Well now, thank you Mr. Alley for corroborating some of my statements from last week, specifically "Personally I believe that Wilde was making a rather drastic set of statements on the tendencies of the English 'upper crust' to live a drastically duplicitous life. Where the idea of Victorian society was the important part no matter what vulgar or distasteful life they lived on their own." Part of this is pointed out when Alley brought forward the point that homosexual references were okay in Victorian society, so long as they were 'historical' or at least seemed that way. It was only when individuals like Wilde brought those ideas to a very forward and current standpoint, in Alley's opinion, did they become scandalous to the rest of society. Wilde saw this hypocrisy and choose to point it out with Basil's reactions to Dorian as the story went on. Alley quotes Phillip K. Cohen from The Moral Vision of Oscar Wilde, "Hallward is brought to "the verge of a terrible crisis in my life" (11) because Antinous has stepped out of ancient Rome and come into the immediacy of the painter's own studio. In this sense, the bedroom is not far off," among a great many other rather interesting statements breaking down the historical significance of the relationship between Basil and Dorian. It's also nice to see that Cohen and Alley also weigh heavily on the influences that Shakespeare placed on Wilde's writing, using Shakespeare's own works as glasses through which to view Wilde's story, almost as if one is a footnote to the other in literary significance.
In all honesty I wasn't a huge fan of this article, at least not all of it, but that doesn't really matter because it redeems itself, in my opinion, in the last two paragraphs. I think Alley really put a lot of his own emotions into that small bit of writing and we see that Wilde's son is just as eloquent as he was. Vyvyan Holland refers to the tragedy of his father as a "great historical tragedy" whose basis comes from the actions of "pompous and self important people." I can only assume here that Holland is referencing the members of English society who persecuted and condemned his father, because his statements about Wilde in his second quote just don't lend themselves towards Wilde being pompous or self important.
Alley makes two amazing statements about those who now exist in society without Oscar Wilde, almost pleading with the reader to not let Wilde's actions and persecution just sit idly by without any type of recourse. He's not asking for an uprising, instead he pleads for the continuation of Wilde's actions. He makes Wilde out to be an 'icon' for the gay rights movement, even before such a movement can say it existed in truth. "The catharsis of the enormous pity and fear elicited by
Wilde's extraordinary life and genius must be left to the biographers, who, like Hallward, must
celebrate once again the power of the initially beautiful painting and finish the formation of the icon." In the end there is also that plea, even though Wilde's life ended so painfully, to not allow that to be the thing that holds people back from embracing what could be a beautiful way to love, to allow those who have different feelings to strip away a duplicitous life and let people live as they truly desire.
The last note from Alley, and one of perhaps his most poignant arguments, just needs to be here to be seen.
"From the novel Women in Love through to the film Leaving Metropolis and the epic play Angels in America, the struggle for manifesting the affirming gay icon continues: it is the embrace of Hallward's "harmony and soul" that is still hungered for in those of us sympathetic to Wilde, tragedian and painter of innermost lives."
RIP
Oscar Wilde
1854 -1900
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is the blog that I'm using for my English course about the tradition of the Irish Novel during the spring semester of 2010 at UW-Milwaukee. It will be used to address questions and ideas brought up by a number of novels and critical articles assigned for my fellow students and I to read. I expect to see several questions or comments from my classmates as well hopefully fostering a number of strong discussions.
I enjoyed everything about your post and can't really find anything I disagree with!
ReplyDeleteOne reason I actual enjoy the dissection of this novel is because of the social implications it makes. Although the story itself was a downward spiral of despicable behavior, the overall message is timeless and powerful. Combining the story with the real life drama of Oscar Wilde only solidifies this more.
I also was drawn to the comments of Wilde's son, as you wrote,
"Vyvyan Holland refers to the tragedy of his father as a "great historical tragedy" whose basis comes from the actions of "pompous and self important people." I can only assume here that Holland is referencing the members of English society who persecuted and condemned his father"
It is endearing to me that Holland, fifty years after the death of his father, still feels so passionate and deffensive for him and denounces the hypocritical treatment he suffered from an intolerant society.
I suppose I hadn't read into it enough to realize that Alley was really campaigning for activism against the persecution of the gay population. I liked your take that he was "pleading with the reader to not let Wilde's actions and persecution just sit idly by without any type of recourse. He's not asking for an uprising, instead he pleads for the continuation of Wilde's actions. He makes Wilde out to be an 'icon' for the gay rights movement, even before such a movement can say it existed in truth." I could not say this any better and I think you're absolutely right!
You seem to be very passionate about the whole plight of Oscar Wilde and I have to say I was very much enthralled by this blog :)
Wow great post! I also liked what you said in your comment on Anne's post: Unfortunately we all over look the fact that Basil is just as guilty as Lord Henry. And that is on top of the fact that Dorian very well may never have met Lord Henry if it weren't for Basil Hallward. However it was both Dorian and Basil that were victims of hamartia, making their errors in judgment that eventually led to their eerily similar deaths. I'm pretty certain that this was done intentionally of course."
ReplyDeleteLike I said in another comment, I think Dorian wants nothing more than to be true to himself. There is definitely a collision of duality that leads to Dorian's failure and death. It seems like Dorian boils down to actions, consequences and effects. I couldn't agree more that Basil is just as dangerous in his thinking as Lord Henry is. Dorian definitely tries to yield to all temptations in order to reveal his true self and obtain happiness. In trying to appease his desires, he finds he can not escape consequences (of his own actions and those created by society). Because of this he feels guilt and struggles with the other philosophy of goodness being a means to happiness. Both the Hedonistic ideal and society's morals are both pre-constructed philosophies (it is impossible for Dorian to not be overdetermined). Dorian has an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other...being symbols for numerous aspects of morality, desire, action, and consequence. Dorian fails to balance the duality.
WS,
ReplyDeleteReading your post this week, I cannot help but wonder if there is some historical relevance to Wilde's plight to our own times. Just as Victorians thought references to homosexuality were "ok" as long as they were codified in antiquity, I think we sanction homosexuality only in "safe" spaces--arts, entertainment, etc. Homosexuals can act in our movies, sing for us, cut our hair, and provide a "queer eye for the straight guy," but God forbid they move in next door, teach our children, or *gasp* fall in love and want to get married. Wilde's trial, just like his plays, was really about unveiling the hypocrisy embedded in Victorian culture, which purported a certain sexual "morality" that was far from the actual reality. While Victorians did all they could to suppress homosexuality, they were at the same time strangely drawn to it, wanted to talk about it, speak about it, discuss it, analyze it, police it. Michel Foucault in his _History of Sexuality_ reverses our ideas of the "repression hypothesis" put forth by Freud and states that actually the MORE we discuss something, the MORE repressed we become. (See a great discussion on Foucault's reversal of the repressive hypothesis here:
http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/genderandsex/modules/foucaultrepressmainframe.html
The MORE Victorians talked about homosexuality (as opposed to just keeping it on the "DL" and "in the closet," as it were), the more this society could "police" that behavior. As the article above states, quoting Foucault, "The effect of all this rational discourse about sex was the increasing encroachment of state law into the realm of private desire: "one had to speak of [sex] as of a thing to be not simply condemned or tolerated but managed, inserted into systems of utility, regulated for the greater good of all, made to function according to an optimum. Sex was not something one simply judged; it was a thing one administered."
While Wilde probably began the trial as one big joke on Victorian society, in the end, it blew up in his face because the more Victorians talked about a queer lifestyle, the more they probably realized how imperative it was to "contain" it. Similarly, it does seem that the more we discuss gay marriage these days, the more there is a "backlash" against gays in our society. Another example is in our military wherein it's okay to be gay as long as we don't talk about it. Growing up, my father headed a lot of Army bands, and became best friends with a saxophone player who just happened to be gay. Everyone knew he was gay, but no one could say anything about it. Not only is this just inherently childish, it's also hypocritical and essentially ignores the fundamental reality that "gayness" exists.
I guess I'm starting to rant now, but very nice post. Very thoughtful.