Hi Pam! I read somewhere that 'Faust'- by Johann Wolfgang Goethe had a similar theme to Dorian Grey. An interesting side note: Wilde based that book that "corrupted" Dorian on Joris Karl Huysmans 'A Rebours' (or 'Against the Grain').

I am afraid I cannot compare them, as I have only read 'The Picture of Dorian Grey'. I was thinking of posting a discussion on it, but decided not to.
Did you like it? It was a let-down for me. I thought the last part of it was good, but can't say the same for the rest of it. I am very interested to hear other opinions of it.
CMK

The Picture of Dorian Gray is much more like Faust in that Dorian makes a pact with the devil. Dr. Jekyll doesn't do that, but is interested in escaping the boredom of his life.

I read D.G. a couple of years ago and didn't remember the part about A Rebours. Thank you for mentioning it. Dorian became fascinated with the book, but Lord Henry sent it to him. In the first chapter, Basil pleaded with Lord Henry not to influence Dorian. Please excuse a dumb question, but why does he call him both Henry and Harry? Why was it a let-down? Did you find it slow? I thought the incident with the actress had happened in the beginning, but looking at it again, I see that it was halfway through the book. I zipped right through to that point.
Pam

A Rebours was never mentioned by name in the text, I only read it later in the endnotes. I really enjoyed the endnotes of this book (my edition was Penguin Classics) as they showed the parts Wilde's editor took out for being too explicit in its homosexual themes.

I think Harry is a nickname of Henry, like Liz, Lizzy, Eliza, and Beth are for 'Elizabeth'.

When I first read about this book I was sure I would like it, as I often enjoy books that have a moral theme. I have read that this book can be interpreted in several ways. Many seem to read it as a moral work warning against vices, such as the ones Dorian indulges in (or falls prey to). I did not get that from the book myself. It seemed to me that "moral" was just a front and that Wilde was only writing about his lifes story and triumphs.

I found the book rather choppy. Wilde did not seem to know how to narrate a story. It was a little hard to get into at first, but I enjoyed the last third of the book. I did not care care for middle, which seemed rather void of plot. This part was mostly about the authors own philosophies, which is funny considering Wilde said that: "An artist should create beautiful things but should put nothing of his own life into them."
I found Wilde's writing style rather pretentious, like he just enjoyed hearing the thoughts he formed. Cleverness for Cleverness' sake I think.

This book was baffling at times. I could never tell if the outrageous ideas presented were meant to be that way (so as to be blatant to the reader how false they were) or if Wilde actually believed what he was saying. Only after reading his bio did I find out that he really believed what he said (though I rather think he did not understand what it is he said).

I don't think I have ever more disagreed with someone than I do with Wilde. He promoted the ideas of Aestheticism, which is the belief that everything does (or should) revolve around aestetic beauty. I am very much against this.

This is also where the idea of "Art for Art's Sake" comes in. As a great lover of art I am against this. That is not to say that art made solely for the sake of beauty can not be good and really contribute something to society. But what would the world be like if every piece of art was made only to be beautiful? Where would the passion be? What about TRUTH and REALITY?? Just imagine what it would be like if this idea had been adopted; there would be no religious or tribal art! There are many purposes for art and each one is important. Wilde should have know this if he was so knowledgeable in the ways of art.

Wilde did introduce a few interesting ideas, such as: Can literature corrupt? Are certain traits and tendencies hereditary? I ponder over them now and again.

Sorry this post is so long! I really enjoy talking about this! Please pardon my many spelling mistakes.
CMK

Your post gave me a lot to ponder. I enjoy biography, so now I would like to read Wilde's. My first thought is that literature can corrupt just as other things can. Or is it that we are only corrupted when we are inclined in a particular direction anyway?

I read Intellectuals by Paul Johnson and many great philosophers certainly did not live "true" to their writings.

Sorry I did not write back sooner. I am afraid I was misleading; I just read it online.

Can Literature Corrupt? It is certainly an interesting discussion question. My first thought on it was 'No', but I wonder sometimes.
The reason I first thought no was because I myself have never been tainted by any "bad" books (though that also raises the questions of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'?). But then there are books that can change ones mindset for the better. This got me thinking, if one can be inspired by a book can they not also be corrupted by one? Could we say yes to one but not the other?

Somehow I still can not agree that books can corrupt; it is the fault of the reader for letting them corrupt. Books are like any other outside infulence and it is up to the individual person to decide whether they should or should not be guided by it.
I have met with several books that are meant to do good in the minds of its readers, but I have never read a book that has set out to tempt one into something wrong. Have you?

I first encountered the idea of 'corrupting books' in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey. The main character, Catherine, is an avid reader of Gothic novels. She reads so many of them that she is badly influenced. She looses her grip on reality and lets her imaginations run away with her because of them.

One idea I do agree with Wilde on is that everyone brings thier own understandings and experiences to something. I never thought of it before reading DG, but it is true. I suppose that is why everyone interprets art and literature so differently.
CMK

I agree we allow things to influence us. The bigger discussion today is about television. People are also influenced by religious ideas that may be new to them. I haven't known anyone so taken with a book as D.G. was. All in all, I'm glad I read it. The old movie stays close to the book.

I didn't know there was a movie made of DG. Thanks for mentioning it.

You are right about religion. Just think of the influence religious texts have had on the world. They started out to inspire, but have just created conflict.

I have Dr. J Mr. H on my list of books to read. This post has got me interested in it and its similarities to DG. When I do read it I will be sure to dig up this thread agian and reply.
Happy reading!
CMK