Now that you have finished reading Dorian Gray, you're ready for a scintillating, online discussion. Please share your thoughts about one or more of the following questions:
1. Who is most to blame for the tragedy of Dorian Gray--Lord Henry, Basil Hallward, or Dorian himself?
2. Could Dorian Gray be considered a tragic hero according to the classical definition? Why or why not?
3. What is the relationship between art and morality? Should art be moral? Should it serve some social good? Should the government have the right to censure works of art that it finds morally objectionable?
4. What symbolism is embedded in the final scene? What are some of the ironies it captures? Does it form effective closure to the book?
5. What do you think of the representation of women in the novel?
6. Is Oscar Wilde a better playwright, novelist, or poet?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Hey there everyone!
I am honestly a little put out at the way Wilde portrays women.
Lord Henry's wife is sad, Lady Narbourough is rather one-dimensional, Sibyll is so innocent and vulnerable that she makes my teeth hurt, and her mother is super irritating and as shallow as can be.
The only female character I really like is the Duchess of Monmouth. She fascinates me with her quick wit and her apparent search for depth and love in a world where she feels imprisoned.
I think the Duchess and Basil should've gotten together; they are both searching for love, rather than the pure essence of beauty, and they both feel trapped and alone, but not CHAINED in their materialistic world. Neither are a "Gray" that goes wielding knives at paintings, or Henry, who masks the depth of his need with quick wit and disarming contradictions.
Speaking of Basil---does anyone else love Basil? I am definitely one of the pro-Basil-ites. Probably because he has a lot of similarities to HORATIO: sensible, good friend, loyal, a third-party member to a larger story...and devilishly handsome.
Or maybe that's just me.
Meghan I am not sure if the book specifies if Basil is devilishly handsome but I am a fan of his loyalty and true friendship in the end. However, I did think it a bit odd in the beginning how he practically worshiped Dorian as if he were a God.
On a different note, I think Lord Henry was mainly the one to blame for the tragedy of Dorian Gray because at a young age Lord Henry corrupted Dorian's mind and took advantage of him. Henry molded him purposely in a way where he learned to care only about beauty and pleasure. I agree with Meghan in that Lord Henry is very insecure and masks his insecurities with his quick witty but often disturbing comments.
Although Lord Henry molded Dorain's beliefs, Basil put him on a pedestal and did not challenge Dorian on his beliefs at a young age. Basil made Dorian's mind ripe for Lord Henry's bad influence as he did not try to instill good ideas.
Finally, Dorian could also be to blame because he succumb to Lord Henry's hedonistic ideals and did not try to fight what he felt was wrong. This was especially prevalent after Dorain first hears of Sibyl's death and he is extremely remorseful. However, after Dorian talks with Lord Henry he feels it was not his fault at all that Sibyl committed suicide but that it was the greatest part she ever played. Dorian knows in his heart that it was his fault but he forces himself to believe Lord Henry's philosophy. It makes him feel better about himself and he doesn't feel as much pain if he were to actually face reality.
At the beginning of the novel I get the feeling Dorian is just a young boy, innocent of the world around him, looking for a good role model. Lord Henry is supposed to be that role model but fails miserably, so I mainly blame him.
Devon, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think that above all it is Lord Henry who is to blame for Dorian’s demise. None of it would have started had it not been for his insane need to corrupt the beautiful young man.
My only question is why would Lord Henry do such a thing? Basil begs him to leave Dorian alone, to not corrupt the one inspiration he has, but Lord Henry cannot resist. To me, this says that Lord Henry is an evil, conniving, and bored man. He needs a new hobby!
I think that Lord Henry is also ultimately responsible for how Dorian treats other young socialites. All the people he becomes close to meet a foul end in one way or another, in much the same way Lord Henry affected Dorian. So not only is he responsible for Dorian’s character, he is responsible for all the people that Dorian ruined by Lord Henry’s example. Yes, Dorian could have refused Lord Henry, and Basil could have been more outright with his displeasure, but neither of these things happened. I only look at what did happen, not what could have happened; in the end, the “what ifs” do not matter, but the involvement of Lord Henry really does.
Secondly, I believe that art technically should not have to be moral. Our freedom guarantees us the right to express ourselves, so who are we to put down the art of someone else? I do agree that some works of art are better left alone, and we all have to do just that. It is wrong to limit the expression of someone just because we don’t like their art; I am not saying to pretend to like it, I’m saying you just have to tolerate and ignore.
Lord Henry is to blame for the vanity of Dorian Gray, but Dorian himself is to blame for the tragedy. While Lord Henry certainly influenced him in his ideas about life and experience, Dorian is the one who followed like a sheep making terrible choice after terrible choice. Once Lord Henry implanted such thoughts in his brain, he abandoned all thoughts of goodness and began taking in everything Henry said as scripture. Instead of choosing to associate with good people who would influence him for the better, he stayed with those who made him worse and then extended his own evil influence to others. The responsibility is all Dorian's.
I also think that Oscar Wilde is most effective as a playwright. His poetry comes in a close second and his novel dead last. As a playwright, Wilde gets his ideas out in an enjoyable and, yes beautiful, manner. As a poet he abandons some of his aesthetic ideals by putting too much of himself (Basil) into his work. As a novelist...I frankly just don't like his style. It can't be effective if you can't get through it. He chooses to elaborate on meaningless things and gets off track in where the story is going. It is frustrating to read.
I think (like so many others) that Lord Henry is mostly to blame for the demise of Dorian because he is the one who corrupted Dorian and gave him a new view on the world. However, without Basil doting over Dorian and painting his portrait, Dorian never would have seen his soul corrode away. And without Dorian, this story would be a sentence without a subject.
I also think that Oscar Wilde is most effective as a playwrite. His poetry does not allow for him to be nearly as witty and his book was too decadent for my taste.
I am going to jump on the bandwagon and say that Lord Henry is responsible for Dorian's corruption. Dorian was definitely a weak character at the beginning, but Henry knew this and purposely took advantage of him.
Secondly, I agree with Meghan. I do not like the representation of women in this book, but then again, I don't like the way he represents humans in general. I think the novel does a good job of conveying Wilde's inner cynnnicism, which I believe comes from the way he was treated by society for his "unorthodox" lifestyle.
Finally, I don't think art necessarily needs to be moral, and it is up to the "audience" to interpret it in a way that enhances their own morals. In my opinion, art should provoke thought, and it doesn't need to be moral if it provokes legimitate discussion of important issues.
Hey there guys!
Okay, so here's a pretty radical idea.
Are people inherently good, inherently evil, or is their humanity shaped by their choices and their experiences?
I do agree (with everyone) that Lord Henry and Basil pushed Dorian towards directions of vanity and corruption he might not have discovered on his own. But I like to believe that I myself, in similar circumstances, would stay true to my own moral compass. But is that due to my own soul? My upbringing?
Something to think on ;).
Call me crazy, but I'm one of those people that firmly believes in destiny. I'm not saying we shouldn't examine how life choices lead to our own success or demise, but I think it is more logical to look at why a character probably ended up in a certain circumstance because of the nature of their character.
For example, Basil's life, both literally and figuratively in this case, was centered on the creation of beauty. From the beginning, he came off as being very selective about what he saw in other people. There is a general consensus that Dorian was a transparent airhead in his first scene. Yet Basil transformed his transparency into opacity by discarding the flaws of his character and strictly examining Dorian's beauty. It can be argued that Dorian sold his soul to the devil in order to achieve eternal youth. However, I think an equally potent argument is that Basil sold his soul to his artwork. His life essentially was the mirror of his creations. Because of this, his death was inevitable. The beauty of his creation ceased to exist, and consequently as did his life.
So! To respond to Meghan, people are neither inherently good nor inherently evil. Merely, they are inherently themselves. And regardless of how hard they try to change, as in Dorian's case, the fate they destine themselves for is inescapable.
I would like to discuss whether Wilde fulfilled or contradicted his "artistic promises" in the preface to the novel. Just to re-cap, Wilde claims that books are neither moral nor immoral. Furthermore, he defines art as meaningless, a mere replication of life's beauty. However, as I find myself examining the end of the novel I can't help but find some sense of meaning, some moral within the tragedy of Dorian Gray's experience. Surely Wilde meant to communicate some underlying message to his audience, or did he? I must question whether Wilde's audience is sincere in defining the book's moral or simply reading too much into their reading. What would happen if Dorian's entertainingly tragic existence had no purpose? I may be wrong in my assumptions, but I think Wilde is trying to reveal the hideousness of corruption without redemption. His audiences crave and need a moral in order to cling to the notion that life has purpose and substance even in at its worst. Wilde shatters this fallacy with the utter pointlessness of Dorian's and perhaps each of the character's experiences. You may disagree or agree, but I think it is vital to examine the novel as if Wilde's original intentions (as seen in the preface) have been accomplished.
Hello!
This is answering question #3 about how art is moral and should serve some social good. I defiantely think this is true. Have you ever been to the art museum and just stared at a painting? It’s almost like looking into an artist’s soul. I always try to think about what the artist could have been thinking about when the art was created. It can bring a sense of happiness, sadness, or contentment. I always find that after a day at the art museum, I am content and relaxed. Now, if that doesn’t serve some social good, I don’t know what does.
I don’t think at all, that art that is morally objectionable should be censured. Think about it. What if Sweeny Todd was not allowed to play at a theater because it was seen as “morally objectionable”. That would be horrible!! Or what if some books like Brave New World or even Hamlet were censured? That would be even more horrible!! If the government censured everything that was considered “morally objectionable”, than not even Teletubies would be around.
Those are just my thoughts.
Kristen!
Your response is SO interesting to me, and so well-written! What a great viewpoint!
Do you think that a person's SELF can change, if you believe everyone is inherently themselves? For example, is Dorian naturally innocent, or naturally corrupt, or neither, or both, or...?
I personally believe Basil was on a search for beauty but ALSO for innocence and purity. I think he was desperately looking for a place to channel his talent, but also someone withthe ability to appreciate him. Basil is a very deep character in a world where morality is avoided and decadence is praised; I feel like he is a Winston looking for a Julia to love in Wilde's own little 1984!
(Or perhaps it would be more correct for me to say a Bernard, looking for a Lenina? Oh, what a brave new world...)
My thoughts on question one:
I think that Dorian killed himself. He allowed himself to be consumed, molded, and influenced by society (aka Basil and Lord Henry). He took what Harry said unquestioned, never refuting. I believe that Oscar Wilde is warning his readers of the corruption and tradegy that can occur when one doesn't think and act for themselves.
Kristen-
I don't think Basil's life was based on beauty, it was based upon the posession of beauty. Basil was searching for perfection, unfortunately he never found it. Like Dorian, perfection too corrupts.
I don't think that Harry had any impact on Dorian's death. A person cannot force another person to believe something. Dorian believed it himself. Sure, Dorian's innocence was manipulated, but only because he allowed it to be.
Regarding art and morality: our government has a tendency to censor anything that remotely challenges their status quo (be it religious, political, what have you). I can think of few (clean) words strong enough to describe my opinion of librarians who remove books from the shelves based on some arbitrary standard of so-called morality! I personally love offending people and reading literature I find offensive; it sparks discussion. A strict government censorship program should only be used in a society of obedient drones (a la Brave New World), which is incidentally, in my opinion, a fundamentally good idea, but I suppose I'll save that for the Huxley discussions.
Anyway, art is art. If a talentless hack like Jackson Pollock can sell paintings for millions, then quite literally anything can be considered art. A good majority of it is absolutely meaningless (think Kate Chopin's The Awakening), so morals aren't inherently present. I think morals are rather a lens that a person's environment bestows upon them to view art. The art doesn't have morals in itself.
Meghan -
I think that people's character is formed from their personal experiences in their environment. Had Dorian never met Lord Henry he probably would have went through his life being a innocent man, and never do anything morally wrong. People choose to be what they are. Don’t you think that a “bad guy” doesn’t choose to go down the destructive, evil path over the moral, high road? People are raised differently, which solely begins with parents. I know people who are given the world and claim that they have been mistreated their whole life. I also know other kids, who have everything and are taught that they are fortunate and not to flaunt what they have.
I’m sure that in a similar circumstance, you would do what is right: or what you believe is morally correct.
I believe that Dorian himself is the most to blame for the tragedy of Dorian Gray. The painting changed based on Dorian's character. Dorian witnessed what was happening to his portrait and knew it was a result of his actions. He could have altered his ways and made amends.
Oscar WIlde is definitely a better playwright then novelist and poet. His plays are witty and fascinating. Most of his wit is dulled by the excessive use of description in his novels.
I am pro Basil along with Meghan!
I agree with jess!
I think Dorian is most to blame for this tragedy. I do agree that Lord Henry initially corrupted Dorian, but we are taught from birth not to change what we believe to match the beliefs of others. Dorian lets Lord Henry's advice completely brianwash him and be one hundred percent affected by society. He never wants questions Lord Henry and simply takes in what he says. So Dorian, therefore, is to blame for his own death.
In response to question six, i believe Wilde is most effective as a playwright. As a novelist, at least in Dorian, he gives too much detail making his novel extremely boring. As a playwright all he truly has to worry about is the dialogue, which I felt were the true strong points of his novel.
I really think that all three of these characters contributed to the tragedy of Dorian. I agree with most everybody that Lord Henry played a part by corrupting Dorian into thinking that looks were what were truly going to get him by in life. However, I also think that Basil helped because he was the one to put him up on a pedestal in the beginning of the novel, setting the groundwork for what Lord Henry ws to later reinforce. Lastly, I think that Dorian contributed largely to his own tragedy because he got himself in too far, too fast.
I think that Oscar Wilde is not trying to say that art is moral or immoral specifically, but that art mimics life. The painting of Dorian changed when he himself changed, which is what happens with art. I think that Wilde wasn't trying to show his audience what the art stood for because it was just supposed to be beautiful. I think that he was trying to show how the artwork changed when the subject did.
Erin I totally agree with you. I don't think that anyone is ever born good or evil. They are character traits that are taught and learned, basic nature vs. nurture.
Dev (& Hannah S, Karib, & others who agree with her on this point)...I must say I completely agree with you that Lord Henry was completely to blame. Before he used is "immoral influence" on Dorian, Dorian was COMPLETELY empty...he seemed to have no life, NO personality. But, after their aquaintence grew, and Dorian thought about his beauty as L. Henry pressed him to, Dorian became increasingly, even exponentially more vain.
Concerning ART and MORALITY...
Here, I see both sides of the tale, to thine own self be true (no matter what other people think), and to have consideration for other people's opinions. In Boise, ID a couple years ago we had a couple of instances. One was a statue of an important man (I don't remember who/what he did) was raised in Ann Morison Park. Problem: He was openly gay. Solution: TEAR IT DOWN!! In solution/retaliation, a statue of the ten commandments were put up. Problem: the main person who supported it was all for completely leveling the other statue, but leaving his. Solution: MOVE THEM BOTH!! SOME PEOPLE ARE OFFENDED!!
My personal thought (to sum the previous rant up): Be consistant. Don't say you have freedom of thought and expression but then get completely offended and shocked by another's work.
I agree with Lane C. in the fact that Wilde was DEFINATELY more effective as a playwright. In Dorian Gray he got lost in the asethetic nature of it rather than actually telling the tale. And his poem, "Harlot's House," he seemed to me to be too dry and, well, lifeless. But, in The Importance of Being Ernest, he combines the correct amount of criticizm, humor, and life, without going off on extreme tangents every few pages.
Erin and Lindsey:
I don't agree with the idea that people are nurtured into being who they are. In psychology we are learning about gender roles. There is a person named Brenda Reimer, who was born a boy, but because of an improper surgery, was transfered into a girl. Many scientists believed that Brenda would transform into a girl because they gave her girl hormones and encouraged femininity. In all actuality, Brenda soon realized that she was different (not a girl). It was her instinct, her "nature" that caused her to feel this gender confusion. People are born who they are, and yes society has some imput on how that person turns out, but it mainly depends on the character of that person. Dorian was weak. He allowed others to persuade him and manipulate him. This manipulation ended up corrupting him because of his own personality. He was too naive, too weak, and too insecure to fight back against society's influence.
SChurchill- I definitely agree with both you and Devon in that Lord Henry is partly to blame for Dorian's downfall. However, was he truly out to corrupt Dorian? Or was he too hollow himself to know the brutal outcome of his actions? I can personally go either way. It is obvious that Dorian had a very weak character from the beginning, but in a way, all of them did. Whether or not Lord Henry realized that he was responsible for the demise of Dorian, Basil also never drastically intervened to "save" Dorian. Or was that just too much out of his character? I believe that all three of them were on the edge of extreme personalities, but were not fully revealed until it was too late.
Jess- I definitely agree with your last statement. Dorian is a weak character and was pushed from every angle that eventually he broke. Yes, others had influence on him but he was almost too oblivious to fight back. In a sense, he had no personality, and took no responsibility for his actions, also leading him to his own downfall.
Wassup?
I agree with much that has been said. I believe that along with Basil's and Lord Henry's influence, Dorian's own innocent upbringing contributes to his downfall. Basil first describes Dorian as innocent and beautiful. It is almost as if Dorian hardly knows what goes on around him. He appears naive and inexperienced. He has no personal interest or direction. When Basil, and especially Lord Henry, begin to have an influnece over Dorian, it immediately shows. The corruption that Dorian's soul reveals largly comes out of the views he has taken from Lord Henry. Due to the fact that Dorian is so innocent and inexperienced in the first place, it allows for Lord Henry's influence to have the much more effect on him. This influence eventually drives Dorian to the edge where he realizes that he has nothing to live for.
I agree that Wilde is a much better playwrite than a poet. Although I do believe that his novels contain the amount of wit that he includes in his plays. This wit is just hidden behind somewhat boring narrative and it doesn't always jump out of the page.
I don't know about anyone else, but favorite character in the novel to look at was Lord Henry. I couldn't ever decide if I liked him or not. I don't blame him for the downfall of Dorian, I believe that was Dorians own doing as well as the influence of the society around him. But I believe that there is more to Lord Henry than he wants us to see. I could have interpeted this wrong but I think that he reveals at the end that he puts on a facade and is actually more vulnerable and senstitive than he wants people to believe. for example, when he reveals that he is afraid of death. That is part of the reason why I thought that Wilde was most like Lord Henry. That behind the witty and intelligent comments there is actaully emotion and felling, that is a vulnerablilty they are trying to hide. I was wondering how you think Lord Henry would have reacted to the news of Dorians apparent suicide?
Dorian Gray captures some essence of a classical tragic hero but his lack of direction and his inability to grasp his fate does not make him a tragic hero. According to a classical definition, a hero’s struggles should evoke pity or fear. This is entirely false in case of Dorian; his death (for me) evokes disgust. He classical tragic hero understands and accepts his fate as well as has the capability to change his destiny. This is also completely opposite of what Dorian is. Instead of taking destiny in his own hands Dorian lets Lord Henry’s influences stain his soul. Even though Dorian is of noble birth and his suffering reveals something meaningful to the audience, Wilde’s “lack of purpose” of this novel cancels out the significance of Dorian’s death. I don’t think Wilde wanted Dorian to be tragic hero; he just wanted a character so apparently flawed that even when corruption is spelled out for me (his picture) he lacks the power to change his own destiny.
Jess:
He probably is a weak character because he was never taught to be a strong person. If Dorian didn’t grow up in a environment that encourages a strong self-esteem, he would be vulnerable to others persuasion. Because he is a weak person, he clearly didn't have that kind of influence in his earlier years.
Shauna- I do not think that Lord Henry intended to corrupt Dorian, I believe that it is just how he interacts with others and Dorian hung onto every thought and word out of Lord Henry's mouth. Dorian is more responsible for his own downfall because he does not make his own decisions or think for himself. Although Lord Henry should realize the attachment he has made between himself and Dorian, he is not the direct cause of Dorian Gray's death.
Jess- I strongly disagree with your assumption that people are not nurtured into being the people they are. Socail norms mold the thoughts and actions that are acceptable in people within society. Dorian was used to being a beautiful person and relied on others realizing that beauty to succeed. I do not think that he was born a weak person, I believe he was used to getting his way because of his looks, and did not need to learn how to become a strong, independant person. Society molded him into being weak and vulnerable.
Wow. It's a bit difficult to follow up on all the crazy discussion that's going on here!
While reading Dorian Gray I kept wondering why Oscar Wilde would write such a sad, painful novel? What was his purpose in portraying Dorian as the epitomy of beauty only to have him surcomb to the blazing inferno of society? Or, more simply, why would he write such a piece in the first place? Personally, I found the characters flat, the descriptions unneccesarily verbose, and the plot nonsensical. In short, I disliked the book entirely.
But then I started wondering why I disliked the book. Why, indeed, since I absolutely adore Wilde's plays? And then it hit me.
Because Dorian Gray is not entertainment.
Nor is it traditional literature. I believe this book to be Wilde's own personal confessional. He could have written it as a satire. He could have written it to rage against the unfair nature of society. He could have written it to simply gain attention. But deep down, this novel was Wilde's silent plea for help. From the grotesque descriptions of places such as the opium bar to the nonsensical banter exchanged between members of the upper class, Wilde felt the need to release pent up guilt and insecurity in regards to his own hedonistic lifestyle. What better way to ask forgiveness for your failings than to publish your personal diary?
When looked at in this light, Dorian Gray suddenly had more appeal to me. Because I, like Wilde, use writing as my confessional. The only difference between our works: his is published and mine is safely hidden within the depths of my room. :)
Does this mean I suddenly love the book? No. But I am now able to empathize with a man who bared the innermost workings of his tortured soul to the world...and what a legacy it left.
Hi there!
Meghan I fully agree on the rather shallow and demeaning way Wilde portrays women!
Sibyl was so vulnerable and weak that she seems to have popped out of a melodrama. She reminds me of the helpless girl crying out for help in Mrs. Ferrill's short impression of the melodrama.
Sibyl's mother seems like a typical mother of the times. She wants her daughter to have everything she did not have in life and of course marry a man with wealth and standing. Because she is an insignificant character, I think Wilde threw her into the story to tie up loose ends and also subtly criticize the "gold diggers" of his time.
On another note...
The relationship between art and morality has always been both cooperative and tense. Because of the infinitely different perceptions of morality each person possesses, it is impossible to create art that is "moral" to everyone.
Government should definatley not have the right to censure works because they are questionable. People were born with the right to express themselves through the beauty of art and by creating art that challenges morality, it leads the viewer to open up his eyes and grasp the bigger picture.
6.
Ahh the question is Wilde a better playwight or novelist or poet.
Personally I would have to say that he is a much better playwright granted the man is briliant in all his works but to me his poetry was a bit dry and most of it was unrealatable to me.
As far a Dorian Gray goes......
Wilde does have some very sound ideas in art morality etc. BUT MY GOD MAN!!!! the verbose diction the tedious chapter upon chapter of reading about the perfect way the leaves caress the flowers or how the scenery was so poetic...
If a crime was commited I could be the detective an solve the case just by the inch by inch description Wilde gives the readers...
SNORE FEST!
I LOVED the importance of Being Earnest.. It was funny, witty and to the point.
It seems to me that Wilde needs to take some advice from Hamlet.
BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT
Ha Sorry Mercedes is my spanish name...
(It's Ayla , Sorry for any confusion)
Post a Comment