d say about it on the podcast. They did talk about the kind of mythologizing of Dorian’s life In its aestheticism - Sybil being just one scene or chapter - andI think this chapter serves that as well. I’m so glad they finally expressed my same feelings about Wilde’s discordant views against the morality of the book, and I wonder if this is a good example. It’s like he wants us to get bored and nauseated, as you said, with Dorian’s excesses like Dorian surely does.