The Picture of Dorian Gray question

Should any book be for adults only?

As someone who first read this book in middle school, my immediate inclination is to say that no, it's absolutely not restricted to adults. Thinking about it a little more, I can give a better answer than that.

The only reason I can fathom that someone would consider TPoDG 18+ is the implications of Dorian's lifestyle, the general degradation of his morality, and the element of death/suicide/murder. Which, yeah, okay. I can see why that would make some people want to slap on the "adult" label and never look back.

The thing is, a lot of young adult novels have the same themes, some of them far more potent and graphic than TPoDG. I can't really really consider TPoDG an "18+" book when it's a lot less graphic than books aimed at readers age 12 to 18. It's not going to affect them any more than the books they're already being encouraged to read.

Will some parents and teachers oppose their child reading TPoDG? Oh, absolutely. I've seen it happen. But that doesn't make the content of the book itself inherently 18+. Hell, I had a friend who wasn't allowed to read Harry Potter because it was "too violent." Did that make Harry Potter 18+? No, not at all. It just means that her parents didn't want her interacting with it based on their personal values and beliefs.

So, no. Even if TPoDG is considered adult just because the horror element, I don't think it should be.

Well, for starters, its use of language is hardly accessible to the average child. But, an especially bright pre-teen may find it perfectly comprehensible, and I'm not one to underestimate how many especially bright pre-teens there are in the world.

As for the horror, I mean, that's a different element. I don't think the horror is a lot more shocking than what a middle schooler might see in a PG13 Horror film. Hell, in a lot of cases it's less so, because of the execution, and again, the writing style of its time.

Although I would advise some kind of, content warning, perhaps. Not just because there's suicide or murder, but if anything, I'd worry about how a child might misconstrue the moral aspects of the book. I first read the book when I was 16, which is still young, but by that age, at least *I* was pretty desensitized to its types of messages. I worry mostly about the satirical aspects being lost on a young reader, of say, 12-14. In that very early questioning phase of youth. Where a lot of young folk are very susceptible faux contrarianism and anything that sounds rebellious, shocking or intriguing. And it being written in such intellectual language might make them feel even more right for it. And, again, I think it's clear to any mature reader what Wilde's real message is (if he didn't make it clear enough in his own defense of the novel), but, you know, children are children and they're seeing things for the first time.

So, I wouldn't give it to a sixth grader, exactly. And if someone that young were reading it, I wouldn't want them reading it on their own without an understanding of the subtext. Generally, I think most "18+" markers for things that are just intellectual content, are a little bit silly and underestimate how sharp and intellectually capable some high school-aged teens can be. But, I do see how Dorian Gray and friends could have a bad influence on a young person with its witty paradoxes if they were steered in the wrong direction by it—after all, isn't that how Dorian himself was corrupted?

Okay, maybe not that extreme, but you get the point.

It‘s a psychological, witty, thought-provoking masterpiece. As a reference pointI have read The Picture of Dorian when I was around 16, right when I started getting into classics. I’ve no idea why people would classify it as horror, it’s really not scary.

I don't see it as a horror story. I see it as a morality tale. What leads you to believe that only adults should read it?

nah its pretty tame for horror maybe dont let a 10 yr old read it.

Maybe It depends on the age. For young readers (I'm talking about 8 or 9 years old) maybe yes, It is not the best book to read because children are impressionable. At the age of 12-13 I think is a good book to read because it has a lot of teachings that are very important during adolescent phase. I read it very late (when I was 22) eve if I have known the story since I was in high school, and if I could turn back time I wish I had read it long before.

No- I wouldn’t say it’s for adults only. Anyone can read it- but I would recommend you read it when you’re more mature to fully appreciate it. I read it at 13, but I was very mature- like more mature than many high schoolers and think of very adult concepts. A mature 12 year old could read it no problem.

"Dorian Gray" is not horror.

I wouldn't say so. I read it at 15 and didn't have any issues with the explicit scenes. It's also a great "beginner" book, thus many read it when they are young.

I read it my freshman year of high school with relative ease, so maybe not. I think it depends on your reading level, though (might want to look for any content warnings, too).

I think that the content in this book is fairly tame compared to what middle school and high schoolers are watching on TV or social media. The only question would be whether they could pick this book up and understand it since it does have complex themes and language that can be difficult to decipher for some. But honestly there is nothing graphic or explicit

To me really not haha, but that’s probably because I read it at 13. I think it really depends on sensibility, but to me even the murder/death sequences weren’t particularly shocking (I suppose they could be but like.. yeah). The psychological part of it is probably the most disturbing, but although that might sound kind of stupid, the fact that it’s written during the Victorian era (= a long time ago) makes it WAY easier to read considering the use of language. to me the only thing that could make it 18+ is simply understanding all of it (not saying it’s impossible to read it at 13 and understand it, because I think I did, but I probably didn’t understand all the layers/complexity of it)

I read it though audiobook at thirteen I was very mature thoughh.

As others have said, the horror is more of the psychological variety than the blood and guts variety (it's late Gothic, so no scary monsters/blood all over the place/spontaneous werewolf transformation etc). It has a menacing atmosphere; there's murder; a character does drugs (in a Victorian context). I don't think it's anything that a reader aged 14+ couldn't handle.

The horror element of the book isn't that shocking, more psychological I would say. There are some debatable elements in this book that maybe can be considered 18+. So, my advise is this: if you are easily shocked and you can't handle murder-death or immorality, don't read it.

I wouldn't say the book is restricted for adults, but the 2009 movie adaptation is definitely too much for younger audiences. I would say that 14+ is a good age for the book, maybe 13 with hesitation, but 16/17+ for the movie adaptation. In the book, there are pretty graphic descriptions of murder in suicide, but most younger teens have seen worse in their favorite movies. There are definitely some elements that are questionable for those who are 10-12, but those things would likely fly right over their heads. There are several implicit instances of sexual encounters between two men and men and women, as well as romantic/sexual tension between Basil, Dorian, and Henry, but as I said, it's implicit, not explicit. You really have to be looking for it to find it. Depending on the version you read (specifically uncensored/pre-Lippincott's editions of the book), there are also verbal references to Dorian engaging in sexual activities with other men, but those references were struck from the story in the Lippincott's version and most printed versions of the book lack those lines due to the censorship that the original story went through to be published in America. In pre-Lippincott's versions of the story, there's also a greater amount of physical interaction between the main three characters, though it's nothing bad (they like to touch hands a lot). But all of that stuff would go over the heads of most kids. I noticed it when I read it at 16, but I also read Victorian Gothic literature almost exclusively. I was a huge nerd (and still am), but for the average 10-14 year old, none of that stuff would even register. The philosophies being presented throughout the book are meant to be satirical, but it's easy for young teens who are still experiencing the world for the first time to take it a little too seriously just because it's presented in a more "intellectual" manner (the comment by Doll sums up those qualms a lot better than I can). So long as you feel confident that they can handle it without taking too much of it to heart and trying to derive applicable meaning from it, then I would say teens as young as 13 could read it. Again, Doll explains this a lot better than I can.

And now for the movie adaptations. I won't be addressing any of the other adaptations, seeing as most of them were made between 1910-1918 in foreign languages. If you want a safe movie adaptation for your young teen, I would highly recommend the 1945 version. The 2009 adaptation, however, is definitely not for your young teen or the faint of heart. It's not the most faithful play-by-play recreation of the events of the book, but rather an attempt to remove the censor on what could have been. Oscar Wilde wasn't known for being shy about his identity as a homosexual, and while we'll never know what he would have written in a different time, it's always fun to infer. The 2009 adaptation is a gritty, graphic, sex-heavy interpretation of the original story with more than plenty R-rated scenes between both male/male and male/female pairs. The violent scenes are also much more graphic, but that's a given for any movie with violence made nowadays. It's a pretty controversial representation of the source material, but I definitely enjoyed it for what it was worth and what I believed they were trying to do with it. Detached from the source material, it's a solid movie on its own. Colin Firth, Ben Chaplain, and Ben Barnes are all wonderful actors and have wonderful chemistry with one another on screen. As for whether I would recommend it for teens, I would say that it would be better to wait until they're 17 or 18 to see it with them, or 16 if you feel that they can handle it. But to reiterate, it contains a LOT of graphic sexual content and is probably a scene away from an NC-17 rating. If you don't want your teen seeing a borderline NC-17, stick to the book or watch one of the many other adaptations made before that one. There's a Hungarian adaptation made 1918 with Bela Lugosi as Henry if your teen won't turn their nose up at a silent film. Bela Lugosi is always great in any movie he's in, sound or no sound.