Tim’s back, friends—and it’s time for a new book! So join us as we dig into Oscar Wilde’s infamous novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray. Discussion this week focuses on questions of biographical criticism with a book like this, the role that the character of Lord Henry plays in the structure of the novel, what the book does well and where its shortcomings might be, and much more! Happy listening!
Like David, I haven't read this one in a while. This time I was much more struck by all the attraction between the three men, something that was a little downplayed in the discussion. But I think it's important because of the connection between eros and beauty. It seems that the painter has fallen for his subject because Dorian is beautiful. They are making something beautiful together, and so it's not surprising to me that erotic feelings follow.
Once again, I find that I truly enjoy your discussions. That this isn't a great book, but it brings up very interesting discussion points. I first listened to a discussion of this book on another podcast years ago - the hostess took it all so seriously and was a little over the top with the discussion of beauty and how important that is. So I am really enjoying having all of this put into a healthier perspective
I think Tim is spot on about Lord Henry’s statements being a pose. He seems to me like an actor who treats life as if it were a stage. Words, and the delivery of them, are his craft, and he’s narcissistically fascinated by the effects they have on his audience. The artificial theatricality is part of his character. Maybe it’s Wilde’s love of drama playing into it, but there’re quite a few characters in this book that seem to be playing a part (sometimes literally), and I’m not sure we’re ever meant to regard them as sincere.
I enjoy Wilde but I agree with Tim. I don’t think it’s a great novel and I’m not sure I would classify any of his works as great novels. He was a great wit, a peerless skewerer, and his books are wonderfully clever, but that’s not the same as being great literature. But yes, thought-provoking as Heidi said and a great discussion so far.
I’m stuck on the question of whether Lord Henry believes anything of what he says, and in turn, if Wilde does either; as well as the necessity of Goodness and Truth within Beauty. (This is my first time to read the book, and I know almost nothing about Oscar Wilde.) I just can’t believe that he could unwittingly yet artfully create such a straightforward picture of insidious evil and its effects. But maybe I automatically ascribe too much inherent truth to the books we read because they’re Great Books.
So, is the book Wilde’s own rendering of the muse of Beauty like Basil’s painting - art for art’s sake - his ears closed to the poisonous ideas infused in it? Is the book merely Wilde’s own innocuous idle chatter like that of Lord Henry (in spite of his belief in his own “good character” in saying he’s more like Basil than Lord Henry)? Are we to be Dorian, impressionable readers influenced in our ignorance? In this case, it’s interesting that it was mentioned that a biographical reading of the book is helpful. If Dorian Gray really knew Lord Henry as Basil does, perhaps he would not be corrupted. Was Wilde inciting us as readers to be more discerning than the young Gray and idle socialites? Or did he just want to show himself in his art, to be seen and known (á la enneagram 4)? Is he sincerely vulnerable in this endeavor?
Not remembering what I ever learned about Wilde, I do, however, have an impression of him as glibly nihilistic and one of those social commentators that can show truth by pointing out falsehoods - humorously in his case - but don’t stand for or offer any real, lasting Good. I also think of his influence as more on the 20th century, than the 19th, so that is probably affecting my perspective.
Thanks for this conversation. In the past I remember recognizing that the novel’s conclusion questions many of the statements made in the preface, so I always assumed there was an intentional irony that Wilde undermines his own point and says something quite moral about beauty and idolatry. Based on this discussion, I’m wondering how much of that was based in the text or how much I was reading into it my own convictions.
Nine years after Oscar Wilde’s death GK Chesterton wrote in The Daily News, 1909— in part of what became a compilation of essays called A Handful Of Authors:
“But while he had a strain of humbug in him, which there is not in the demagogues of wit like Bernard Shaw, he had, in his own strange way, a much deeper and more spiritual nature than they. Queerly enough, it was the very multitude of his falsities that prevented him from being entirely false. Like a many-coloured humming top, he was at once a bewilderment and a balance. He was so fond of being many-sided that among his sides he even admitted the right side. He loved so much to multiply his souls that he had among them one soul at least that was saved. He desired all beautiful things – even God.
“His frightful fallacy was that he would not see that there is reason in everything, even in religion and morality. “
So far I don't completely understand this novel as presented Gothic on the cover of the 1890 original text. An apparently debauched soul is playing at paradox. "Playing at” seems to be the right term. Messing with—in facile and flaccid not robust way. Compare his paradoxes with one of Paul’s, in which he knows how to be abased and how to abound. Or with any of the multitudinous paradoxes of Christianity.
Heidi mentions the reader initially being charmed by Lord Henry, but my experience was different. Part way in I began noticing a similar kind of unease I felt the first time reading another Gothic of the time (1887) Bram Stoker's Dracula. As I understand it, there were problems of censorship with Dorian Gray, and I wonder if there were any with Dracula, as well. This unease began at the end of chapter three of Dracula -- and in John Harkins' journal -- when he is half conscious of a voluptuous intrusion on his rest and next a fury to discharge/dispel by the Count himself. At that point I stopped reading the book for a couple years before starting again to read/listen twice.
In Dorian Gray, along with the book’s early chapters, my notes keep suggesting "bloodsucker." What do others think of the metaphoric parallels? In Dracula almost off the bat the Gothic is evident, not subtle as in Dorian Gray.
Lord Henry "had begun by vivisecting himself, as he had ended by vivisecting others. Human life -- that appeared to him the one thing worth investigating. Compared to it there was nothing else of any value."
Here, by "life" I’m meaning literal life, not the manner in which one chooses to live, not the daily routine. Biological life. At least, if reading this metaphorically in parallel, it can be suggested so.
"It was true that as one watched life in its curious crucible of pain and pleasure, one could not wear over one's face a mask of glass, nor keep the sulfurous fumes from troubling the brain and making the imagination turbid with monstrous fancies and misshapen dreams. There were poisons so subtle that to know their properties one had to sicken of them." (Chapter four, Dorian Gray)
Like David, I haven't read this one in a while. This time I was much more struck by all the attraction between the three men, something that was a little downplayed in the discussion. But I think it's important because of the connection between eros and beauty. It seems that the painter has fallen for his subject because Dorian is beautiful. They are making something beautiful together, and so it's not surprising to me that erotic feelings follow.
Once again, I find that I truly enjoy your discussions. That this isn't a great book, but it brings up very interesting discussion points. I first listened to a discussion of this book on another podcast years ago - the hostess took it all so seriously and was a little over the top with the discussion of beauty and how important that is. So I am really enjoying having all of this put into a healthier perspective
I think Tim is spot on about Lord Henry’s statements being a pose. He seems to me like an actor who treats life as if it were a stage. Words, and the delivery of them, are his craft, and he’s narcissistically fascinated by the effects they have on his audience. The artificial theatricality is part of his character. Maybe it’s Wilde’s love of drama playing into it, but there’re quite a few characters in this book that seem to be playing a part (sometimes literally), and I’m not sure we’re ever meant to regard them as sincere.
I enjoy Wilde but I agree with Tim. I don’t think it’s a great novel and I’m not sure I would classify any of his works as great novels. He was a great wit, a peerless skewerer, and his books are wonderfully clever, but that’s not the same as being great literature. But yes, thought-provoking as Heidi said and a great discussion so far.
I’m stuck on the question of whether Lord Henry believes anything of what he says, and in turn, if Wilde does either; as well as the necessity of Goodness and Truth within Beauty. (This is my first time to read the book, and I know almost nothing about Oscar Wilde.) I just can’t believe that he could unwittingly yet artfully create such a straightforward picture of insidious evil and its effects. But maybe I automatically ascribe too much inherent truth to the books we read because they’re Great Books.
So, is the book Wilde’s own rendering of the muse of Beauty like Basil’s painting - art for art’s sake - his ears closed to the poisonous ideas infused in it? Is the book merely Wilde’s own innocuous idle chatter like that of Lord Henry (in spite of his belief in his own “good character” in saying he’s more like Basil than Lord Henry)? Are we to be Dorian, impressionable readers influenced in our ignorance? In this case, it’s interesting that it was mentioned that a biographical reading of the book is helpful. If Dorian Gray really knew Lord Henry as Basil does, perhaps he would not be corrupted. Was Wilde inciting us as readers to be more discerning than the young Gray and idle socialites? Or did he just want to show himself in his art, to be seen and known (á la enneagram 4)? Is he sincerely vulnerable in this endeavor?
Not remembering what I ever learned about Wilde, I do, however, have an impression of him as glibly nihilistic and one of those social commentators that can show truth by pointing out falsehoods - humorously in his case - but don’t stand for or offer any real, lasting Good. I also think of his influence as more on the 20th century, than the 19th, so that is probably affecting my perspective.
Obviously looking forward to reading more...
Thanks for this conversation. In the past I remember recognizing that the novel’s conclusion questions many of the statements made in the preface, so I always assumed there was an intentional irony that Wilde undermines his own point and says something quite moral about beauty and idolatry. Based on this discussion, I’m wondering how much of that was based in the text or how much I was reading into it my own convictions.
Nine years after Oscar Wilde’s death GK Chesterton wrote in The Daily News, 1909— in part of what became a compilation of essays called A Handful Of Authors:
“But while he had a strain of humbug in him, which there is not in the demagogues of wit like Bernard Shaw, he had, in his own strange way, a much deeper and more spiritual nature than they. Queerly enough, it was the very multitude of his falsities that prevented him from being entirely false. Like a many-coloured humming top, he was at once a bewilderment and a balance. He was so fond of being many-sided that among his sides he even admitted the right side. He loved so much to multiply his souls that he had among them one soul at least that was saved. He desired all beautiful things – even God.
“His frightful fallacy was that he would not see that there is reason in everything, even in religion and morality. “
So far I don't completely understand this novel as presented Gothic on the cover of the 1890 original text. An apparently debauched soul is playing at paradox. "Playing at” seems to be the right term. Messing with—in facile and flaccid not robust way. Compare his paradoxes with one of Paul’s, in which he knows how to be abased and how to abound. Or with any of the multitudinous paradoxes of Christianity.
Heidi mentions the reader initially being charmed by Lord Henry, but my experience was different. Part way in I began noticing a similar kind of unease I felt the first time reading another Gothic of the time (1887) Bram Stoker's Dracula. As I understand it, there were problems of censorship with Dorian Gray, and I wonder if there were any with Dracula, as well. This unease began at the end of chapter three of Dracula -- and in John Harkins' journal -- when he is half conscious of a voluptuous intrusion on his rest and next a fury to discharge/dispel by the Count himself. At that point I stopped reading the book for a couple years before starting again to read/listen twice.
In Dorian Gray, along with the book’s early chapters, my notes keep suggesting "bloodsucker." What do others think of the metaphoric parallels? In Dracula almost off the bat the Gothic is evident, not subtle as in Dorian Gray.
Lord Henry "had begun by vivisecting himself, as he had ended by vivisecting others. Human life -- that appeared to him the one thing worth investigating. Compared to it there was nothing else of any value."
Here, by "life" I’m meaning literal life, not the manner in which one chooses to live, not the daily routine. Biological life. At least, if reading this metaphorically in parallel, it can be suggested so.
"It was true that as one watched life in its curious crucible of pain and pleasure, one could not wear over one's face a mask of glass, nor keep the sulfurous fumes from troubling the brain and making the imagination turbid with monstrous fancies and misshapen dreams. There were poisons so subtle that to know their properties one had to sicken of them." (Chapter four, Dorian Gray)
Am writing this looking forward to more.