Now that our episode on the final chapters of The Picture of Dorian Gray is up and all yours, here’s the thread for posting your questions for the upcoming Q&A episode, which we will record later this week. Ask away!
Do you think that Basil is guilty in contributing to Dorian’s narcissism, by painting him in scenes throughout history? (This was mentioned in Basil’s initial confession to Lord Henry). It seems as though Basil was literally teaching Dorian to see himself at the center of everything, although I don’t think that was Basil’s intention.
I think Basil was just acting out of idolatry and disordered loves, and Dorian thought “Oh, am I worthy of worship? Then let’s go!” Then Lord Henry got a hold of him and said that it wouldn’t last, and that was just too difficult to be borne.
In Chapter 14, Dorian blames Basil for the degradation of his life: "Whatever my life is, he had more to do with the making or the marring of it than poor Harry has had. He may not have intended it, the result was the same." My question is twofold:
1) Which sin is most culpable for Dorian's life (Basil's idolatry, Harry's manipulation, or Dorian's own narcissim and self-indulgence)?
2) What might Wilde being trying to say about the implications on one's own sins on other souls?
In Chapter 3, Harry says about influence: "To project one's soul into some gracious form..." and Basil says of the portrait in Chapter 1: "I am afraid I have shown in it the secret of my own soul." Finally, in Chapter 20 as Dorian laments of his own sin, he also feels regret "that he had been an evil influence to others [...] and that of the lives that had crossed his own it had been the fairest and the most full of promise that he had brought to shame."
Is there a reading in which Basil's and Harry's souls are also reflected in the canvas?
Tim said at the beginning that he doesn’t think this is a great book (or novel - I can’t remember the phrasing exactly). I’d be curious to hear if his thoughts on this changed over the course of the reading or not, and his perspective on what makes a great book.
Here’s another interpretation: Basil is the one who views Dorian’s beauty at “art for art’s sake” and creates a portrait to revel in it simply for the sake of itself. Dorian is the one who inscribed meaning and quite literally “reads too much into it” (his whole soul) and therefore corrupts it, maybe ironically representing those who seek to moralise art and in doing so they destroy it and themselves. I don’t think that this answers every question the book raises but it could be possible to interpret it this way. In regards to the preface saying “it is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors” I wonder if this is an argument that morality exists in the reader, not the art, not in a relativistic sense but in the sense that it’s written on our hearts as worshipers? I find that to be a *thought-provoking* idea.
Dorian reminds me of Esau: "See to it... that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears." (Hebrews 12:15-17)
I have two theories! One is regarding Wilde’s ideas about art for art’s sake, the other is about the nature of Basil’s and Dorian’s relationship, and both theories intersect. :) (I'm sorry this is so long! It's tricky being brief talking about this book!)
What if Basil and his painting did not propel Dorian towards evil? What if Basil’s idolatry is a sort of red herring—an evil that Dorian exploits as a scapegoat for his own evil?
I re-read all the Basil passages, and I noticed that the book’s criticism of Basil chiefly comes from the words and mind of Dorian. I don’t think we’re supposed to take this viewpoint as true. I think Dorian (the self-deceived narcissist) hates the light that Basil constantly throws on his own darkness, so much so that they can no longer be friends. Basil can’t help but reveal Dorian’s, and Dorian can’t stand it. He maligns Basil, he blames Basil, he kills Basil.
Disclaimer: Basil’s idolatry of Dorian is unhealthy and harmful. But after re-reading all the Basil passages, I see Basil be ashamed of, confess, and repent of his idolatry. It is short-lived—ending with the completion of the portrait—and it is accompanied by earnest concern for Dorian’s soul. Yes, Basil is accused of loving his art more than his friends, but when put to the test, Basil chooses his friends and their good over his art:
Chapter 1: (about the painting) “I will destroy it. What is it but canvas and color? I will not let it come across our three lives and mar them.”
Basil is an easy scapegoat because he’s grossly naive. He continually defends his two friends, telling them they cannot be what they truly are, and trusting them when he shouldn’t. This makes Basil an irritating character, but not a primary agent of Dorian’s corruption. I think Dorian’s corruption comes from within himself. Henry draws out Dorian’s selfishness and lust for passion, and tempts Dorian with it, but Dorian takes the bite.
From Chapter 1 (When Dorian first sees his portrait): “A look of joy came into his eyes, as if he had recognized himself for the first time… Basil Hallward’s compliments had seemed to him to be merely the charming exaggerations of friendship. He had listened to them, laughed at them, forgotten them. They had not influenced his nature. Then had come Lord Henry Wotton with his strange panegyric on youth, his terrible warning of its brevity…” Basil isn’t having much of an effect on Dorian. Then Henry comes along and opens his eyes as it were. When Dorian sees the picture, he believes what Henry says, and sells his soul for youth. It’s not Basil’s influence but Henry’s that propels Dorian towards this sale. And the picture is just a picture. It doesn’t change Dorian; it shows Dorian himself.
That brings me to my second theory: What if Wilde’s point is that the picture is not moral or immoral? The picture merely reflects what is true: Dorian is beautiful. How Dorian responds to the picture springs from his own soul.
In Chapter 19, Henry says what Wilde says in his preface: “You and I [Dorian] are what we are, and will be what we will be… The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame. That is all.”
Disclaimer: I don’t agree with Art for Art’s Sake. I believe the true, the good, and the beautiful can’t be isolated--that art is moral and immoral--that art influences. But what if part of Wilde’s point is that art isn’t the corrupting force, but rather what lies within a person is the corrupting force? What if the picture of Dorian Gray is just a mirror? Dorian looks at the mirror and has a choice. Instead of using the picture as a conscience, as restraining force against his passions, he chooses to glory in his shame. Yes, he is influenced (by Henry, by the book, perhaps by the painting), but he alone chooses to do evil, and he alone is responsible for the evil that he does.
What if, instead of blaming the artist for other’s immorality, Wilde wants the censor police to blame the immoral for their own immorality and leave the artist alone?
--------------------------
From the Preface:
“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful
things are corrupt without being charming.
This is a fault.” –Dorian looking at his picture?
"Those who find beautiful meanings
in beautiful things are the cultivated.
For these there is hope. "–Basil looking at Dorian?
It seemed to me that Lord Henry was a bigger cause of Dorian’s demise than his narcissism. Every time Dorian wanted to do the right thing it was Lord Henry’s response that sucked him down the drain pool of dissipation. What percentage of Dorian’s fall do you think can be attributed not just to Lord Henry’s initial influence, but his constant interjection of contradictory ideas to Dorian’s seemingly sincere desire to do the right thing? The almost monotonous process of Dorian’s resolve to do right, then sharing that resolve with Lord Henry, Lord Henry laughing, Dorian saying don’t laugh, followed by poisonous remarks by Lord Henry, and a final change in Dorian’s attitude after their dialogue, was a constant “second verse, same as the first.” It seems a clear indicator that the problem was less in Dorian’s vanity than in his inability to see through Henry’s lies... even though he knows they are wicked. The question: do you think the problem lies more in Dorian or in who he keeps company with?
I'm currently wrapping up reading Dorian Gray with my students in an Intro to Fiction course, so I've been thinking of this novel more than is health, plus y'all's podcast has really helped me lesson plan, so thank you! I was surprised how some of my students showed piety for Dorian as a character. Are we suppose to piety Dorian? My students were wise to point to Dorian's lonely childhood, his lack of real, deep friendships, and the section in chapter 11 were his fate is tied to the corruption of his ancestors (where he looks on the portraits of his past relatives and ruminates about their damning and secret lifestyles). Is Dorian fated to fall and should we be sad for him because of this? Moreover, one student notes how Dorian's "friendship" with Lord Henry seems legit because Lord Henry seems to be the only character that really talks to Dorian, not just seeing him as a beautiful thing to admire like Basil does (Basil, even when he's painting Dorian, doesn't talk to him, so Dorian must have been happy to have someone to chat with when Lord Henry showed up!) Basically, is Wilde interested in creating pitiful (in the original sense) characters or characters that we are suppose to condemn outright. I did get a bunch of "ah, poor Basil" when Basil has to ride by himself to the theater to see Sibyl and the bffs Dorian and Lord Henry rode together.
I would be curious to get Tim’s take on the character of Basil and the role of the artist in the fall of the soul in this book. As a fellow actor as well as a teacher of theater, I want to ensure that I am producing art that will only draw people to beauty and truth. Are there specific lessons that we can learn from Basil’s choices as an artist?
Does Lord Henry hold his own at the literary party of "clever devil" archetypes, or does he lack some essential quality that keeps him from joining the company of Mephistopheles, Iago and Milton's Satan, for example? Is he distinct from these other characters in being a man without a chest? His presence as a flat character full of quips, aphorisms, and empty rhetoric was mentioned on the podcast; is the consensus of our hosts that he is not as "great" as other silver-tongued villains? If so, would the novel profit from making his character tragic rather than villainous?
Also, the haggard woman at the opium den in ch. 16 ("Why, man, it’s nigh on eighteen years since Prince Charming made me what I am.”) has to be Sybil Vane's ghost, right? She appears, knows Dorian's face and nickname, then vanishes.
This book, and the discussions around it, have made me think a lot about questions of censorship and discernment when it comes to reading. Dorian Gray reads the French book from Lord Henry that clearly has a negative effect on him. The Picture of Dorian Gray itself had to be carefully edited in order to make it past the censors of the time, and, you guys discussed how a younger reader could misread the book (at least initially) and think that Lord Henry is charming/truly insightful and Dorian’s hedonism is attractive. So my question is, how do you discern what books you read? As a person of faith, how do you know if/when a book’s good qualities are outweighed by content that might be harmful in the way Dorian’s reading harmed him? Are there ever any books that are totally “off the table” for a person trying to live a moral life? Finally, when it comes to guiding younger readers in their consumption of books (and really all media) who has the rights (beside the obvious answer of parents) to make decisions for them?
How did Oscar Wilde and his contemporaries define personality. Basil in the first chapter says he was immediately attracted to Dorian's personality - even before meeting him. This is repeated elsewhere with other people. It seems that personality (the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character) and physical appearance are conflated. This seems similar to the references of physiognomy in Jane Eyre. This idea continues as we see evidence of Dorian's corrupted soul in the face of the portrait. It seems hard to believe that people would truly believe that one's character is necessarily reflected in their physical characteristics. Haven't we all known ugly people with beautiful souls and the opposite (some celebrities for example)? It seems to me that the body, especially as we age, is where beauty and goodness often go in opposite directions. Not sure what my question is... maybe did anyone or does anyone really believe that one's character and personality can be assessed by one's physical attribute?
Do you think that Basil is guilty in contributing to Dorian’s narcissism, by painting him in scenes throughout history? (This was mentioned in Basil’s initial confession to Lord Henry). It seems as though Basil was literally teaching Dorian to see himself at the center of everything, although I don’t think that was Basil’s intention.
I think Basil was just acting out of idolatry and disordered loves, and Dorian thought “Oh, am I worthy of worship? Then let’s go!” Then Lord Henry got a hold of him and said that it wouldn’t last, and that was just too difficult to be borne.
In Chapter 14, Dorian blames Basil for the degradation of his life: "Whatever my life is, he had more to do with the making or the marring of it than poor Harry has had. He may not have intended it, the result was the same." My question is twofold:
1) Which sin is most culpable for Dorian's life (Basil's idolatry, Harry's manipulation, or Dorian's own narcissim and self-indulgence)?
2) What might Wilde being trying to say about the implications on one's own sins on other souls?
In Chapter 3, Harry says about influence: "To project one's soul into some gracious form..." and Basil says of the portrait in Chapter 1: "I am afraid I have shown in it the secret of my own soul." Finally, in Chapter 20 as Dorian laments of his own sin, he also feels regret "that he had been an evil influence to others [...] and that of the lives that had crossed his own it had been the fairest and the most full of promise that he had brought to shame."
Is there a reading in which Basil's and Harry's souls are also reflected in the canvas?
Tim said at the beginning that he doesn’t think this is a great book (or novel - I can’t remember the phrasing exactly). I’d be curious to hear if his thoughts on this changed over the course of the reading or not, and his perspective on what makes a great book.
Here’s another interpretation: Basil is the one who views Dorian’s beauty at “art for art’s sake” and creates a portrait to revel in it simply for the sake of itself. Dorian is the one who inscribed meaning and quite literally “reads too much into it” (his whole soul) and therefore corrupts it, maybe ironically representing those who seek to moralise art and in doing so they destroy it and themselves. I don’t think that this answers every question the book raises but it could be possible to interpret it this way. In regards to the preface saying “it is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors” I wonder if this is an argument that morality exists in the reader, not the art, not in a relativistic sense but in the sense that it’s written on our hearts as worshipers? I find that to be a *thought-provoking* idea.
Dorian reminds me of Esau: "See to it... that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears." (Hebrews 12:15-17)
I have two theories! One is regarding Wilde’s ideas about art for art’s sake, the other is about the nature of Basil’s and Dorian’s relationship, and both theories intersect. :) (I'm sorry this is so long! It's tricky being brief talking about this book!)
What if Basil and his painting did not propel Dorian towards evil? What if Basil’s idolatry is a sort of red herring—an evil that Dorian exploits as a scapegoat for his own evil?
I re-read all the Basil passages, and I noticed that the book’s criticism of Basil chiefly comes from the words and mind of Dorian. I don’t think we’re supposed to take this viewpoint as true. I think Dorian (the self-deceived narcissist) hates the light that Basil constantly throws on his own darkness, so much so that they can no longer be friends. Basil can’t help but reveal Dorian’s, and Dorian can’t stand it. He maligns Basil, he blames Basil, he kills Basil.
Disclaimer: Basil’s idolatry of Dorian is unhealthy and harmful. But after re-reading all the Basil passages, I see Basil be ashamed of, confess, and repent of his idolatry. It is short-lived—ending with the completion of the portrait—and it is accompanied by earnest concern for Dorian’s soul. Yes, Basil is accused of loving his art more than his friends, but when put to the test, Basil chooses his friends and their good over his art:
Chapter 1: (about the painting) “I will destroy it. What is it but canvas and color? I will not let it come across our three lives and mar them.”
Basil is an easy scapegoat because he’s grossly naive. He continually defends his two friends, telling them they cannot be what they truly are, and trusting them when he shouldn’t. This makes Basil an irritating character, but not a primary agent of Dorian’s corruption. I think Dorian’s corruption comes from within himself. Henry draws out Dorian’s selfishness and lust for passion, and tempts Dorian with it, but Dorian takes the bite.
From Chapter 1 (When Dorian first sees his portrait): “A look of joy came into his eyes, as if he had recognized himself for the first time… Basil Hallward’s compliments had seemed to him to be merely the charming exaggerations of friendship. He had listened to them, laughed at them, forgotten them. They had not influenced his nature. Then had come Lord Henry Wotton with his strange panegyric on youth, his terrible warning of its brevity…” Basil isn’t having much of an effect on Dorian. Then Henry comes along and opens his eyes as it were. When Dorian sees the picture, he believes what Henry says, and sells his soul for youth. It’s not Basil’s influence but Henry’s that propels Dorian towards this sale. And the picture is just a picture. It doesn’t change Dorian; it shows Dorian himself.
That brings me to my second theory: What if Wilde’s point is that the picture is not moral or immoral? The picture merely reflects what is true: Dorian is beautiful. How Dorian responds to the picture springs from his own soul.
In Chapter 19, Henry says what Wilde says in his preface: “You and I [Dorian] are what we are, and will be what we will be… The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame. That is all.”
Disclaimer: I don’t agree with Art for Art’s Sake. I believe the true, the good, and the beautiful can’t be isolated--that art is moral and immoral--that art influences. But what if part of Wilde’s point is that art isn’t the corrupting force, but rather what lies within a person is the corrupting force? What if the picture of Dorian Gray is just a mirror? Dorian looks at the mirror and has a choice. Instead of using the picture as a conscience, as restraining force against his passions, he chooses to glory in his shame. Yes, he is influenced (by Henry, by the book, perhaps by the painting), but he alone chooses to do evil, and he alone is responsible for the evil that he does.
What if, instead of blaming the artist for other’s immorality, Wilde wants the censor police to blame the immoral for their own immorality and leave the artist alone?
--------------------------
From the Preface:
“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful
things are corrupt without being charming.
This is a fault.” –Dorian looking at his picture?
"Those who find beautiful meanings
in beautiful things are the cultivated.
For these there is hope. "–Basil looking at Dorian?
It seemed to me that Lord Henry was a bigger cause of Dorian’s demise than his narcissism. Every time Dorian wanted to do the right thing it was Lord Henry’s response that sucked him down the drain pool of dissipation. What percentage of Dorian’s fall do you think can be attributed not just to Lord Henry’s initial influence, but his constant interjection of contradictory ideas to Dorian’s seemingly sincere desire to do the right thing? The almost monotonous process of Dorian’s resolve to do right, then sharing that resolve with Lord Henry, Lord Henry laughing, Dorian saying don’t laugh, followed by poisonous remarks by Lord Henry, and a final change in Dorian’s attitude after their dialogue, was a constant “second verse, same as the first.” It seems a clear indicator that the problem was less in Dorian’s vanity than in his inability to see through Henry’s lies... even though he knows they are wicked. The question: do you think the problem lies more in Dorian or in who he keeps company with?
I'm currently wrapping up reading Dorian Gray with my students in an Intro to Fiction course, so I've been thinking of this novel more than is health, plus y'all's podcast has really helped me lesson plan, so thank you! I was surprised how some of my students showed piety for Dorian as a character. Are we suppose to piety Dorian? My students were wise to point to Dorian's lonely childhood, his lack of real, deep friendships, and the section in chapter 11 were his fate is tied to the corruption of his ancestors (where he looks on the portraits of his past relatives and ruminates about their damning and secret lifestyles). Is Dorian fated to fall and should we be sad for him because of this? Moreover, one student notes how Dorian's "friendship" with Lord Henry seems legit because Lord Henry seems to be the only character that really talks to Dorian, not just seeing him as a beautiful thing to admire like Basil does (Basil, even when he's painting Dorian, doesn't talk to him, so Dorian must have been happy to have someone to chat with when Lord Henry showed up!) Basically, is Wilde interested in creating pitiful (in the original sense) characters or characters that we are suppose to condemn outright. I did get a bunch of "ah, poor Basil" when Basil has to ride by himself to the theater to see Sibyl and the bffs Dorian and Lord Henry rode together.
I would be curious to get Tim’s take on the character of Basil and the role of the artist in the fall of the soul in this book. As a fellow actor as well as a teacher of theater, I want to ensure that I am producing art that will only draw people to beauty and truth. Are there specific lessons that we can learn from Basil’s choices as an artist?
Does Lord Henry hold his own at the literary party of "clever devil" archetypes, or does he lack some essential quality that keeps him from joining the company of Mephistopheles, Iago and Milton's Satan, for example? Is he distinct from these other characters in being a man without a chest? His presence as a flat character full of quips, aphorisms, and empty rhetoric was mentioned on the podcast; is the consensus of our hosts that he is not as "great" as other silver-tongued villains? If so, would the novel profit from making his character tragic rather than villainous?
Also, the haggard woman at the opium den in ch. 16 ("Why, man, it’s nigh on eighteen years since Prince Charming made me what I am.”) has to be Sybil Vane's ghost, right? She appears, knows Dorian's face and nickname, then vanishes.
Come at me, bro. I'll fight you on this one. :)
This book, and the discussions around it, have made me think a lot about questions of censorship and discernment when it comes to reading. Dorian Gray reads the French book from Lord Henry that clearly has a negative effect on him. The Picture of Dorian Gray itself had to be carefully edited in order to make it past the censors of the time, and, you guys discussed how a younger reader could misread the book (at least initially) and think that Lord Henry is charming/truly insightful and Dorian’s hedonism is attractive. So my question is, how do you discern what books you read? As a person of faith, how do you know if/when a book’s good qualities are outweighed by content that might be harmful in the way Dorian’s reading harmed him? Are there ever any books that are totally “off the table” for a person trying to live a moral life? Finally, when it comes to guiding younger readers in their consumption of books (and really all media) who has the rights (beside the obvious answer of parents) to make decisions for them?
How did Oscar Wilde and his contemporaries define personality. Basil in the first chapter says he was immediately attracted to Dorian's personality - even before meeting him. This is repeated elsewhere with other people. It seems that personality (the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character) and physical appearance are conflated. This seems similar to the references of physiognomy in Jane Eyre. This idea continues as we see evidence of Dorian's corrupted soul in the face of the portrait. It seems hard to believe that people would truly believe that one's character is necessarily reflected in their physical characteristics. Haven't we all known ugly people with beautiful souls and the opposite (some celebrities for example)? It seems to me that the body, especially as we age, is where beauty and goodness often go in opposite directions. Not sure what my question is... maybe did anyone or does anyone really believe that one's character and personality can be assessed by one's physical attribute?