Posted on 03/21/2005 10:10:56 AM PST by mft112345
I recently finished reading Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray.
In the preface of the novel, Wilde states: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all." "The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium."
Wilde addresses the "subject matter" of the moral life when he describes the gradual corruption of Dorian Gray,who turns to hedonism and murder.
Contrary to Wilde, readers can and do delve beyond this "subject matter" all the time when they judge the way a character changes in a novel and when they decide whether an ending is just or unjust.
While it may be difficult to call Wilde's novel immoral (when the work is judged as a whole), it's fair for the reader to reach moral conclusions about this novel's countless epigrams and arguments that encourage vice and mock virtue.
Morality is an essential part of any work of literature, and Wilde, himself, asserts a moral position, whether or not he wants to admit it. When he shows Dorian wrestling with his own conscience and he reveals the consequences of Dorian's immoral choices, Wilde implies that humans hold responsibility for their freely chosen actions.
Regardless of whether The Picture of Dorian Gray is immoral, Wilde is wrong when he says there is no such a thing as an immoral book. If a modern writer intentionally pens a novel that incites violence and leads to the murder of millions of innocent people, it's possible to say that the novel's conclusions and its author are immoral, regardless of whether the work is well written. If society has no right to praise or blame a messenger for the intended consequence of a message, why is it illegal to incite a riot or to yell "fire" in a crowded room? Like any other message, a book can be immoral if the author had immoral intentions and the work inspires immoral behavior.
Finally, Wilde fails to make "perfect use of an imperfect medium" with his underdeveloped characters. His use of a magic painting to illustrate Dorian's descent into moral decadence is novel, but his decision to kill Dorian by having Dorian stab the painting belongs to the comic book genre. If we accept Wilde's own confused definition of morality, he may be called an immoral artist. Nevertheless, I recommend this book to those who haven't read it in high school.
Below is Wilde's full preface:
"The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things. The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty. There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass. The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless. OSCAR WILDE"
I agree with Wilde. The author may be immoral, he may have an immoral purpose, the readers' reactions may be immoral, but there cannot be anything immoral about ink on paper. It is simply a thing that has been created, like a building or a painting, and inanimate objects have no morality.
The act of communication of a harmful message is immoral.
"Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman?
Turner Diaries?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.