Suzanne wrote:MaryLupin wrote:

I am afraid I have to disagree with the idea that only the beautiful soul can create true art.

I don't agree with it either, this is how I think Wilde see society, how it feels. The best example I can think of would be, to see a beautiful painting, something that touches your heart, how lovely. Then finding out it was painted by a pedophile. I know this is exaggerated, but would the painting be as lovely?

I agree with you here. Finding stuff like this out does impact my response to a piece of art. Yet I still want to know because it complicates my pleasure. I am very wary of simple emotions - at least in me. They seem to me to indicate a want of depth, of knowledge, of experience.

I don't know if I agree with you about Wilde though. I do think he was upset (understandably) with the way he was treated and with the "Philistines" who judged his book because of its homoeroticism. He wasn't free to be who he was born to be. And of course that came out in the book. I do wonder how much of what happened to him he saw as his own faulty judgment and how much blame he placed on the shoulders of others? Yet at the end of the book Dorian refuses all self blame and all responsibility and is outraged when his picture doesn’t show a favourable reaction to his one good deed. It seems to me that this says Wilde favoured the idea of an individual’s responsibility for the state of his own life. But I don’t know.

Suzanne wrote:Still pondering Harry. Someone had a flower in his lapel, Wilde always had a flower in his lapel. Who is it? I want to say it was Harry, or was it Dorian? Drat, can't find it.

Well there is a scene near the end when the still young Dorian is talking to Hallward and he takes a flower out of his coat...is that the one you mean?

Suzanne wrote:We are the future, PoDG is a century old, has society stopped judging?

No. Humans will never stop judging. And of course, we will never be either right or wrong about the judgments we make, not in any sure sense. All we can do is assess ourselves and each other against some standard we hold to be a good guide. It's just that what Wilde thought to be a good guide was quite different than what many of his contemporaries thought to be proper. The only reason we agree more with Wilde than with his critics, is because people like us have fallen more in line with the aesthetic of the artist and tend to reject ideas that try to limit artistic expression and creation. I think I have a good guide with which to judge but I also recognize that just because I think it is better (and act like it too) doesn't mean it is better. Am I being clear?

MaryLupin:

I think I have a good guide with which to judge but I also recognize that just because I think it is better (and act like it too) doesn't mean it is better. Am I being clear?

Yes, and I think it is comendable that you "act" upon those beliefs. Many say one thing, then do another. It's also comendable that you recognize your belief may not be better than someone elses. Those two sentances say a lot, sounds like you have a very solid moral compass.

I would diffently say PoDG would be considered a "big bite". Thanks for finding the flower in the lapel passage. If Dorian puts the flower in the lapel, there is a conection with Wilde. But, I agree, there is a conection with Harry as well. Add Basil,and what do you get, ego, super ego? There are so many things to ponder over in this book. Someone, somewhere, said, "Dorian gets off easy at the end". I thought it was a perfect, private ending for Dorian. At the end of the day, we are alone with our conscious.

Suzanne

Suzanne wrote:If Dorian puts the flower in the lapel, there is a conection with Wilde. But, I agree, there is a conection with Harry as well. Add Basil,and what do you get, ego, super ego? There are so many things to ponder over in this book. Someone, somewhere, said, "Dorian gets off easy at the end". I thought it was a perfect, private ending for Dorian. At the end of the day, we are alone with our conscious.

Dorian takes the flower out of his coat and pretends to smell it. I think that says a lot about the connection. He is rejecting the pleasures of male caring and male connection that the flowers have come to represent. Afterall he does kill his painter. But yes, I do get a sense that in some way all three men are expressions of some aspect that Wilde found in himself although I am not sure I would go Freudian. He's a little for my tastes.

I doubt Dorian got off easy in the end. Not if this soul was a force on its own. Whatever hell Wilde posited for his world, Dorian got to go there.

MaryLupin wrote:

Dorian takes the flower out of his coat and pretends to smell it. I think that says a lot about the connection. He is rejecting the pleasures of male caring and male connection that the flowers have come to represent.

Spot on! I can see it now.

One other question to ponder. Wilde loved music, and music is mentioned in the book. Do you think creators of music, enjoyed by the ears, are judged less then those artists who create visual art? Are our ears less judgmental than our eyes?

MaryLupin wrote:

But yes, I do get a sense that in some way all three men are expressions of some aspect that Wilde found in himself although I am not sure I would go Freudian. He's a little   for my tastes.

Too funny! I prefer Jimminy Cricket! He sits on my shoulder.

Suzanne

Boheme wrote:intrigue me. I felt rather detached at the whole Sibyl infatuation/marriage proposal/death episode, and wonder if that is not part of Wilde's ability: the reader reacts (or fails to react) the same way as Dorian did: as an observer, but not really responsible either for emotional responses or their consequences.

Well, that, Boheme is exactly what I was thinking too - only I was wording it differently in my mind. Maybe that's why I haven't expressed it yet - just didn't have the right words.

You have obviously found them - I'd like to go further in saying all this puts me in mind of a Buddhist talk I once heard . . . the talk suggested that we, as humans, should not allow ourselves to become too impressed or unimpressed with any 'thing' or any 'one' . . .

That's one of our problems as humans, I think; look at the recent mania about Michael Jackson. People were filmed and shown on public television crying their hearts out over this.

How do they handle the reality of death in their own lives? The Jacksons and their like don't really have anything to do with our lives - not directly. Certainly our hearts go out to the family, the friends and people involved in the music business - people who are really affected by his death.

But is it really anything to get hysterical about?

Why eat our hearts out when these deaths occur? Why add more grief to our lives than we are given to deal with in our own families and friends?

Why dramatize that which normally occurs?

I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't grieve, but why grieve for that which doesn't really concern us.

Another view I have of the advice given in that Buddhist talk is that it is not wise to develope passions for such things as food. We should strive to enjoy dishes that involve plain vegetables and meats, as much as we enjoy pizza and spaghetti sauce with ten different cheeses in it.

There are two things that can happen:

1) the doctor can forbid you to eat anything all that rich or spicy;

2) it can become unaffordable!

But still we make the same mistakes - the baby is weaned off the breast or bottle, and introduced to baby food. Naturally the little monkey's going to like that lovely banana flavoured food and prefer it to the mashed carrots.

How many new mothers are told - do not introduce the baby to cookies - even though it shuts them up for a while - nothing like a good munch on the ole cookies - but it gives them a 'preference' for sweets. That preference is something that's going to come back and bite them in their 'sure-to-be-fat' tooches when they're older.

OK . . . I'll get off my soapbox now.

Last night (just before that dreadful storm broke out - you probably heard about it), we were at the supermarket. The three young girls behind us at the checkout were happily looking over their purchases in the cart - a heck of a lotta' junk food - and chatting about music.

One of them broke out into song . . . her two friends were embarassed - everybody's looking, one said, but I said 'no - go on - it's free entertainment!'

She was a great singer, knew the lyrics, how to place them, how to breathe - she has the makings of a great performer, the way I saw it.

But unless she's got a lot of money, a rich uncle, parents who will let her devote twenty years of her life to music and giving a lotta' freebie performances, she's not gonna' make it.

Why? Because people naturally tend to follow performers with the most publicity money to spend.

That, of course, doesn't really matter if you think about it - art is to be shared, not bought.

Art is NOT a contest; it's a celebration!

Someday the world might see that.

If an actress would play her talent down - hide her own light - thinking that her lover might want her to be more 'herself', then I think she'd be as shallow as the lover who would leave her for putting on a poor performance.

I didn't really sympathize with this character; I identify more with Dorian's housekeeper - she was one of the few 'real' people in the book.

But still, I enjoyed the story - I think that's because I haven't given myself a chance to 'over-analyze' it yet.

I don't think I will present that gift to myself. Some things are better left -un-given.

I'm not much of an analyzer; I don't go looking for symbols, regardless of what the English/Comp teacher has to say. I like metaphors, but there are few occasions when I'm that impressed by the use of a colour.

Red - that's obvious.

Grey - that's obvious.

And that is about all I need to think of.

Flowers are flowers . . . lovely to look at, smell and put in the garden. I need to know what they need in the way of sun or shade, what kind of soil and can they be taken in over the winter.

I don't really need to know much more about them.

We can leave this forum up for as long as you like. Nice to have you back.

Well, I dunno', Chris . . . I've said pretty well all I want to say about the book.

It's a good story.

I'm wondering why more people weren't interested in this discussion.