What do you think?
Rate this book
Studying Oscar Wilde: History, Criticism, and Myth
Studying Oscar History, Criticism, and Myth takes issue with many assumptions current in Wilde scholarship. It sets an engaging course in exploring Wilde s literary reputation. In particular, Professors Guy and Small are interested in the tension between Wilde s enduring popularity with the general reading public as a perennially witty entertainer and his status among academics as a complex, politicized writer attuned to the cultural and philosophical currents associated with modernity. Their argument focuses initially on the prominence of biographical readings of Wilde s literary works, drawing attention to the contradictions in the ways biographers have described his life and to the problems of seeing his writing as a form of self-disclosure. Subsequent chapters assess the usefulness of other forms of academic scholarship to understanding works that are not, on the surface, difficult. Here a number of commonly held views are challenged. To what extent is De Profundis autobiographical? How sophisticated is the learning exhibited in Intentions? In what ways are the society comedies about homosexuality? And how does The Picture of Dorian Gray relate to Wilde s mature style? The volume also examines some of Wilde s lesser-known, unfinished works and scenarios, including The Cardinal of Avignon, La Sainte Courtisane, and A Florentine Tragedy (all printed as appendices), arguing that these failed works provide important insight into the reasons for Wilde s popular success. Since Guy and Small have authored numerous articles and books on Wilde, Studying Oscar History, Criticism, and Myth will be a must read for scholars, but it is also written in a jargon-free language that will speak to that wider audience of readers who enjoy Oscar Wilde.
232 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 6, 2017
This is an absolutely brilliant book on Oscar Wilde. If I ever get a chance to teach an upper-level undergraduate course on Wilde, I’ll be using this text as a companion. What makes it so good is that—though it does answer biographical questions, clearing up myths and misconceptions that follow Wilde’s name—its focus is firmly on Wilde’s art.
One central question of the book is how much, if at all, we should use Wilde’s well-known life story in an interpretation of his work. Guy and Small group up his works by genre and attack the question piecemeal, because it is not a simple one to apply to a man who both attempted a life-as-art public persona, while also hiding behind a mask. Should we look to his male characters as paralleling Wilde’s own relationships? Who is the intended audience of Intentions? Should we read De Profundis as art or letter? And how transgressive was Dorian Gray, really? Guy and Small’s response is that much criticism has focus on the wrong targets. For example, many readers misinterpret the cucumber sandwich in Earnest as being a coded phallic reference, when it was much more likely about the class implicit in a careless attitude towards the high price of greenhouse-grown vegetables.
That’s a simple example making use of historical clues, but other readings aren’t quite as settled. The De Profundis question, for example, is a tough one as Wilde seems to vacillate within the lengthy letter/essay on whether he is speaking to Bosie or a wider audience. Ross’s editing complicates the issue further as there is no simple “authentic” text.
De Profundis has actually vexed me quite a bit, and I’ve mostly ignored it in my own study on Wilde—I’ve read it a few times but it makes me uncomfortable: Wilde seems reckless in it, self-pitying and inconsistent, rather than the controlled artist we hear in other works. In that way, it reminds me of Foucault’s criticism in “What is an Author?”—should we read an author’s laundry lists in the same way as their published novels? Guy and Small shed some light on De Profundis by explaining the structure of the letter and Wilde’s compositional process, which probably spanned a longer time period than most of what he wrote, made use of many personal allusions, repeated many incidents, and may have had an evolving purpose—starting out as a letter, becoming a type of therapy-writing, and then perhaps signing off on it being adapted into an essay at a later point. Guy and Small dwell on what can be reasonably gleaned from the textual facts rather than the interpretations of the letter, leaving it to the scholar to make final determinations.
Throughout the book, one of its most valuable contributions is its sharp focus on intertextuality. Guy and Small explain the relative familiarity of Wilde’s allusions to a Victorian audience, which is important not only for distinguishing allusion from plagiarism, but in interpreting Wilde’s ideal audience (which may have been multiple at many points), and the poetic effect of his references to both Victorians and us. I was drawn in by the book’s interpretation of Wilde’s references as gesturing at erudition and a decadent style of reference, in contrast to T.S. Eliot’s references which draw the deeper into the poem, or Pater’s which goes off on lengthy tangents and makes you forget what book you are reading (Oh, Marius!). While I don’t think this is the only thing Wilde is doing with his references, but I do think it’s a great starting place for interpretation.
To top off the whole thing, Guy and Small include some lesser-known (and largely unpublished) fragments of plays in which they claim perhaps more substantive biographical connections can be made. While I’m not sure I entirely agree, it’s an invaluable contribution to have these works in print. Overall, this book is a resource for both scholar and student—you will be smarter having read it.
One central question of the book is how much, if at all, we should use Wilde’s well-known life story in an interpretation of his work. Guy and Small group up his works by genre and attack the question piecemeal, because it is not a simple one to apply to a man who both attempted a life-as-art public persona, while also hiding behind a mask. Should we look to his male characters as paralleling Wilde’s own relationships? Who is the intended audience of Intentions? Should we read De Profundis as art or letter? And how transgressive was Dorian Gray, really? Guy and Small’s response is that much criticism has focus on the wrong targets. For example, many readers misinterpret the cucumber sandwich in Earnest as being a coded phallic reference, when it was much more likely about the class implicit in a careless attitude towards the high price of greenhouse-grown vegetables.
That’s a simple example making use of historical clues, but other readings aren’t quite as settled. The De Profundis question, for example, is a tough one as Wilde seems to vacillate within the lengthy letter/essay on whether he is speaking to Bosie or a wider audience. Ross’s editing complicates the issue further as there is no simple “authentic” text.
De Profundis has actually vexed me quite a bit, and I’ve mostly ignored it in my own study on Wilde—I’ve read it a few times but it makes me uncomfortable: Wilde seems reckless in it, self-pitying and inconsistent, rather than the controlled artist we hear in other works. In that way, it reminds me of Foucault’s criticism in “What is an Author?”—should we read an author’s laundry lists in the same way as their published novels? Guy and Small shed some light on De Profundis by explaining the structure of the letter and Wilde’s compositional process, which probably spanned a longer time period than most of what he wrote, made use of many personal allusions, repeated many incidents, and may have had an evolving purpose—starting out as a letter, becoming a type of therapy-writing, and then perhaps signing off on it being adapted into an essay at a later point. Guy and Small dwell on what can be reasonably gleaned from the textual facts rather than the interpretations of the letter, leaving it to the scholar to make final determinations.
Throughout the book, one of its most valuable contributions is its sharp focus on intertextuality. Guy and Small explain the relative familiarity of Wilde’s allusions to a Victorian audience, which is important not only for distinguishing allusion from plagiarism, but in interpreting Wilde’s ideal audience (which may have been multiple at many points), and the poetic effect of his references to both Victorians and us. I was drawn in by the book’s interpretation of Wilde’s references as gesturing at erudition and a decadent style of reference, in contrast to T.S. Eliot’s references which draw the deeper into the poem, or Pater’s which goes off on lengthy tangents and makes you forget what book you are reading (Oh, Marius!). While I don’t think this is the only thing Wilde is doing with his references, but I do think it’s a great starting place for interpretation.
To top off the whole thing, Guy and Small include some lesser-known (and largely unpublished) fragments of plays in which they claim perhaps more substantive biographical connections can be made. While I’m not sure I entirely agree, it’s an invaluable contribution to have these works in print. Overall, this book is a resource for both scholar and student—you will be smarter having read it.
Displaying 1 of 1 review