The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Below are some questions for the first few chapters. For those who recently read The Sorrows of Satan, you may want to compare the stories as we go along.


The preface, which I assume was added after the first publication and its reception, states "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all." Do you agree with this?

In Chapter 1, we meet Lord Henry Wotton, (also called Harry)who seems to have no occupation except being rich and clever and Basil Hallward, an artist. Lord Henry spouts many aphorisms that sound like lines from one of Oscar Wilde's plays. Do you have any favorites?

What do we learn about Dorian Gray in this chapter even though we don't see him?

In Chapter 2, we meet Dorian. We see him through Lord Henry's eyes, and Henry is immediately captivated by him. What can we actually learn about Dorian for ourselves? Toward the end of this chapter, Dorian makes a fateful wish and expresses dislike for the picture. How do the others react to this?

In Chapter 3, we learn about Henry's family but also something of Dorian's ancestry. A few women now enter the scene or are discussed. But does it seem like the book so far is all about men?

On the other hand, in Chapter 4, talk turns to women. One month after the start of the book, Henry and Dorian are fast friends, and Dorian enthusiastically shares his love for an actress, Sybil Vane. How does Henry react and does this make any difference to Dorian?

First, let me begin by saying that I found the start of this novel a little annoying-it is as if Wilde had come up with a whole lot of clever little sayings and wanted to write a novel so he could sprinkle them liberally throughout. Too many of them take the form of "the only thing worse than X is the opposite of X", and while individually they are clever and amusing, there are far too many of them (and of course some of them are famous stand-alone quotes now).

Dorian Gray is a physically beautiful young man for whom our painter Basil Hallward appears to have developed a strong passion, both to spend time with him and to paint him. He adores his innocence and views him as his muse as well as his best subject. Dorian himself is an amateur musician and, when we first meet him, is helping Harry's Aunt Lady Agatha do good works in the East End. He in fact seems rather a blank canvas himself, onto whom various characters project their views.

Basil Hallward initially implores his friend Lord Henry to leave Dorian alone, essentially not to corrupt him. Yet he then apparently leaves him entirely in Harry's hands, which I suspect is a very dangerous place for a beautiful young man to be.

Good point that Dorian is a "blank canvas" for painters, musicians, writers and others. And it does sort of seem like Henry steals Dorian from Basil.

I read the first two chapters so far. I agree with Frances that the start was a bit annoying. I guess one has to reread the preface after one read at least part of the book.
Dorian Gray comes across as a rather beautiful man without many other distinguishing features. He turns out to be quite impressionable and a bit naive for his age. Henry „tries“ some theory about youth on him, that he most likely not fully believes in himself, planting a fateful seed in the young man.
I agree that he Henry steals away Dorian from Basil, his friendship to Basil seems to be superficial, and he has no second thoughts about occupying the young man’s imagination. Dorian becomes the plaything of a bored aristocrat.

I've just come to the end of Chapter 1 - aim to do the rest of the week's reading by tonight.

I think I'll be in the minority here: I liked the preface. To me, it read almost like a poem; just a collection of exaggerated thoughts. Wilde always strikes me as the type of person to vehemently declare something he didn't really believe just for the sake of absurdity, which makes the preface interesting to unpick.

It's the same sort of wanton arrogance and needless provocation that I love about Henry Fielding, who rather seemed to be rolling his sleeves up ready to slap his reader across the face by insulting their intelligence and ability to appreciate good literature. Anyway! I'll be back later with thoughts on the above questions :-)

I’m also only two chapters in. What was striking me across the face was all the Edenic imagery used to describe the artist’s studio, which conditioned me to see Lord Henry as the snake in the garden. When compared to the Corelli book, that intent seemed more clear—the sophisticate overwhelming the sense (and, in this case, senses) of the innocent. Also, his mots follow a repetitive pattern of reversing common wisdom, which associates him with the Lord of Misrule.

We’re definitely in the realm of myth, as the repeated references to all things Greek reinforce. (Those references also double as references to the gay subculture of the age.) The beautiful, bee-loud garden can’t be in the real world—this takes place in 1890s London, after all, which would have been noisy and cloaked in greasy coal-heavy fog.

It’s non-realist and illogical in other ways. Basil Hallward is supposed to have disappeared from the world but he attends the parties of Lord Henry’s aunt, for instance, and sometimes displays his paintings in major shows.

The preface tells a lot about the way Oscar Wilde’s mind works as well as his personality. Instead of presenting a logical argument in essay form, he makes a series of pronouncements that only gradually and partially cohere. Like Lord Henry, his shtick is the epigram. At first the preface seems like a series of answers to the criticisms of the first version of this story, as if he had been nursing his wounds from the reviews. But gradually he pulls the pronouncements together into the beginnings of a theory of art (“beginnings” because he merely asserts, he doesn’t elaborate). It has been nearly half a century since I read Plato’s ideas about art, but doesn’t he take a similar approach? So Wilde may be being allusive. Lord Henry’s theory of youth is produced in much the same way.

I’m enjoying it a lot so far.

I also enjoyed Lord Henry's wit, even if it had little to do with the story. It shows his flippant attitude toward life. There's a sad undertone in how cynical he is, since nothing matters and the world is flawed, just indulge your whims and impress people with your wit.

Abigail wrote: "I've just come to the end of Chapter 1 - aim to do the rest of the week's reading by tonight.

I think I'll be in the minority here: I liked the preface. To me, it read almost like a poem; just a ..."

Just to clarify, I did enjoy the preface, it was the opening chapters that I found somewhat annoying-not the overall story development but the too frequent aphorisms/bon mots.

Abigail wrote: "I’m also only two chapters in. What was striking me across the face was all the Edenic imagery used to describe the artist’s studio, which conditioned me to see Lord Henry as the snake in the garde..."

Loved these comments, Abigail, particularly about the non-realistic aspects.

I have to say I picture Wilde himself in the character of Lord Henry!

It is very entertaining to read the witticisms of Henry. There is some pointed criticism of the lifestyle of the aristocracy underlying these pronouncements. It has indeed some otherworldly aspects to it.
The prelude might have worked better as a postlude. To start the novel like this is a bit overwhelming. Later on things become more clear.

The beginning is fast and furious with little in the way of description of the different characters apart from the fact that Dorian is beautiful. It is the words spoken by Basil, Henry and Dorian that help us to understand their personalities.

I agree with Frances that the witticisms are overdone. They make the opening conversations unrealistic and overwhelming. I think that Wilde must have had a list of these witticisms to call upon as he was writing in his study because I noticed at least one, and maybe more, are reused in his plays.

Lord Henry seems more like Lord Byron than Oscar Wilde himself, in the way he denigrates women and is always seeking out new pleasures. However, I think he represents all those aristocratic young gentlemen of the time who arrogantly used and abused family, friends and acquaintances to satisfy their lusts. I haven’t yet decided if he is a personification of the devil, but Abigail’s serpent certainly strikes a chord.

Basil Hallward is more of a puzzle to me. At first I thought he represented the antithesis of Henry, searching for purity and beauty, the best that life can offer. In finding Dorian, here was someone who offered the opportunity for Hallward to finally achieve his artistic goal. Yet his efforts to protect Dorian are pathetic. How can he admire both the degenerate that is Lord Henry, a man who will spoil anyone else’s ambitions to further his own, and also Dorian Gray? Did Hallward really believe that Henry was a good husband?
Even in these first few chapters Hallward comes across as weak and simpering so I don’t think there is any chance of him reclaiming Dorian in either body or spirit.

Dorian’s naivety is the overriding impression I get in these first few chapters. He is mesmerised by Lord Henry’s lurid talk and swagger and at the same time captivated by the simple beauty and innocence (assuming she is innocent) of Sybil. To swiftly ‘engage’ himself to Sybil is almost as reckless as taking up with the libertine Lord Henry.

I’ve now read all this section and find myself wishing I were reading the original version of the story, the one in the periodical. In case anyone doesn’t have an introduction, Wilde published a shorter version of the story the year before the book version came out; it made it much more apparent that the main characters are gay and sexual jealousy was involved in Basil’s attempts to keep Lord Henry away from Dorian. The critics had a conniption so in the book version Wilde toned down that side of things and plumped up the “philosophy.” The first version makes more sense to me, and without the gay context some of the elements of these chapters seem unmotivated.

Abigail is correct. The original version would be much better! To minimize the apparent sexual tensions does not help. And part of the fourth chapter are a bit too „philosophical“, I had to read it several times to make some sense out of it. It does not help the novel at all.
I previously stated that I liked the witticisms of Henry, but I have to agree with Trev, there are simply too many of them. Especially when I reread parts of this first section. I also thought that this was more like a staged play than a novel.

Even in this version, the admiration for beautiful men and the closeness of the male characters jumped out at me. I suppose it might have fooled some Victorians, but then and now Wilde's own life was pretty well known.

Some comments, mainly "seconding' previously insightful comments:

- The witticism in the first chapter might have been a bit much but did seem appropriate as the introductory act in the play that, like Detlef notes, the novel felt like to me.
- I'm not sure I would have preferred the more explicitely gay version of the magazine serial. I probably get more pleasure out of seeing Wilde's skill at inserting a gay context with more subtle lines and situations that would not have been so obvious to the majority of readers. Or maybe not so subtle since, as Robin notes, it still jumps out to the modern reader and possibly to those Victorian readers in-the-know.
- If I was producing a movie of this book in the 1940s, George Sanders would certainly "jump out" as the perfect actor to play Lord Henry. I have pictured Lord H as Sanders from the start.
- I don't picture Dorian as Hurd Hatfield. Some describe Dorian as a blank canvas, which he kind of is, and that would fit Hurd. To me, Dorian seems more good-naturedly naive than blank; pretty much how Trev describes him. At this tme, I feel more empathy with Dorian and like him more than I anticipated.

I just started this and have only read two chapters so far. I struggled with the preface and ended up skimming it. And I thought chapter one was too dense with philosophical musings to the point that I was really hoping the rest of the book was not going to be like chapter one! Chapter two was better so I’m hoping to see some action take place soon.

Thought I’d pop in and update… I don’t know a lot of the context around this novel and haven’t read much of Wilde before. Finding all the information and insights in this conversation really interesting. I find Wilde’s prose style resonates with something in my brain that always makes his stuff a pleasure to read. I am rather finding the dialogue very similar to that of The Importance of Being Earnest which I reread recently, also reminds me of the slightly ruder satire plays of the earlier 19th c. Anyway, enjoying it a lot!

The tone does change during the book, probably some of you will find that to be an improvement and others won't!

Robin P wrote: "Lord Henry spouts many aphorisms that sound like lines from one of Oscar Wilde's plays. Do you have any favorites?"

Last night I watched ‘The Imitation Game,’ a biopic about the mathematician Alan Turing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imi...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/

It reminded me of one of the aphorisms I had highlighted in this opening section

’There is a fatality about all physical and intellectual distinction, the sort of fatality that seems to dog through history the faltering steps of kings. It is better not to be different from one’s fellows. The ugly and the stupid have the best of it in this world.’

As I was reading the sayings of Lord Henry, I was constantly reminded of Wilde's various plays-since he was constantly quoting his own aphorisms.
I had forgotten what an innocent Dorian was and Henry appears to be his tempter and corrupter. I wanted to take Dorian and keep him away from Henry.

Good instincts!