Interesting. When I first read the Picture of Dorian Gray, I had no idea of its social context -- I didn't know Oscar Wilde was gay, I didn't know the book was considered controversial. I just picked it up on a whim and thought it was a well-written book full of fantastically clever dialogue and over-the-top cynicism. But I was, ironically, left with an impression that the Victorian era was more comfortable with male intimacy, and appreciation for male beauty, than our own. That turned out not to be quite true, of course, as demonstrated by what they did to Wilde himself.
> But I was, ironically, left with an impression that the Victorian era was more comfortable with male intimacy, and appreciation for male beauty, than our own.
This might not be an entirely faulty perception. Wilde was, I think, aiming for plausible deniability. To hide the homoeroticism amidst the pretense of merely intense platonic love. Because in that time such expressions were often permissible.
I've seen the theory phrased a few ways but here's one take. In sufficiently homophobic societies, the possibility that a man doing something we would perceive as homoerotic, is himself gay, is close to zero. Because no one would ever risk exposure. And so expression of non-sexual intimacies we would see as gay are not perceived as gay in those societies.
We see this shift in the recent literary tendency to "queer" platonic male relationships in historical literature. To use a slightly absurd example: are Sam and Frodo in the Lord of the Rings gay? It has been argued by some. (Put "Are Sam and Frodo" into Google and see what pops up on autocomplete to finish that question!)
I think it is the romantic (in the 19th century Wagnerian sense) and conservative worldview of Tolkien in action: the nature of the relationship is that of comrades-in-arms. And in that context certain intimacies that would be intolerable are otherwise not. That is why Sam says that he loves Frodo.
Another example the modern audience often just can't get over, is men who used to sleep together. In the most literal sense of the word. Platonic bed mates. Some guys did this even when other beds were available. Maybe they were cold. But maybe they were just lonely? if some women put on pajamas and have a movie-watching slumber party they probably won't get called lesbians. But men must tread carefully today at least in America for that kind of thing. There is just some mental block in our society with that kind of intimacy between two men. But perhaps not back then. (Or maybe Abraham Lincoln really was gay. But I kind of doubt it.)
Wilde is right on the transition point when it started to be conceivable that a man is actually a self-identifying homosexual and that male intimacy might therefore be coded as homosexual. He played with that ambiguity. And in his case, got burned.
Why is your example absurd?
I read LoTR and definitely had the sense that Sam & Frodo were gay. I actually thought the hollywood version sanitized this away entirely and assumed it was because it'd be 'too controversial' at the time the films were made.
I read it for the first time in my early 20s, and reason I read it was because when I was about 11 years old I saw an old black and white movie of it, and I had nightmares for quite some time (over the ending/fire).
It wasn't the only film to give me nightmares as a child, but it was definitely the first!
For me it is one of those books I re-read every few years, along with LotR, Amber chronicles, the Dune series, etc.
There’s a line in the book I quite liked: “All the interesting people disappear to San Francisco.” Was incredible to me that even back then, SF was known for its homosexual culture. Lord Henry was remarking on where Basil likely had disappeared, so the insinuation was that Basil felt more at home in SF.
Apparently there are several, significantly different versions of "The picture of Dorian Gray". I'm not sure which one I've read, or which one I should read. Any suggestions?
They're all great, but the 2012 "The Uncensored Picture of Dorian Gray" is the closest to the original script before the editor cut out things that he deemed... checks notes... "too gay".
It restores parts that were cut, and essentially bans chapter 3 and some other digressions on art history that Wilde added as a literary Beard to the footnotes - still there to read, but set in context)
It's not a huge different honestly, but I believe Oscar Wilde would want you to read that version.
I'd place it 5th in my overall favorite books list. It is certainly one which has influenced me deeply and continues to do so, ever since I first read it 13 years ago.
https://archive.ph/pdEL2
Interesting. When I first read the Picture of Dorian Gray, I had no idea of its social context -- I didn't know Oscar Wilde was gay, I didn't know the book was considered controversial. I just picked it up on a whim and thought it was a well-written book full of fantastically clever dialogue and over-the-top cynicism. But I was, ironically, left with an impression that the Victorian era was more comfortable with male intimacy, and appreciation for male beauty, than our own. That turned out not to be quite true, of course, as demonstrated by what they did to Wilde himself.
But it's still a fantastic novel.
> But I was, ironically, left with an impression that the Victorian era was more comfortable with male intimacy, and appreciation for male beauty, than our own.
This might not be an entirely faulty perception. Wilde was, I think, aiming for plausible deniability. To hide the homoeroticism amidst the pretense of merely intense platonic love. Because in that time such expressions were often permissible.
I've seen the theory phrased a few ways but here's one take. In sufficiently homophobic societies, the possibility that a man doing something we would perceive as homoerotic, is himself gay, is close to zero. Because no one would ever risk exposure. And so expression of non-sexual intimacies we would see as gay are not perceived as gay in those societies.
We see this shift in the recent literary tendency to "queer" platonic male relationships in historical literature. To use a slightly absurd example: are Sam and Frodo in the Lord of the Rings gay? It has been argued by some. (Put "Are Sam and Frodo" into Google and see what pops up on autocomplete to finish that question!)
I think it is the romantic (in the 19th century Wagnerian sense) and conservative worldview of Tolkien in action: the nature of the relationship is that of comrades-in-arms. And in that context certain intimacies that would be intolerable are otherwise not. That is why Sam says that he loves Frodo.
Another example the modern audience often just can't get over, is men who used to sleep together. In the most literal sense of the word. Platonic bed mates. Some guys did this even when other beds were available. Maybe they were cold. But maybe they were just lonely? if some women put on pajamas and have a movie-watching slumber party they probably won't get called lesbians. But men must tread carefully today at least in America for that kind of thing. There is just some mental block in our society with that kind of intimacy between two men. But perhaps not back then. (Or maybe Abraham Lincoln really was gay. But I kind of doubt it.)
Wilde is right on the transition point when it started to be conceivable that a man is actually a self-identifying homosexual and that male intimacy might therefore be coded as homosexual. He played with that ambiguity. And in his case, got burned.
Why is your example absurd? I read LoTR and definitely had the sense that Sam & Frodo were gay. I actually thought the hollywood version sanitized this away entirely and assumed it was because it'd be 'too controversial' at the time the films were made.
It is a good read, even now.
I read it for the first time in my early 20s, and reason I read it was because when I was about 11 years old I saw an old black and white movie of it, and I had nightmares for quite some time (over the ending/fire).
It wasn't the only film to give me nightmares as a child, but it was definitely the first!
For me it is one of those books I re-read every few years, along with LotR, Amber chronicles, the Dune series, etc.
I always wondered what trait was left on the picture when Dorian Gray considered converting to Catholicism
The fates of Wilde and Turing are two big black stains on the history of the UK (not the only ones, of course).
Turing even more, as by 1950, the society was much less religious overall and there was less reason to keep homosexuality illegal.
I think you meant to say their treatment was two big black stains. A bit awkwardly worded implying the men themselves were the stains.
Thanks. I fixed that. I am not a native speaker and I sometimes fall into such traps, but this I could have seen.
There’s a line in the book I quite liked: “All the interesting people disappear to San Francisco.” Was incredible to me that even back then, SF was known for its homosexual culture. Lord Henry was remarking on where Basil likely had disappeared, so the insinuation was that Basil felt more at home in SF.
Dorian Gray jokes never get old...
Except for that one written on the last page of the notebook that definitely did not age well.
Apparently there are several, significantly different versions of "The picture of Dorian Gray". I'm not sure which one I've read, or which one I should read. Any suggestions?
They're all great, but the 2012 "The Uncensored Picture of Dorian Gray" is the closest to the original script before the editor cut out things that he deemed... checks notes... "too gay".
It restores parts that were cut, and essentially bans chapter 3 and some other digressions on art history that Wilde added as a literary Beard to the footnotes - still there to read, but set in context)
It's not a huge different honestly, but I believe Oscar Wilde would want you to read that version.
It
I'd place it 5th in my overall favorite books list. It is certainly one which has influenced me deeply and continues to do so, ever since I first read it 13 years ago.
Now everyone including me wants to know your top 4!
yes! I’m interested as well!
I concur. Give us your list, GP :-)
A wonderful play. The production of this with Sarah Snook from Succession was absolutely amazing.
The longest lasting impact of the novel (personally for me) was how it introduced me to the concept of Opium Dens
I just recently listened to this from Audible. I was a grand novel. The dialogue was amazing.
Which version did you listen to?
Uhm, actually, the PICTURE of Dorian Gray ages.