Thoughts? Having been forced to read this I'm really unimpressed. Is everything Wilde wrote this lame?
It is. I learned it from this place.
/lit/, I am learning!!
Yes. Read Chesterton instead. He was a man of the depth and intelligence Wilde sought to ape with his insecure, glib antics.
Wilde probably died wishing he was French. His legacy is a fucking cancer upon literature and academia.
I just assigned the first chapter of this, you'd better not be my student. I don't assume most of my students will read it all though... and I only assigned the beginning.
In any case, I think Wilde's plays and De Profundis are better works than Dorian Gray, but DG is better than his poetry, easily.
Wilde doesn't present great depth in his writing, but he was a hell of a character who could put out some witty epigrams, that's for damn sure. I personally get pleasure from DG purely from reading Wilde's own identity through Lord Henry and Basil. Wilde was adamant that the artist shouldn't come out through his art when he lectured and wrote criticism, but essentially Basil argues that art itself is a representation more of the pure artist than the subject. Woo, contradiction. I think this work says a lot for who people thought Wilde was based on the character he played socially and who he actually was as an artist.
Quit bitching and read it if you're a grad student. What course are you in?
Yeah no, Earnest was hugely popular just before the trial happened.
I was about to agree with you, but this picture says otherwise.
>Bécquer at 19
Probably just his awkward phase
The uncensored version of Dorian Gray is much better. It reads like Huysmans and doesn't have all that stupid potboiler shit that his publishers made him add.
For example, in the uncensored book, Sybil Vane is like a four page scene and her brother (who, in the normal version is half the book) is never mentioned.