www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Dorian Gray's true picture of Oscar Wilde

It is unique in the author's work for its direct sincerity, offering a uniquely authentic portrait of Wilde himself

The Picture of Dorian Gray

Portrait of the artist ... Colin Firth (left) and Ben Barnes in the 2009 film Dorian Gray

Though a product of the Victorian age, Oscar Wilde and his works always seemed thoroughly modern. I don't only mean that readers today easily relate to Wildean concepts; the universal will always be universal, and Shakespeare is as relevant as ever.

Rather, Oscar's sensibilities are so perfectly fitted to our time: sarcastic, idealistic, playful, gloomy, melodramatic, conflicted. He was a self-created superstar, with a weirdly modern awareness of all that entailed: manipulation of image, distancing humour and irony, persona as artistic statement.

And all those knowingly self-contradictory epigrams, simultaneously flippant and deathly serious, almost like Zen koans: coming at eternal truth by a sort of profound, solemn mischievousness.

I've always adored Oscar Wilde: the effervescent dramas and witty essays, and the construct that was Oscar, glamorous, riotous, effortlessly brilliant. But in an odd, paradoxical – you might almost say Wildean – way, my favourite of his works is The Picture of Dorian Gray, subject of Dublin's One City, One Book initiative for the last month.

Readings, exhibitions, walks and various other events have been marking the only novel Wilde published. And with a nice touch of synchronicity, I'd only recently reread the story, in a beautiful hardback collection of all Oscar's work, complete with Aubrey Beardsley's wonderfully stark illustrations, old playbills and so on.

Its story of Dorian Gray – a young man beautiful of face and spirit, seduced into dissolution and degradation by the impish hedonist Lord Henry "Harry" Wotton – is an unflinching meditation on moral corruption, the nature of the soul, heaven and hell.

In the opening scene we are introduced to the titular picture, painted by the deeply moral Basil Hallward. There's an air of foreboding from the beginning, as Basil declares he will never exhibit it, saying: "There is too much of myself in the thing … I am afraid that I have shown with it the secret of my own soul."

With Harry's Mephistophelean whispers in his ears, Dorian eventually eschews moral sobriety to wallow in indulgences of the flesh. Under the censorious strictures of the period none of this is spelled out explicitly, which makes it more powerful: the reader's mind imagines the worst of all scenarios.

Dorian's narcissism had already guaranteed his fall: he ushers up an unholy prayer that the portrait should age and bear the scars of his moral turpitude, while his physical self would forever look young and innocent. After he cruelly provokes the suicide of the sweet-natured Sybil, Dorian is fully lost but shows none of it on his angelic face; the picture, meanwhile, ages and degrades and grows rotten in the attic.

For me, Dorian Gray is special – not necessarily Wilde's best work but unique in his canon – because it's so sincere: ineffably, inescapably, absolutely. It's a very good novel anyway: moving, exciting, full of dread, angst, horror, lucidity… and a great love, I think, for mankind and for the artist's own self.

But above and underneath and beyond all this, he is sincere when he writes it. Not the normal Wildean sincere-in-his-insincerity (though Harry delivers a whirlwind of tremendous comic riffs), but old-fashioned, straight-up sincere.

No arch one-liners to deflect attention, no glib protestations that it was all just a joke, not to be taken seriously. This is authentic, almost painfully so; this is Oscar laid bare.

Elsewhere in his work we see mostly Public Oscar on display. Private Oscar was mostly kept concealed behind the dazzling wit. He can be found in a few other places: later works like De Profundis, some of the poetry and, in a strange way, the children's stories. But nowhere, for me, is the real Oscar revealed so much as through his alter-ego here, or rather his dual alter-egos: the beautiful, ruined Dorian and the cynical but empathetic Harry.

The One City, One Book website chooses a most appropriate quote: "The whole book seemed to him to contain the story of his own life, written before he had lived it."

And Dorian Gray is replete with similar lines, from various characters: "…seeing in that great work of art a presentation of the tragedy of his own soul." "I will show you my soul. You shall see the thing that you fancy only God can see." "It is the face of my soul."

In the text they're talking about Basil's portrait, or other works of art; in the broader narrative of the author's life, he is talking about the essence of Oscar Wilde. He's writing the book of himself in words and actions.
It's art imitating life imitating art, to infinity. It's pure Oscar. It's the real Oscar.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Post a comment
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • piersja piersja

    29 Apr 2010, 10:50AM

    I read Dorian Gray for the first time recently and whilst I wouldn't dispute the central assertion that Wilde is sincere I didn?t think Lord Henry offered anything like a ?whirlwind of tremendous comic riffs?; rather every time I came to a full page of him spouting a lot of strung together epigrams and aphorisms challenging and subverting morality, convention and Victorian hypocrisy with his awful but delightful caddishness (which is every single time he speaks) I thought, bugger that for the twentieth time, and skipped on.

  • tinlaurelledandhardy tinlaurelledandhardy

    29 Apr 2010, 5:59PM

    McManus

    What a perfect depiction of how many of us Wilde fans look at Wilde.In the first half of your article. However I must object when you say:

    This is authentic, almost painfully so; this is Oscar laid bare.

    and

    It's pure Oscar. It's the real Oscar.

    To me Dorian Gray's Portrait is written, not only from a bystanders perspective, but also with the distance of a bystander, though involved. Wilde is clearly writing about people/society he knew well and as the diciplined and and no-nonsense writer he was, he uses this acquaintance to write a good novel on a subject that was of great concern to him, though almost impossible to publish, except in disguise of a story in the horror genre. At the time much appreciated by the readership.

    So I think that although Wilde's is very much personally involved, considering his sweetheart's nature, he is not revealing his own personality in this novel more than in any other of his works.

    I agree it is a great novel and very much suited for the stage.

  • mbevel1972 mbevel1972

    29 Apr 2010, 7:40PM

    I don't think I'd characterize Dorian Gray as Victorian -- and that sort of solves your question about why it seems so modern. Sure, Vicky's still on the throne, so it's Victorian on a technicality; but the novels that we generally think of as Victorian -- Dickens, Eliot, Trollope, the Brontes, e.g. -- had their heyday through the middle of the century. Wilde and Gissing and Galsworthy I think of as post-Victorian. Even Thomas Hardy, who seems to be more often than not commenting on the Victorians rather than writing as a Victorian.

    Saying all of that: I don't think much of Dorian Gray. ("Who is this guy? First he wants to control time by switching out the definition of Victorian and now he's all, 'I don't think much of Dorian Gray like that's supposed to mean something...") I don't understand Wilde's argument throughout the novel, because I don't know that Wilde understands his arguments throughout the novel.

  • anytimefrances anytimefrances

    29 Apr 2010, 8:56PM

    I wouldn't characterise him as Victorian either, because he's closer in tone to Jane Austen who is...what? Augustan? You tell me...but let's not nit pick; his social milieu was and the PoDG is Victorian morality tale. I'm not much an admirer fo what seems to be his most popular pieces - the tale and the Ballad but his plays are wonderful, pure delight.

    I don't think he could have survived in our times; they are too too horrible for a man like him, with taste and values. I think he'd have despised everything about the late 20th and early 21st. His satire would have had too little effect on the brutalities of our times; it would have killed him in soul if not in body.

  • mbevel1972 mbevel1972

    29 Apr 2010, 9:31PM

    I don't want to appear to be a nitpicker -- but Jane Austen is generally considered Regency; or, at least, she wrote during the Regency. Austen is closer in tone to the Victorian writers that come after her than she is with the Regency writers that preceded her.

    I don't think Dorian Gray is a Victorian morality tale. It's definitely a morality tale, but I think he's commenting on Victorian society in the same way the Lytton Strachey would post WWI. I think the term "Victorian" gets abused too much; often it carries a connotation of prudery that isn't entirely fair. The Victorian novels deal with sex and brutality and the calculating nature of romance, and sometimes do so with more clear-eyed frankness than we do today. (Especially here in America, where we like to pretend that there is no class system at all, or that we've somehow transcended class.)

    But with Wilde in particular, I think the tone of the novel and the direction of the argument keep it from being a Victorian novel, much like the movies of the 1950s and 1960s don't bear a lot of commonality with the movies of the 1990s.

    I agree with you, though, that he wouldn't have survived in our times. His head would have long ago exploded from the powder keg that irony proves to be today.

  • tinlaurelledandhardy tinlaurelledandhardy

    29 Apr 2010, 11:36PM

    mbevel1972 & anytimefrances

    DGP is more written in the same style as RLS' Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Conan Doyle etc, I think. Horror fiction. Influences from Nietzsche and even from Dostoyevsky with the über ego, which by no means was an original thought of Freud. In this case, Wilde perhaps used an alter ego, but still.

    I think he wanted to rebel against the hush-hush in fiction about homosexuality, but knew it was pointless to just write a love story. Hence the popularisation into a bestselling genre which at the same time would keep the less imaginative section of readers at arms length. Or so I imagine.

  • kayfilex kayfilex

    30 Apr 2010, 8:57AM

    I am not convinced that The Picture of Dorian Gray does show the real Oscar Wilde, although De Profundis might. He seems to constantly be hiding behind masks or poses and it is difficult to understand what his true character was. With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to see that in The Picture he is confessing to living a double life, but the novel itself skirts even that truth because the nature of Dorian's sins is only ever hinted at (other than his treatment of Sybil).

    Sadly I think Wilde's downfall would have come sooner rather than later in modern society because if you become a celebrity there are less opportunities for keeping secrets. His fairly unpleasant lifestyle (Neil McKenna's book is well worth reading) would have been exposed much sooner

  • frustratedartist frustratedartist

    30 Apr 2010, 9:11AM

    I don't know about 'Victorian'- to me the word tends to be associated with Queen Victoria and her rather conservative tastes. But Wilde is definitely a 19th century writer and fits squarely in the middle of the 'Aesthetic' or 'Decadent' tradition- which had its roots in France (Gautier, Baudelaire, Huysmans, Verlaine ).In Britain Walter Pater, Swinburne and Wilde were the main Decadent writers. They were all dandies and cultivated an eccentric image- that whole dressing-up-to-the-nines-and-going-for-a-walk-with-a-pet-lobster-on-a-lead-and-a-lily-in-your-buttonhole think. Ok. maybe Baudelaire and Pater were a bit more understated in their dandyism. I suppose the 'futurist' poet Mayakovsky, and possibly the punk movement were 20th century equivalents.

    Willian Gaunt's 'The Aesthetic Adventure' is a great book on the subject. I do hope it's still in print.

  • frustratedartist frustratedartist

    30 Apr 2010, 9:30AM

    Oh- and "the portrait of Dorian Gray" rather like Huysmans' "A Rebours" which inspired it, is pretty much a manual of Decadence and one of the books that define the whole movement.

    In his epilogue to "A rebours " Huysmans wrote something like (I quote from memory here) : 'After writing a book like this I had only two options: the mouth of a pistol or the arms of the Church. I have made my choice.'

  • anytimefrances anytimefrances

    30 Apr 2010, 3:11PM

    Yes, I see the Augustans were long gone before Austen. As a last resort I've had to check with Wiki and find they disappeared in the 1740s. I tend to think of the Victorian times' writers as being emotional and the pre V ones more intellectual/satirical. Isn't there something though fairly Victorianish about the way Wilde regards sin as shameful and belonging to a secret world rather than just socially different? He was part of the decadent movement that explored sensation, particularly pleasure. I like him best for his brilliant wit and the way he was able to turn conventional ideology on its head; in this respect he was modern and I'm sure opened the doors to modern thinking for many. His Ballad and PDG to me seem very cloyingly emotional; his best work is surely light-hearted social comedy and sparkling commentary on the times. I've been lucky enough to have seen some of his plays performed on the stage in London and found them very delightful. There's nothing like him today. Writers today are all small minded types compared to the great Wilde, all wrapped up in bureaucracies of one kind or another; no real individuality or originality in thinking.

  • martinique martinique

    1 May 2010, 11:04AM

    I think the comparison with Austen is illuminating: both writers are dandified to a degree, with that indefinable (post- in Wilde's case of course) Regency form of aestheticism that differs so clearly from the Victorian (if you read his prose, Swinburne had a bit of that too). Perhaps it derives from the Restoration manner of such dramatists as Etherege or Congreve. But I cannot see that The Portrait of Dorian Grey tells us more about Wilde than Pride and Prejudice tells us about Austen. I would agree that De Profundis really tells us a lot more. I warmly recommend a great "Wilde" masterpiece based on this: Frederick Rzewski's eponymous work for pianist/speaker. It's stunning.

  • Haveatye Haveatye

    1 May 2010, 1:53PM

    I have always enjoyed Dorian Gray, however, I do not think it goes near far enough in its challenging of Victorian morality. It remains within the same paradigm as Faust or Don Giovanni, in that Dorian Gray gets his come uppance in the end. It's a Christian allegory and perhaps prefigures Wilde's own conversion to Catholicism. How much healthier is the Nietzschian attitude of beyond good and evil. The less we have of the old morality the better.

  • deadgod deadgod

    2 May 2010, 6:24AM

    Austen (1775 - 1817 -- dates as best as I can quickly find):

    Pride and Prejudice (1797; 1812)
    Northanger Abbey (1803)
    Sense and Sensibility (1811)
    Mansfield Park (1812-1814)
    Emma (1815)
    Persuasion (1816)

    ---

    Songs of Innocence (1789)
    The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790 - 1793)
    Songs of Experience (1794)

    Lyrical Ballads (1798 (-1805))

    The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (1797-1798)
    Biographia Literaria (1817)

    Childe Harold's Pilgrimage (1812; 1818)
    Don Juan (1819 - 1824)

    Ozymandias (1818)
    Ode to the West Wind (1819)

    Ode on a Grecian Urn (1819)
    Ode on Indolence (1819)
    Ode on Melancholy (1819)
    Ode to a Nightingale (1819)
    Ode to Psyche (1819)
    Ode to Autumn (1819)

    -----

    Austen is a capital-"R" Romantic.

    (I thought 'Regency' was Georgette Heyer . . .)

  • anytimefrances anytimefrances

    2 May 2010, 1:01PM

    Somehow I wouldn't call Austen a Romantic. I dunno but think it has something to do with the tone, more than dates. Romantic is a genre thing and has to do with the particular sensbility of the writer. The dichotomy i see between the Romantics and those that went earlier, Swift and Pope, is that the latter took an intellectual/critical attitude to their times with little or no emotional involvement, their main task being to keep the emotions under check by the intellect. The Romantics turned this on its head and gave free reign to the emotions, allowing them to dominate life and action. The Victorians developed the ideas of the Romantic movement and domesticised it, even to the extent of elevating pets as idols of love. Oscar Wilde is a bit like Austen but is more passionate, still he is the social critic and probably borrowed a lot from her. Who is that old woman in P&P who wants the rich dude to marry her daughter? She is so like Lady Bracknell; it seems like pure theft.

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

|

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Books blog weekly archives

Apr 2010
M T W T F S S

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Latest news on guardian.co.uk